UKJohn Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Don't get me wrong, I love Skyrim, but one major flaw in the Lore of Skyrim irritates me. Haven't seen a mod, and don't know if it could be done anyway: Anyway- here is the flaw. The Lore says that if anyone other than the Dragonborn kills a Dragon, it doesn't die, as it's soul isn't taken. It then appears back at it's "nest". The problem with this, is with the first Dragon at Whiterun, and other Dragons, when you have followers or there are NPC soldiers about, it is not always you that commits the killing blow. By rights, this should mean you don't get the soul, and yet you do. Technically then. you can just sit back and let your follower or NPC's do all the work and still get the benefit! It's also somewhat galling when everyone says you killed the first Dragon if you knew the killing blow was from a Whiterun town guard! The game could have been programmed so that NPC's could weaken the beast, but you would have to kill it, or it would never die. Anything would have been better than this flaw in the central tenant of the Skyrim Lore, that only you, the Dragonborn, can truly kill a Dragon by taking it's soul. Well, the truth is, any NPC can kill a Dragon,. and as long as you're in the general vicinity, you will get the Dragon's Soul, even though you may have not fought it at all, let alone "killed" it! When coming up with the Lore, Bethesda should have put some gameplay element in to maintain this central tenant of the Lore, the fact that didn't worries me. Edited September 8, 2012 by UKJohn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnkhAscendant Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I think that it actually means that whenever anyone else kills a dragon in body, it revives or reincarnates or something, thus never truly 'dying', but when the Dragonborn eats its soul it is now truly dead. It's not the killing in body that kills it, it's the souldrinking,and you on't have to take its soul to kill its body, just to make sure it doesn't come back... so technically, you are the one ultimately killing them, no matter who knocks it down, because you are the one taking its soul. Although I do agree that it's weird how everyone knows that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsmanners Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 This is what you call a flaw? I would have thought the random BS that Michael Kirkbride likes to post would rate a more likely mention in the flawed lore category. Anyway, this is like complaining that a soul gem didn't actually kill a skeever. You did. Well, duh. That's all the Dragonborn is, really. A giant dragon-sized soul gem. So, of course, it doesn't matter whether you deliver the killing blow. The point is that you witness it. Or something. Then again, what the heck is a soul? Their descriptions don't really sound convincing to me. The mystical babblings of the sages is the real flaw in the lore. It all seems to me like the intermingled ramblings of Heimskr and Septimus Signus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycloney911 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Major flaw? Major flaw is, "You use to have a skeever as pet?" "There were much smaller back then" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cthuloot Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 As said before, I think of this more as dragons being able to reincarnate unless their soul while dying is absorbed. So long as you're hanging around, you're their to ghostbuster the soul out of there and thus end the dragon's eternal existence. I don't see this so much as a flaw in the lore, but rather something that wasn't really well explained or looked at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts