It's unfortunately the same sort of choice one always gets from TES. For those who RP.... well, it svcks. And for those who DON'T RP, it actually causes about the same amount of angst. I don't expect Beth to ever change this particular discontinuity. All I can really say is, for those on PC, the modders will fix it. But that REALLY svcks for those on console.... I have a very good friend who just gave up his beloved console setup to go PC - just for this reason.

One of many things they didnt learn when they were being shown how it was done in Fallout: New Vegas. They should have been playing that game with a pen and pad of paper ready to take notes on REAL Roleplaying and writing.

I read a good suggestion elsewhere that maybe they could have included some kind of visual flashback of Paarth, through an Elder Scroll or something. Showing is always better than telling. Hell, showing is definitely better than just being commanded, with little context.

You have to use your imagination, and not just dwell on the present facts. If I just dwelled on present facts (and I will on some characters), he's not exactly my "my bestest cutest friend in Skyrim!!1" but he is cool. Like Optimus Prime.

And just like in RDR, the people asking you to kill a repentant criminal are utter D-bags. If we're following the semi-parallel, then Paarthurnax has a kid somewhere who will come and absolutely wreck the Blades.

D-Bags? Really? lol

Try not to be dramatic. It's just a video game.

...

No seriously, it is.

I don't play the Fallouts. I grew up in the era that actually believed (and taught us in grade school how to "mitigate" the situation as much as possible) that there would be an atomic event that would turn the US into what's depicted in the Fallouts. I'm aware there are people who believe these games are the best RP SPMR games out there - but I just can't (even 55 years or so on) deal with it.

In fact, much as I LOVE Indiana Jones.... the last movie in that series (well, last "so far") gave me serious heebie-jeebies. Because of the NTS above-ground testing portrayal, with the "pretend" town....

My dad worked at the NTS during that era. It was all too real to me....

Edgar Ross, in RDR, was a [censored] to John Marston from the moment you met him. Plus I don't understand why you think calling a character a bad name is going to far. To use an example in a movie, there was a character who would allow his older children(teens) to pick on the younger one(six) just because the teens were starting a little business and the younger one was just being kid. I think calling the kid's father a "[censored]" would be appropriate.

On topic: Personally I always chose Paarthurnax over the Blades because without him Nirn would've been been eaten by Alduin and I liked him more then Esbern or Delphine.

Wait.. Damnit. My bad. I thought he was referring to players when he said "people asking you kill". He meant some characters in RDR (or Skyrim) are D-Bags. I can understand that.

Yeah, I was referring mostly to Delphine being a D-Bags/*word that would be censored*

Yeah, sorry about that.


Back to original topic, I'm thinking that Esbern and Delphine are supposed to make you react in different ways. I don't think they should be bundled. He's more like an Obi-Wan, while I think the writers were shooting for something sort of... inspired by the Joan Allen's other character in the Bourne movies. I think even if you side against them, you can't completely dismiss the Blades. It might be a shaky alliance, one where you even screw them over a bit (or they screw you), much like Jason Bourne and she interacted. I don't know. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but she's good at provoking these kind of reactions. Esbern however is completely different.

Their whole purpose was telling the Dragonborn about Dragonrend, because the Greybeards chose to keep it a secret. Alternatively, Alduin could have attacked High Hrotgar and gravely wounded Paarthurnax. His last wish being that the Greybeards would tell the DB all they know about Dragonrend and the Elder Scroll.

That they show up at the armistice talks without anyone invinting (or even just telling) them was already badly constructed, their only purpose there was getting it trough Ulfric's head that the dragons are a common enemy and of course revealing Odahviing's name, something that could have been done by Jarl Balgruuf's mage just as well.

Maybe it was just me, because I didn't bother to walk all the way back to Skyhaven Temple to talk to Esbern in the first place, when Paarthurnax was next to me, and Arngeir just one etheral jump below. I was totally WTF when the Blades arrived at the negotiations, just as if they had traveled with me all along.

All fair points, but what I mean is you can't dismiss them for the future. If Bethesda really cares about telling a story, that is, they need to follow up on Paarth and the Blades. And hopefully not pull some Bioware crap and sidetrack us with a random theme park DLC. So that said, I think they're more than just two old people who are on their way out. That's just crap storytelling, if anything. Every story needs a resolution, good or bad.

Which bioware?

Dragon Age or Mass Effect Bioware?

Becuase Mass Effect's 2 DLC fit into the story

Dragon Age. As much as I like those games, I feel teased when it comes to them resolving storylines. I wonder if they create cliffhangers and mystery on purpose, as an allure for customers to have hope of resolving it. lol. Good way to make money, I guess.

DA1 DLC barely addresses anything. Witch Hunt creates more questions than answers. The others aren't really tied to much of anything. DA2, the same way. They're more like "flashbacks" and side episodes of the main story. Rather than events that happen afterwards.

I find the resolution without killing Paarthu quite intriguing: Dragons are back in Tamriel - good for any fantasy setting - there are decent ones following the way of the voice, and there are nasty ones searching for a return to the ways of old when dragons ruled over humans. The Blades as a group of zealous Dragonslayers akin to the Vigilants of Stendarr sure have a place in that world, but they have outlived their purpose as "protector" of the Dragonborn. The Dovahkiin doesn't need their protection, and it is no longer necessary that the emperor of Tamriel is a Dragonborn. And without a grand purpose, the Blades will be forgotten by history.

