Yes that is true but we do not know specifically when the Red Year happened and the Argonians invaded. If they invaded while the Empire was together the Imperials would not forget that trangression. Even if they had bigger problems atm. And we do not exactly know how long after the OB Crisis the empire fell apart. Plus the new empire would want its old holdings back and would be very wary of Argonia's growing power. So maybe pissed was the wrong word. Wary, irritated and distrustful are probably more apt for the Imperials.

I'd have to disagree with you on a slave doing anything to be 'free' justifiable. Robert E. Lee inherited a plantation full of slaves and entered with intention of freeing them until he found the estate in so bad of a state that he was forced to use said slaves to keep from letting the estate fall into complete deseray and financially ruin him. So those slaves who were forced to continue to work would have the justifiable right to rise up and kill him if they so thought? despite his intentions and even anti-slavery attitude? I find that a bit much. I find Spartacus and his followers brutes and murderers, who deserved their fate above all else for the wholesale slaughter of innocent people. From what I understand the Argonians didn't slaughter to prevent from being enslaved, but in retaliation for past slavery, even after the institution had begun to be outlawed.

I'd find their actions absolutely unjustifiable. These weren't ex-slaves fighting for freedom, it was a bunch of tree-controlled brutes murdering and pillaging.

Have you read the book? Titus has no care in the world about Black Marsh, and flat out says it to Attrebus that he doesn't care what's happening. He's pretty much concerned with holding Cyrodiil together and repelling the Thalamor. Also, it was the Hist who allowed Tiber to have Black Marsh as part of his empire. I suspect they knew he wouldn't be a threat, along with the imperials.

Also, it seems quite implied it happened not too long after the OB crisis, Cyrodiil breaking up.

Yes i read the book. And I took Tidus Medes response to be non-representative of his worries about Blackmarsh. I thought he was trying to just shut his son down and get the idea of going to Black Marsh out of his head.

You can't just do this stuff. You can't just say, "Oh, they acted in a way that my contemporaries has determined to be immoral. Therefor, they are scum." Reality changes over time, and especially between nonfiction and fiction. In our current real-life situation, I think we can safely say that individual liberty is good, genocidal invasions of nonthreatening nations are bad, and the people should non-violently rise up against all who oppress them. In history, things get a bit muddier, though not so much for the genocide point. In bizarre fictional landscapes? A whole lot of normal morality needs to be reconsidered and / or thrown out.

If the 2012 United States Presidential race came down to the issue of "should all heretics who disobey our wooden overlords be executed" I'd totally be against that motion. But as an Argonian? Honestly, I'd totally be pro-Hist. Fact of the matter is they are superior beings to the Argonians (immortal, remember the dawn times, vastly intelligent, psychic, et cetera) and while I don't think I'd support forcing my fellows to obey the hist, I know I'd personally submit to the will of the Hist.

As for the Oblivion Crisis, what the hell do you think they should have done? Sent envoys to the imperial city, saying, "Hey, I know that you have your own system of telling the future through reading these 'elder scrolls' but our immortal overlords, who rely on secrecy for their own protection, and who you'd probably react negatively to the existence of, and who have served as our secret weapon against occupation by your forces, just wanted you to know that they have their own method of divining the future (which you've never heard of before) and want you to prepare for an oncoming calamity by pulling back your legions from the territories, so you can defend the heartland. We're totally telling you this just because we want you to be safe, and not because we want your empire to fall apart."

And by the way, the end of the mundus is totally a reasonable moral goal. I'm totally for it. I don't think the Hist are, but this is just another great example of how you can't just blindly apply real-world morality to TES. Ending our universe would just be evil. Ending the mundus could be freeing.

Now, the invasion of MW was still a total dike move, but so what? What nation isn't ruled by dikes?

In real life or in TES? Hmm it seems you're correct in either.

This has been discussed ad nauseum.

Dunmer bad for slave and tree chop. Lizard bad cuz dey kill Dunmer when dey was extremely vulnerable.

I wish I could Gandalf this thread in Kazad-Dum.

So slavery is okay (not good, just okay) when the "owner's" estate is in [censored] shape and he doesn't like slavery? He has to do it so he doesn't starve?

Nu-uh. It's still slavery. If someone oppresses you like that, you have every right to try to break free. If that includes killing them, so be it.

What are you supposed to do? Wait until it's outlawed?

Ugh, no, murder is murder and if someone is going to act like an animal they deserve to be treated as such. In that case, yes it was perfectly fine to use them to rebuild the estate because once it was done he was going to release them, sad part is most were too illiterate and bull headed to realize that their freedom would have meant complete ruin to their liberator. Its not a black and white situation. Now lets see what is oppressing about that particular situation? being forced to work for food and a shelter while the person is looking after your health and well being? your absolutely right of cource, it makes more sense to release them and face ruin just so you can starve to death but hey! at least you freed a slave! one that you were gonna free anyway!

The situations weren't often black and white.

Tidus, careful now, you're sounding very pro-slavery, even if it's in a pretend game.

