Alignment choices and why

[luzburg]

Well, Borkul the Orc canonically aligns himself with the Forsworn.

 

 

Hes a crazy murderous Orc, what's surprising about him fitting in with the Forsworn?

[UrgeNexus]

Well, Borkul the Orc canonically aligns himself with the Forsworn.

 

 

Hes a crazy murderous Orc, what's surprising about him fitting in with the Forsworn?

Exactly, as long as you want to kill Nords the Forsworn won't turn down the extra manpower, why would they?

[RighthandofSithis]

Well, Borkul the Orc canonically aligns himself with the Forsworn.

 

 

Hes a crazy murderous Orc, what's surprising about him fitting in with the Forsworn?

Exactly, as long as you want to kill Nords the Forsworn won't turn down the extra manpower, why would they?

 

They could view the whole affair as a matter of solidarity within the Reachmen. But it would seem that is not the case (or perhaps Borkul is sympathetic to their cause, but its probably because he simply enjoy's killing).

[Kayyyleb]

Just the other day I walked past what looked like a helpless farmer with his head on a grindstone, I shouldn't have to tell you that murdering some innocent traveller by hoding his face to a grindstone is absolutely monstrous.

I thought I was the only person who noticed that. It made me cringe when I thought of how painful a death that would be. Slaughtering that camp of Forsworn felt like justice.

[UrgeNexus]

Just the other day I walked past what looked like a helpless farmer with his head on a grindstone, I shouldn't have to tell you that murdering some innocent traveller by hoding his face to a grindstone is absolutely monstrous.

I thought I was the only person who noticed that. It made me cringe when I thought of how painful a death that would be. Slaughtering that camp of Forsworn felt like justice.

It did, every Forsworn I kill feels like doing Skyrim a favour. Bandits at least have motivations beyond just killing for the sake of it, I can understand someone stealing just to eat though I won't think twice about killing bandits either, mainly because when faced with the options of ignoring me or attackng me, they always choose the stupid one.

 

People can make the argument that The Forsworn shouldn't be judged solely by how the appear in the game, to that I argue the Forsworn were portrayed that way for a reason. They are portrayed as murdering savages because that's what they are, they may have been proud freedom fighters at some point, but they're way past that point now. Dealing with Hagravens, turning themselves into mindless killing machines (See Red Eagle and other Briarhearts) and attacking anyone they encounter on sight, regardless of who they are or if they can defend themselves.

 

To me, the Forsworn are murdering scum who are well past the point of no return. I tend to lean towards chaotic good characters and rarely play evil ones, but no matter what kind of character I play I have never been able to come up with any good reason to sympathise with the Forsworn. Yes, they got screwed, there's a lot of terrible stories of how the natives of the Reach have suffered. What have the Forsworn done about that? They've made sure just as many innocent people have terrible stories of their own.

[Kayyyleb]

Just the other day I walked past what looked like a helpless farmer with his head on a grindstone, I shouldn't have to tell you that murdering some innocent traveller by hoding his face to a grindstone is absolutely monstrous.

I thought I was the only person who noticed that. It made me cringe when I thought of how painful a death that would be. Slaughtering that camp of Forsworn felt like justice.

It did, every Forsworn I kill feels like doing Skyrim a favour. Bandits at least have motivations beyond just killing for the sake of it, I can understand someone stealing just to eat though I won't think twice about killing bandits either, mainly because when faced with the options of ignoring me or attackng me, they always choose the stupid one.

 

People can make the argument that The Forsworn shouldn't be judged solely by how the appear in the game, to that I argue the Forsworn were portrayed that way for a reason. They are portrayed as murdering savages because that's what they are, they may have been proud freedom fighters at some point, but they're way past that point now. Dealing with Hagravens, turning themselves into mindless killing machines (See Red Eagle and other Briarhearts) and attacking anyone they encounter on sight, regardless of who they are or if they can defend themselves.

