Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Dawnguard' started by Raijin, Aug 6, 2014.
Exactly! Your comparison is a perfect example and is basically what I was trying to get at
Here is the thing. I think both sides are evil, but that the Dawnguard are the lesser of them, because their evil is more for the protection of others, while the vampire's evil is more because they want to.
The old lady does have a reason to attack you when you explore her cabin. There's a trap door next to her bed you should explore. I won't spoil it
But I agree. Just because you are a vampire doesn't mean you are inherently bad. I don't think of Serana or her mother as evil. But I've only had one person become a vampire lord. The second character I had had a deep hatred of vampires so he would never even think about becoming one, assassin or not, (even choosing to have half his soul placed in a soul gem instead of becoming one), my current character is considered a lawfully good character (I almost always play neutral) and she doesn't have the greatest impression of vampires, since her only encounters with them have been them attacking towns. Although she's more interested in meeting a living ancient Falmer as she thought she was the last one alive. So for me it just depends on how my character develops whether or not they will join the vampire's side or the Dawnguard's.
@ Above: For me, it is simply hard for me to make a good character, and side with the Volkihar. Same thing with a member of the Dark Brotherhood, it is hard to do something inherently the opposite of the character. A moral ranger/assassin may not join the Dark brotherhood because they use their talents for purely selfish/evil reasons. A paladin/good mage may not side with the vampires on principle.
You don't think they're trying to protect themselves? Not disagreeing, just asking. I seem to remember that many of the quests were to improve the coven, solidify support, eliminate threats, etc... Admittedly the Dawnguard is trying to protect somebody, but who? They don't seem to help any of the cities with the "vampire threat" or protect people wandering the roads. If they want to be truly helpful, they really should beef up their ranks and hunt the feral vampires with the Vigilan. At least the Vigilan make an effort. The Volkahir are not really the problem.
Agree. Of course it is next to impossible to play a purely good character period in Skyrim. Everything is so morally grey.
I am thinking of making an orc 2h paladin/crusader-type character. Dawnguard sounds better than the Vamps. Nord non-magic Ranger/dual-wield scout will also be Dawnguard. Altmer Necromancer will probably be a Vampire for reasons only she will know.
I will not join this debate, but here are my views on vampires:
-Vampires were created by Molag Bal, the Daedric lord of Corruption.
-Their food source is blood; human or other, they are sorta like Parasites.
-They are undead (which is particularily shunned as a form of magic), & their personal form of magic focuses on poisoning, manipulating & leeching the life-force of others.
-The process of becoming one is painful, & usually forced.
-They are unlike regular lifeforms in that they are not dependant on the sun, rather the darkness, despite their origins.
-Rather than negotiating with the daywalking species of Skyrim, major vampires such as Movarth & Harkon (I know, not the same level) would rather dominate their mortal peers, & have been shown to attack in public places, sometimes killing for their masters.
These facts do not mean that people who are vampires are necessarily bad, but their design as a species most certainly is. Perhaps their natural behaviour & negative representation by the public is what turns these creatures of the night on darker paths in the first place.
I'm going to say this:
You're formerly human, overcoming a human's potentially evil nature is to reject excessive appeals of greed, power, selfishness and such. You've decided to become a Vampire Lord. You've CHOSEN to embrace your desire for power, even if it meant bathing in the blood of human beings. To overcome that evil you chose to be there's a simple solution. A cure. As long as you have that Vampire Lord transformation available, you'll be reminded that you've made an bad choice. And well, if you're quite into a good karma, you'd be ready to get that cure, right?
Paarthurnax is a Dragon, a product of Akatosh. And originally incarnates the very name he bears, Ambition, Overlord, Cruelty with no other way around. The total absence of a choice in his creation makes his philosophy valid. (At least until betrayal, if it ever happens.)
Do not misuse what the Old One said.
Why is becoming a vampire a "bad choice"? I've plenty of characters that are not inherently evil just because they're a vampire. They don't feed on the unwilling and do not attack civilians or innocents. Does the very choice of being a predator make you evil? If so, then being a werewolf is also evil. If so, then simply being a jerk and killing people makes you evil. We can define being evil almost any way we want to.
I like Paarthy. Sure he did not deny his nature at the beginning, but he's had thousands of years to change his philosophy. I simply cannot agree with the Blades when they say he is evil and should be destroyed because of actions that were taken so long ago despite the mitigation of so many years since then. Besides, life is for the strongest and the fittest.
Personally I do not believe that the weak should be protected just because they are weak. Even today we live in a society where domination is the norm through one way or another (money, power, military force, religious zealotry, etc...).