What does the slave do? Work, work, work, and work, have children (who will work, and work, and work) for someone else, with no gain of you own? Fine, some slave owners planned to let their slaves go when they were done with them (forced labor is cool, so long as you let them go when your done). Yeah, whatever.

So what about the ones who had no plans to release their slaves? Does the slave just do as he is told until he is "freed", either by their owner or anti-slavery laws?

Perhaps I am coming off as pro-slavery, but I wouldn't say I support slavery by a long shot. Given the time, both in our world and the Elder Scrolls Games, slavery wasn't really all that unaccepted or uncommon. Even Tiber took and sold slaves of his defeated enemies. I find it outrageous however, that one could see it as justifiable for a slave to kill for some semblance of freedom, unknowing of the greater things around them. Whats that person going to do after they've murdered their master? your now a murderer and an animal who by all rights should be put death for taking another life. What kind of freedom is that?

Forced labor for food, a home, medicine ect. yeah, really its horrible given the alternative for the illiterate freedmen that were released into a world of plenty of people who didn't support slavery but had no problem taking advantage of them. Truth is, the world is just as cruel to a freedmen as it was to a slave. Take antebellum US. Most of the slaves continued to toil the same plot of land they once were slaves on, only now they got a meager wage that amounted to nothing and were forced to buy their own food and pay rent for shacks and places to live where they toiled. Basically it went from slavery to serfdom.

So what did they do now? work work work work and have kids who in turn would have to do the same thing for the rest of their lives just to make a meager existence. When slaves did revolt, they not only tended to kill the master but their families as well, which spurred even harsher conditions on slaves who hadn't revolted. Whats the cost of freedom? Murder?

edit: sorry, I didn't answer directly. If their gonna break free, run away, go somewhere else, but don't kill someone.

My point was that a slave revolt, to me, cannot be seen as morally wrong. They have a right to their freedom. Yes, they may end up in a situation that is more or less exactly the same. But they have a right to do so.

I agree, you have the right to be free, but not at the cost of lives you don't understand. I don't see it morally wrong to want to be free, but I do when it often involves murdering someone and their family, which it often did. Spartacus and his ilk deserved to be put down for the swath of death and destruction they brought across Italy, the same for any slave who took the lives of their 'masters' in the form of murder and not self defense. There were plenty of situation where a slave owner was abusive and indeed had it coming to them, but the same time there were those who simply owned and shared the same fate as the abusive ones.

edit: Likewise, my point was simply I don't see murder justifiable.

I think you may want to tone down the "animal" and "things you don't understand" comments... they kinda have some serious unfortunate implications.

Sorry, but I didn't say "Things you don't understand" but things "They don't understand" which isn't at all stepping over the line. Most slaves were not literate and didn't have a grasp on the things going on outside their plantations. That was simply a fact that comes with being in the situation that deprives you of a proper education. The animal remarks are geared towards people who are murderers, meaning anyone who murders, which are less than people to me. To take a life, be it anyone, is despicable less assaulted yourself. Less someone doesn't read my posts, I don't think there should be any misunderstandings.

edit: I find it kinda disturbing people are so upseat over the idea that slavery is more complicated than wrong and right while others are fine with the wholesale slaughter of a people under the guise of vengeance, even if as Hellmouth says, just a video game.

Let's take this away from the plantations.

Let's take this to a society that doesn't base it's slaves on race. As a whole a freedman can integrate into society. Yet they can't just run away, less they live in fear and hiding because someone is looking for them. And may very well kill them if they find them. What do they do? Live as a slave? Mining as a slave was different from being a house slave, where they were more or less servants who spent a large amount of time with their "masters". No, if you worked in a mine you were a tool that was to be used until it broke. What about a slave camp, where people would often die because the slavery were so cruel?

Do they have no right to escape if it means killing their captors? Is it not self defense?

Unfortunately, killing the master often resulted in every slave in the household being killed.

Edit: You started trying to justify real life examples. I think we should stop now, though.

My point was you were starting to sound like a southern slave owner in the 1800s, and it was becoming way too close to comfort to argue with you. I just didn't want to say that outright at the time.

Also, the dunmer have a big history of not being friendly with their scaly neighbors, even with slavery taken out of the equation.

I don't see how killing someone is going to be better than just running away. If a slave were to murder their master, they would be hunted even harder for being a murderer. In either situation, your going to live in fear that someone is looking for you, and you will never be able to live a free life.

When it comes down to real physical harm, as in you are worked to the point of exhaustion and your life is put in danger then absolutely I agree. Again, I never advocated slavery nor staying put, but voiced against the use of killing someone who's intentions you don't even know. In the case where you are gathered and used practically as animals till your used up then absolutely, you have the right to fight for your life. At the same time though, they've killed someone, how are they to live a free life without having to look over your shoulder all your life thinking that someone is going to come for you, either for vengeance or justice.

@ Hellmouth: Say what you want, I assure you I don't support slavery but am against the use of murder as a tool. Argue with me all you want, as I love a good debate especially on something worth talking about, sadly there are people you cant have a debate about a subject without feeling threatened or offended? Seems like that seems to be the issue now a days, these subjects are gonna be sensitive for some people.