 

To me, the Forsworn are murdering scum who are well past the point of no return. I tend to lean towards chaotic good characters and rarely play evil ones, but no matter what kind of character I play I have never been able to come up with any good reason to sympathise with the Forsworn. Yes, they got screwed, there's a lot of terrible stories of how the natives of the Reach have suffered. What have the Forsworn done about that? They've made sure just as many innocent people have terrible stories of their own.

Exactly. Ultimately it doesn't matter anymore if they were the rightful owners of the land and victims of the Nords. The savages they've devolved themselves into aren't entitled to anything. Moral ambiguity is a common theme in TES games but in this case the Forsworn are in the wrong no matter how you look at it.

[UrgeNexus]

Just the other day I walked past what looked like a helpless farmer with his head on a grindstone, I shouldn't have to tell you that murdering some innocent traveller by hoding his face to a grindstone is absolutely monstrous.

I thought I was the only person who noticed that. It made me cringe when I thought of how painful a death that would be. Slaughtering that camp of Forsworn felt like justice.

It did, every Forsworn I kill feels like doing Skyrim a favour. Bandits at least have motivations beyond just killing for the sake of it, I can understand someone stealing just to eat though I won't think twice about killing bandits either, mainly because when faced with the options of ignoring me or attackng me, they always choose the stupid one.

 

People can make the argument that The Forsworn shouldn't be judged solely by how the appear in the game, to that I argue the Forsworn were portrayed that way for a reason. They are portrayed as murdering savages because that's what they are, they may have been proud freedom fighters at some point, but they're way past that point now. Dealing with Hagravens, turning themselves into mindless killing machines (See Red Eagle and other Briarhearts) and attacking anyone they encounter on sight, regardless of who they are or if they can defend themselves.

 

To me, the Forsworn are murdering scum who are well past the point of no return. I tend to lean towards chaotic good characters and rarely play evil ones, but no matter what kind of character I play I have never been able to come up with any good reason to sympathise with the Forsworn. Yes, they got screwed, there's a lot of terrible stories of how the natives of the Reach have suffered. What have the Forsworn done about that? They've made sure just as many innocent people have terrible stories of their own.

Exactly. Ultimately it doesn't matter anymore if they were the rightful owners of the land and victims of the Nords. The savages they've devolved themselves into aren't entitled to anything. Moral ambiguity is a common theme in TES games but in this case the Forsworn are in the wrong no matter how you look at it.

Pretty much, they've crossed the moral event horizon a long time ago, there's no coming back from that. My current character (The son of a fugitive Blade, born and raised running for his life) is a hardened killer and more than a little paranoid, but he never kills for the sake of killing. He kills to keep himself alive, or to protect others. He's still a killer but his reasons for doing so are arguably justified, in a kill or be killed situation there really is only one reasonable choice to make.

 

When fighting mercenaries or adventurers the Forsworn are merely defending themselves and I can't condemn those killings without also condeming my own character, killing defenseless people is different matter entirely. But I'm repeating myself, I've pretty much hammered my stance on the Forsworn into the ground. I'll be watching this discussion though, there's a lot of organisations I'd love to discuss, but I am way too sleep deprived to start writing extensively on one of the other factions to get the ball rolling again.

[RighthandofSithis]

When fighting mercenaries or adventurers the Forsworn are merely defending themselves and I can't condemn those killings without also condeming my own character, killing defenseless people is different matter entirely. But I'm repeating myself, I've pretty much hammered my stance on the Forsworn into the ground. I'll be watching this discussion though, there's a lot of organisations I'd love to discuss, but I am way too sleep deprived to start writing extensively on one of the other factions to get the ball rolling again.

 

War is war.

 

The Reachmen have been driven into the ground by thousands of years of oppression, and so they have been forced to turn to an organised guerrilla war in order to liberate themselves. As such, they need to make it as difficult for the Nords and Imperials to operate in the Reach as possible. Sadly, acts of liberation (through guerrilla warfare at least), often involve civilian casualties. Ireland freed itself through such tactics, Palestine is trying to free itself through such tactics, Vietnam through of French occupation with these tactics, and the list goes on.