I go with the Blades, In the End they are the only faction (in Skyrim at least) who actively work against the Thalmor. And a strengthend Blade Faction might actually be a great help for The Empire to get rid of the Dominion.

I still feel sorry for killing Paar., but some sins you just can't make up to, no matter how much time passes. At least with his help to defeat Alduin once and for all, he may get his redemption, in death...

Well, like you said, it's intriguing. But it isn't resolved. There's a helluva lot more story potential there. Are you saying you don't want to hear about/play through it? That your mind is already made up about everything and to just move on?

As for the Blades, well.. it goes back to my Bourne comparison. They still may have a purpose with the dragonborn. Or might reach out. Or they might even be capable of things that softens the relationship with the player. It doesn't mean that you'd need to be on their side, but I could see a sort of shaky alliance happening with them possibly. The same way her character was with Bourne. She works for a side that he doesn't trust, but he doesn't outright kill them either.

I think you're' jumping the gun though as far as "forgotten in history" goes. Bethesda hasn't even touched on Akavir settings yet, and you already want to wipe out the Blades. Who knows, maybe they will be forgotten in time.. but that would crap if it's handled in this way. If this was a novel, and you got rid of a longrunning faction in your series with a little footnote, I'd think it was laziest writing ever. There are way more interesting ways of extinguishing the Blades.

We're talking about judgement after 200 generations here, while he made amends to those that were originally wronged, and they obviously didn't sentence him to death. The main problem with that whole thing is that nobody ever tells us *what* he did that was so wicked that he had to die, and why he still lives.
The Blades show up uninvited, and tell us on the side that the most helpful character so far has to die, and that they won't dishonor their oath to serve the dragonborn by serving a dragonborn who doesn't kill Paar. To me the only response to such an ultimatum is turning around and walking away.

I killed him, can have him destroying the world when i'm dead new can I?

Well, I certainly don't want that resolution to be a 20 hours DLC, I want it to become part of ES lore. Bethesda's strenght is writing lore and stories, not *telling* them, otherwise we wouldn't have that discussion. A world where "good" and "bad" dragons continuously meddle in human affairs is much more interesting than a world that overcame a short return of the dragons.

Well, the Blades are currently two old people, that lost their purpose and are obsessed about a new ("old") one. The Akavirii invaders weren't "Blades", that name was given to their remnants that acted as protectors of the early emperors. And you wouldn't like the Akavirii anyway, the Tsaesci genocided humans in Akavir, and then chased the Akaviri dragons all the way to Tamriel, where they found happy hunting grounds full of humans and dragons to genocide. Of course by then the Nords were an emancipated people that just overthrew their dragon overlords, and ran the snakes into the ground.

Eorlund Greymane: "Just because something is, doesn't mean it must be."

Bethesda is always evolving their style or how they present things. Leaving everything up to a little book you find in TES 6 is not necessarily what they may decide on.

Aha. Very interesting.

This is just another example of plots disintegrating as the story progress. Think about it. There was a war between men and dragons. Paarthurnax was involved in this war on the "wrong" side according to some but hello? He's a dragon. Of course he's gonna side with dragons. It's a dragon's nature to dominate. But he felt compassion for humans so he changed his very nature and helped end the war by siding with the mortals. So yes, he killed thousands. By Delphine's logic this means that Ulfric, Tullius and all their officers should be killed because their actions are causing thousands to die. It's a war. People die in wars.

And if you refuse to do this senseless act you are suddenly shunned when just a few days ago she was all bleary eyed about how the Blades are sworn to protect and serve the Dragonborn. If your loyalty is so cheap then how could you ever expect me to want to be part of your group? On the contrary, this must be why they can't die because so help me, I would rip her head off and spit down her throat if I could.

This reminds me of a movie called DragonHeart and I might RP it like that someday. Paathurnax telling me I must push my sword into his big heart to avert a greater evil. I can imagine my character standing over the corpse of a great friend with tears running down his cheeks and blood dripping off his sword.

as far as the main topic....its all in how u RP..u do it that way then no one can say if u were right or wrong. BUT for people who are wanting to knwo which is right or wrong? welll TBH i only played starting with Morrowind...i really dotn think that we shoulda had such a consequence for the objective. It shoulda have been a consequence of prideful rantings on what a great dragonborn u are OR grumbling of not understanding why u and all the other dragonborns they served under dotn understand the danger he represents....thats it. You shoudla still been able to keep the Blades as a grp and expanded it weither u killed Paar or Not. IF u decided to kill Paar throw in the "perks" and maybe a special spell/enhanced armor/weapon/etc but if u decided to keep him alive then u of course get the "reg" blades armor and the ability to recruit followers into blade members AND been able to get dragon locations...


it just seems that Bethesda dropped the ball on that situation, it coulda been handle and crafted sooooooo much better

It should also not have been depicted as an apparently black & white situation based on the moral absolutes of a D & D alignment system which I wish would just die. Morrowind wasn't like that - you could actually sympathise with Dagoth Ur - he wasn't a cartoon bad guy. Paarthanaax is an example of the cartoon "good" guy, that is, if you choose to believe the propaganda. You never really get to learn what happened in the past, though there is a hint that Paarthanaax's decision to turn against Alduin wasn't for the benefit of mankind, and in that regard, should be regarded only as ally of convenience. Bethesda REALLY dropped the ball on that one.