Ignorant talos love

[Daelon DuLac]

Talos didn't execute the Nords because they swore fealty to him as Dragonborn, not because of their race. The Bretons refused to bend knee and were punished accordingly.

While I agree, isn't that a bit megolamaniacal to insist on fealty just because you're Dragonborn? No, wait, that is just plain evil. I'm beginning to see why he is so hated.

Whoa there. Was it "evil" for the various Popes throughout history to send armies into battle and demand fealty from the people there because he was a holy man? Or how about every king that invoked divine right and conquered a land, insisting the people become part of their empire or face the tip of the sword? This often involved religious conversion. Only person I can think of off the top of my head was Genghis Khan who didn't care about your religion. He welcomed all religions so long as you swore fealty to his strength. If you defied him in anyway, you were killed without question.

Even the most pious and most generous of leaders insist that the conquered peoples become loyal to him or they will be killed. This isn't evil, it's called war. It's called imperialism. It's called common sense. You don't wage a war, whether a thousand years ago or today, without insisting the losers join your side. Look at what's going on in the Ukraine. All you hear about are "pro-Russian forces" and "anti-Russian forces". Leaders may not be invoking the "right of God" as their reason for waging war anymore, but they're definitely killing those who don't swear loyalty.

I think it's pretty interesting that because Talos was a strong leader that people want to knock him. This is, essentially, what historians do. They discuss the merits of a leader and try to get a good understanding on how he should be recorded in history. Do they get painted a murderous zealot or do they get heralded as a demigod? Interestingly enough, every great leader can be broken down and have their faults put forward as to why they suck. The question is do they have redeeming qualities that out weigh their indiscretions?

p1 - YES it was evil
p2 - loyalty is one thing genocide of you people who do not swear fealty is another. Yes, Russia is being evil in this case but so is Ukraine for failing to recognize the ethnic Russian's concerns.
p3 - not knocking him. Affective leader, yes. Evil in some of his actions, yes. No, good deeds and positive outcomes do not outweigh evil actions and harm to others.

 

[Hildolfr]

p1 - YES it was evil
p2 - loyalty is one thing genocide of you people who do not swear fealty is another. Yes, Russia is being evil in this case but so is Ukraine for failing to recognize the ethnic Russian's concerns.
p3 - not knocking him. Affective leader, yes. Evil in some of his actions, yes. No, good deeds and positive outcomes do not outweigh evil actions and harm to others.

I think the problem is your use of the word "evil". I wouldn't say Russia or Ukraine are being "evil". I think all of the examples so far may be of people being cruel or excessively violent. I think you're just overlooking how war works. War involves a winner and a loser. The loser pays the price of losing and that means death, slavery, or switching sides. Some leaders can be harsher than others against the loser, but regardless, the loser is going to suffer in some way.

"No, good deeds and positive outcomes do not outweigh evil actions and harm to others."
That is a really interesting statement that has all sorts of implications. So based on this, I have to assume you would always kill Paarthurnax then? Obviously, RPing is RPing, but would you say that Paarthurnax's exile and following the Way of the Voice does not out weigh his villainous dragon ways? This is an ethical question that can be debated for hours on end, I know, but I'm just curious how you see it.

 

[DrunkenMage]

I fault the Greybeards for that, they're the ones who told him he would rule Tamriel.

Think that was more Imperial propaganda than anything else, to strengthen the ties between Cyrodiil and Skyrim. No one could contradict it since the Greybeards don't talk to anyone else.

Dialogue in-game seems to suggest they always sought to make the Dragonborn follow the Way of the Voice, but always fail. How their leader reacted when you had spoken with the Blades, do you really think they'd go to Talos "Conquer and bring violence to the land"

 

[DestroyerDevourMaster]

I fault the Greybeards for that, they're the ones who told him he would rule Tamriel.

Think that was more Imperial propaganda than anything else, to strengthen the ties between Cyrodiil and Skyrim. No one could contradict it since the Greybeards don't talk to anyone else.

Dialogue in-game seems to suggest they always sought to make the Dragonborn follow the Way of the Voice, but always fail. How their leader reacted when you had spoken with the Blades, do you really think they'd go to Talos "Conquer and bring violence to the land"

Fair enough, that doesn't seem like something the Greybeards would approve of, even in a more war torn and bloodthirsty age.

 

[Rimfaxe96]

That guy was smart and strong enough to conquer Tamriel and badass enough to be worshipped. End of story, deal with it.

 

[raido KASAI]

Here's proof of his misdoings after the famous siege of that castle in the reach he let the local nords defending scot free but for the Bretons they got the chopping block if that isn't racism I don't know what is ps I'm Turkish

Talos didn't execute the Nords because they swore fealty to him as Dragonborn, not because of their race. The Bretons refused to bend knee and were punished accordingly.

While I agree, isn't that a bit megolamaniacal to insist on fealty just because you're Dragonborn? No, wait, that is just plain evil. I'm beginning to see why he is so hated.

I don't think he demanded fealty because he was Dragonborn. He demanded fealty because they were invaders and he defeated them in battle.

That's pretty much the norm for winner-loser relations after a decided war especially where the loser was the original aggressor. If it is "evil" then it's not necessarily so just for this one event, but is regarded as such because all war by that definition must be evil. That's a much larger debate over the good and evil of all war than it is just this one instance of it.