I don't buy in to the religious ideal that we are all evil by nature and that there is no atonement or mitigation. Life is not to suffer until you get something afterward. Life is to live however you see fit.
You make your own morality. A morality foisted on you is not a morality. It is blind obedience to someone or something else s opinion or belief. We are all responsible for our own definitions of good and evil and must be willing to pay the consequences of those beliefs and definitions.
I should have included the PS about normal vampires, I also don't discuss morality in general. The only point I've made in here is that it is stupid to refer to Paarthurnax's philosophy when justifying embracing Harkon's gift. It's not the same case at all. I don't talk about what you'll do after that, or the other ways to get into vampirism, just this -very choice- you make before Harkon.
If you're aware of the Old One's saying when making that choice you'd just refuse the gift (overcoming lust for power), not defeat it completly by becoming a monstrousity. And if one doesn't consider this evil at all as you seem to say, then why would one refer to Paarthurnax at all?
I don't disagree with you. Paarthy really has nothing to do with the Vampire situation.
I don't really consider either Vampires or Werewolves to be monstrosities myself. Just another variety of something. Predatory, yes. Dangerous, yes. Worse than people? Not necessarily.
Good and evil are points of view and behavior, motivations and experience mitigate those circumstances even further.
All in all, that is one thing I admire about SR. It makes good and evil definitions very muddy and almost never black and white.
I think that Paarthy and the definition of evil comes into the mix because of the whole Blades/Greybeards situation comes up. The Blades consider Paarthy evil regardless of what he has learned or how he has changed due to his past behavior that they find unforgivable. The Greybeards hold a different point of view.
As I said, it gets muddy. We have had many discussions here on the definitions of good and evil. Forswarn? Ulfric? Dawnguard? Vigilan of Stendarr? and on and on.
I think they are considered evil because they want to manipulate the sun for their own good, ignoring the damage they could do to the other species.
Anyways, on my first playthrough I have chosen the Dawnguard, but I never went back after trying the vampire lord form on my second time through. It's so overpowered!
Actually, I think it's only really Harkon that is really in to putting out the sun. Nobody else seems to be particularly gung-ho on it. I know my characters aren't. Ingin feels like its kind of like "cutting off your nose to spite your face" and considers it far too much work to try to keep your cattle alive without their usual foodstuffs (since there's no sun, pretty much the only thing that will grow would be fungus).
Yeah, not bad being them at all. Conducting some purges of "thin-bloods" so they can't compete for food, some murders of civilians here and there to spread dissent, creating some thrall-like vampires in cities, keeping people as "cattle" and the various advisors the Dawnguard have to kill who are trying to take over the governments of Skyrim.
Reminds me of the Thalmor, they even got fancy outfits too.
I never join the Volkihar anymore. I would if your character could actually side with Harkon and kill either Valerica or Serana as a sacrifice to blot out the sun, but sadly this is not an option.
As for the actual topic, vampires themselves might not be evil, but I would argue that the Volkihar clan is. They do the things they do for the sake of power. There are even things they could do "better", such as keeping their cattle in less horrid conditions, but they choose the evil way.
I think thats to ensure TES:6 Is possible. I imagine Bethesda can cover things for the next game such as whether Skyrim is indpendant, or whether the DB are still around, but something like whether the sun still exists may be a stretch.
I do wish you could "side" with Harkon as well.
I almost exclusively join the Dawnguard to end the vampire attacks in cities. There are still vampire attacks after finishing the storyline, but not near as often IMO. I have never completed the Volkihar storyline, so I am not sure if the vampire attacks end, I assume they occur just as often. It's too bad I hate the vampire attacks so much, because I have always enjoyed vampire books and movies, pre-Twilight of course. I just need to make a Vampire character and embrace the attacks I suppose
NO. Vampires are capable of reason and logic and were humans, and still possess human thoughts and emotions (albeit intermingled with vampiric tendencies). However all of this, "Oh they're just doing what's natural to them by killing people, it's just for their survival" yadda yadda yadda...
You're trying WAY too hard to find a moral grey where there is none. A vampire doesn't HAVE to murder innocent civilians and such. They CHOOSE to. Their so called nature is used as an EXCUSE, but it doesn't justify it. I judge them on a case by case basis, and I call it how I see it. The Volkihar clan burns in all of my playthroughs.
May I assume that you are opposed to the use of lesser beings as a means of sustenance? We do apologize for our usage of your species as cattle, but, frankly, your moral superiority hardly bothers us. TTFN.