@SilentColossus: I don't think I tried to justify slavery by using real world examples, but was trying to use them to make my point on how I don't see murdering as a way out. If I offended anyone I apologize, I tend to delve deeper than surface. .

Ok, hating murderers is OK with me, and pointing out that slaves rarely have access to a good education or reliable sources of news is also perfectly fine, but when your location says "Kentucky", you use the example of a famous figure from the pro-slavery side of the civil war (regardless of his personal views on slavery), and you call some slaves "animals" who "deserve to be put down", you're risking coming across very badly. Now, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not a racist, but I think you should probably take greater care with the language you use. While a careful reading of your posts reveals that you're not actually saying anything racist, realize that this is a hot-button issue that short circuits a lot of people's brains. You're giving people a lot of opportunities to get the wrong impression, and if someone gets that wrong impression, well, I doubt their first response will be to carefully examine your posts and make sure they didn't get the wrong impression.

EDIT: And I agree that slavery is a more complicated issue than most people think. I even made a lengthy post about it in another thread a while back. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you're coming across wrong.

Care to explain why they're scum?



You also have to take into account that slavery had been a tradition in their culture for many many generations. Taking away their slaves is kind of like saying this to a modern day person "Sorry you cant drive your car anymore because we don't believe in the use of them."

I hate how the Dunmer get all the flak about slavery when the Altmer and other races do it as well. The Altmer have entire armies of slaves yet no one says a word about them.

In my own opinion any traditional Argonian is scum. All they are are cutthroat, drug addicted savages. Now Argonians that have moved away from the traditional tree worshiping, drug taking maniacs are all right.

I very well have misused my language, but my feeling on someone who murders doesn't change. The implications of a slave are just part of the equation, for the record to everyone who either doesn't understand what I meant, I was not referring to any slave as an animal, but a PERSON be he free or slave who murders, as an animal.

edit: As always Hellmouth, your right, the Dunmer are indeed pricks and are not the most likable fellas, but the Argonians in this case seem a bit barbaric and simple minded.

edit: @ Lord Tidus: I wasn't expecting your opinions on murderers to change. Just hoping from now on you'll be a bit more careful with how & when you express those opinions.


If my car turned out to be a sentient being, and I couldn't convince it to enter into a free contract with me, I'd let it go. Tradition doesn't excuse slavery.


That's mostly because people prefer giving them flak for killing nine out of ten newborns.


Since when are they drug-addicted or savage? Pretty sure the answer is "since never"

I agree, the Dunmer can be pompous asses most of the time, but the Argonians turned it into an attempt at genocide WHILE the Dunmer were recovering from a national tragedy. Imagine it this way, what happens if tomorrow we have a nuclear disaster that wipes out half our nation and then a day later another country invades and starts killing everyone. Not very civil is it? Kind of barbaric to kick someone while their down and keep kicking them. The crimes committed by the Argonians are far worse than the ones committed by the Dunmer.




They use drugs to get in contact with the hist and also use another drug to "dream" and receive visions. They're savages because they have no honor. Not all Argonians are. But the majority of the tribal ones who live in Argonia are drug-addicted savages.

I'm sorry, but I don't see slavery as being more complicated than right and wrong. Slavery is not just "forced labor" or racism, slavery is legally giving human beings the status of property. In a slave system, murder, sixual abuse, torture, and more is perfectly legal against anyone who has the status of "slave." There's not much debate there. However, what I think you mean is that once a society has become dependent on slavery, the process of freeing those slaves is not simple or clear cut. I think there's common ground to be had there. Your Robert E. Lee example is fairly illustrative here: a slave system forces a generally honorable person to do something barbaric in order to keep themselves from ruin. It's a self-perpetuating system of dehumanization that corrupts the masters as well as the slaves. Two wrongs don't make a right when it comes to murder, I agree, but in the case of Spartacus, I mean, when you're forced to perpetually murder your friends in an arena for the amusemant of rich people who see you as a thing, what are your options? Spartacus wasn't just indiscriminately murdering in a vain effort to get himself free, he was trying to overthrow the society that condoned that treatment. It's not like he was ever going to get a fair hearing in court. It sounds like you're giving a free pass to murders committed by the oppressors but not the oppressees. Unfortunately, murder tends to lead to murder.

As far as the Argonians are concerned, since this was once a thread about Argonians, it really does depend on the political situation they were faced with at the time. I see Helseth's anti-slavery policies not as genuine concern for the Argonians, but as a way to get his regime support from the anti-slavery Empire. If the Argonians had credible evidence that their slavery would continue, then, yes, I think they should have acted. If it was outlawed and looked like it would stay outlawed, then they were butchers.

If anyone is a bad guy in this situation, and deserves the Argonians' wrath, in fact, it's probably the Empire. They claimed to be anti-slavery but refused to lift a finger to help the Argonians and Khajiit in Morrowind, despite having the resources to do so. Apparently having Morrowind part of the Empire to round out the continent was more important than the rights of slaves. They're just as culpable as the Dunmer.