For a loser in war, it's either acceptance of terms of the victor, death or dungeon.

 

[imaginepageant]

 

[imaginepageant]

 

[Rimfaxe96]

 

[DrunkenMage]

That guy was smart and strong enough to conquer Tamriel and badass enough to be worshipped. End of story, deal with it.

He was devious enough. He murdered his Emperor and killed his loyalists, took claim of the throne. Easy to conquer when your most favored Legion who were nicknamed 'The Faithful' put fear into your foes. Go ask the Khajiit how they felt when they were butchered man, woman and child during the Sack of Senchal.

 

[Jurgarik Greycloak]

I really do not get the Talos thing. HE only became a god because of worship. So they worship they imagination they created?

 

[Pendalyn]

If people did just a little research on this bastard you would see why he is so hated by literally everyone who isn't Nordic or imperial

the most supportive, and well laid out argument I've ever seen for the dissolution of Talos as a god. More people should do research to find their answers instead of relying on people to put them in posts on this forum.

then again, no one blamed a nord for being sensible or logical. which is exactly what they did when put between a rock and a hard place, they folded... Bretons who stuck to their guns were slaughtered.

 

[Pendalyn]

Whoa there. Was it "evil" for the various Popes throughout history to send armies into battle and demand fealty from the people there because he was a holy man? Or how about every king that invoked divine right and conquered a land, insisting the people become part of their empire or face the tip of the sword?

Yes. Yes it was. Much evil is done in the name of religion... both in TES series, and in real life.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Watch the disagree ratings! Just because it's there, doesn't mean you should use it! If you disagree with something, post your reasoning as to WHY you disagree.

And what do you mean if people did more research? This is a case of differing opinion while looking at the same evidence, which is why this debate will go nowhere fast ESPECIALLY if you post nothing more than the information that "if you researched it you would see it my way"

Pendalyn: but applies to everyone.

 

[Pendalyn]

Watch the disagree ratings! Just because it's there, doesn't mean you should use it! If you disagree with something, post your reasoning as to WHY you disagree.

And what do you mean if people did more research? This is a case of differing opinion while looking at the same evidence, which is why this debate will go nowhere fast ESPECIALLY if you post nothing more than the information that "if you researched it you would see it my way"

Pendalyn: but applies to everyone.

Roger that. I disagreed because I think people should investigate the lore before asking others to post their explanations, then offer their own opinions based on what they have researched. I don't support laziness in lore supportive arguements.

I don't see disagree as a bad thing to check on someones post. It creates discussion if nothing else. If we all look at the same lore and come up with different points of view, that makes a more valid discussion than breaking down someone else's opinion of lore they researched.

I was a bit confrontational this morning when I woke up, so let's assume I meant to create this discussion path

 

[raido KASAI]

Whoa there. Was it "evil" for the various Popes throughout history to send armies into battle and demand fealty from the people there because he was a holy man? Or how about every king that invoked divine right and conquered a land, insisting the people become part of their empire or face the tip of the sword?

Yes. Yes it was. Much evil is done in the name of religion... both in TES series, and in real life.

Yes, people have done evil in the name of religion. The opposite however is also true that there are people doing good in its name too. Religion is but a microcosm of life. There is evil and there is good found everywhere.

You can't have shadows without light.

 

[raido KASAI]

Watch the disagree ratings! Just because it's there, doesn't mean you should use it! If you disagree with something, post your reasoning as to WHY you disagree.

And what do you mean if people did more research? This is a case of differing opinion while looking at the same evidence, which is why this debate will go nowhere fast ESPECIALLY if you post nothing more than the information that "if you researched it you would see it my way"

Pendalyn: but applies to everyone.

Roger that. I disagreed because I think people should investigate the lore before asking others to post their explanations, then offer their own opinions based on what they have researched. I don't support laziness in lore supportive arguements.

I don't see disagree as a bad thing to check on someones post. It creates discussion if nothing else. If we all look at the same lore and come up with different points of view, that makes a more valid discussion than breaking down someone else's opinion of lore they researched.

I was a bit confrontational this morning when I woke up, so let's assume I meant to create this discussion path

Isn't just checking disagree and not making an statement equally lazy?

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Roger that. I disagreed because I think people should investigate the lore before asking others to post their explanations, then offer their own opinions based on what they have researched. I don't support laziness in lore supportive arguements.

I don't see disagree as a bad thing to check on someones post. It creates discussion if nothing else. If we all look at the same lore and come up with different points of view, that makes a more valid discussion than breaking down someone else's opinion of lore they researched.

I was a bit confrontational this morning when I woke up, so let's assume I meant to create this discussion path

I get in that mood a lot xD I understand.

 

[Pendalyn]

Kasai, please don't take it personally. I actually didn't see the line for explaining my self, which I found weird. I was indeed lazy, as I intended to explain myself. I have no issue with you in particular, or anything you posted, other than I support the opposite of what you posted there. The OP stated his opinion on the lore he research, which as stated is the same lore we all have access too, so to have him explain his points in the lore, which would have made the OP argument better, would have supported laziness in researching lore by the rest of us.

 

[Kalin of High Rock]

We should just adopt the Argonian faith. Worship some sapient, possibly psychic trees with psychotropic sap.

Damn, Blackmarsh. You scary.