 

As Ulfric Stormcloak (public enemy number 1 of the forsworn) states: "There is no wheat without thrashing the Chaff".

 

Although I'll admit, some of their religious practices are simply revolting, and cannot be justified by any progressive means.

Edited January 30, 2013 by RighthandofSithis

[AnimeOtaku102]

War is war.

 

The Reachmen have been driven into the ground by thousands of years of oppression, and so they have been forced to turn to an organised guerrilla war in order to liberate themselves. As such, they need to make it as difficult for the Nords and Imperials to operate in the Reach as possible. Sadly, acts of liberation (through guerrilla warfare at least), often involve civilian casualties. Ireland freed itself through such tactics, Palestine is trying to free itself through such tactics, Vietnam through of French occupation with these tactics, and the list goes on.

 

As Ulfric Stormcloak (public enemy number 1 of the forsworn) states: "There is no wheat without thrashing the Chaff".

 

Although I'll admit, some of their religious practices are simply revolting, and cannot be justified by any progressive means.

I would disagree with that, guerrilla warfare and sabotage are legitimate tactics when one side has to fight against a superior force, which is certainly the situation the Forsworn are in, but that's where the similarities end. The Forsworn aren't accidentally causing collateral civilian deaths in the course of targeting militarily or politically significant targets, they're just targeting anyone who doesn't wear furs and feathers: miners, farmers, wandering merchants, skinny dippers, and non-Forsworn Reachmen to name some examples we get to stumble across. Their strategy isn't to chip away at the enemy forces until they win, it's simply to strike terror into everyone in the region until they a) flee or b) die in the impending genocide campaign. That goes way past guerrilla warfare and goes neck-deep into the realm of terrorism.

[UrgeNexus]

War is war.

 

The Reachmen have been driven into the ground by thousands of years of oppression, and so they have been forced to turn to an organised guerrilla war in order to liberate themselves. As such, they need to make it as difficult for the Nords and Imperials to operate in the Reach as possible. Sadly, acts of liberation (through guerrilla warfare at least), often involve civilian casualties. Ireland freed itself through such tactics, Palestine is trying to free itself through such tactics, Vietnam through of French occupation with these tactics, and the list goes on.

 

As Ulfric Stormcloak (public enemy number 1 of the forsworn) states: "There is no wheat without thrashing the Chaff".

 

Although I'll admit, some of their religious practices are simply revolting, and cannot be justified by any progressive means.

I would disagree with that, guerrilla warfare and sabotage are legitimate tactics when one side has to fight against a superior force, which is certainly the situation the Forsworn are in, but that's where the similarities end. The Forsworn aren't accidentally causing collateral civilian deaths in the course of targeting militarily or politically significant targets, they're just targeting anyone who doesn't wear furs and feathers: miners, farmers, wandering merchants, skinny dippers, and non-Forsworn Reachmen to name some examples we get to stumble across. Their strategy isn't to chip away at the enemy forces until they win, it's simply to strike terror into everyone in the region until they a) flee or b) die in the impending genocide campaign. That goes way past guerrilla warfare and goes neck-deep into the realm of terrorism.

Agreed, the Forsworn have taken a legitimate tactic too far, I understand that civilian casaulties are often unavoidable in war, but this isn't accidental. If the Forsworn see a group of farmers walking on the road, do they let them be? They're not a threat, they could leave them be if they wanted to. But they don't want to, they attack these people and if their victims are lucky they are killed quickly. Forsworn victims are rarely that lucky.

 

There is a silver lining though, as bad as the Forsworn are my Dovahkiin is a hell of a lot worse when you piss him off, and the Forsworn have done exactly that.

Edited January 30, 2013 by UrgeNexus