Non Violent way of dealing with Grelod the Kind

  • Welcome to Skyrim Forums! Register now to participate using the 'Sign Up' button on the right. You may now register with your Facebook or Steam account!

Chadonraz

Well-Known Member
You could always just avoid the whole DB thing and then not have to worry about ole GTK. After all, they're just a bunch of orphans, who cares... :)

But if you don't want a misc objective/quest you're never going to complete in your journal, you'll have to get rid of Grelod.
Unless you never, ever go near a guard when in Windhelm. :D

----

It's possible to tell a follower with "Any crime" morale attack her, isn't it? Maybe your follower could overreact upon hearing what Grelod says to the kids... and then you, as an honorable Dovahkiin, would simply fire them.

Of course, there would still be the fact that you ordered your follower to attack... but maybe that could be overlooked.

Edit: Actually, that might be even worse than killing Grelod yourself...:oops:
 

jarif

Well-Known Member
You could always just avoid the whole DB thing and then not have to worry about ole GTK. After all, they're just a bunch of orphans, who cares... :)

Me. because you can't screw around with your wife apparently
p.s if you don't kill Grelod than you can't adopt
 

Daelon DuLac

How do you backstab a Dragon?
You could always just avoid the whole DB thing and then not have to worry about ole GTK. After all, they're just a bunch of orphans, who cares... :)

Me. because you can't screw around with your wife apparently
p.s if you don't kill Grelod than you can't adopt
You can't adopt from the orphanage. You can always adopt one of the street kids. I sometimes get Lucia and one of the kids from Windhelm and don't have anyting to do with the DB. But I'm over marriage and children now. I neglect them WAAAAYYYY to much to be a decent spouse or parent.
 

shadowkitty

Mistress of Shadows
I have avoided the DB questline because I have decided my character would not want to join the assassins guild. But I did kill Grelod because I don't like child cruelty. I walked into the orphanage when Grelod was giving her first speech to the kids. Walked up to her and hacked her head off, giving me a nice slow motion kill shot. It was awesome. I also killed the entire DB because that's how I roll :cool:
 

jarif

Well-Known Member
I just thought of something. The most non-violent way that YOU can get rid of Greold is to hire someone and have them do it for you at your order. No muss, no fuss and you didn't kill her. :)
Or just roleplay. It's the most powerful weapon at your arsenal.

By the way, '' you didn't kill her.'', sorry got to disagree for a lot of reasons but for this quote I find this invalid. You are the catalyst for Grelod dying and for that happening so you did kill her, example if someone sends a contract to the dark brotherhood than I wouldn't say the assassin killed them because they are just doing their job, the person that sended that contract did since they were the catalyst for it happening.
 

Daelon DuLac

How do you backstab a Dragon?
I just thought of something. The most non-violent way that YOU can get rid of Greold is to hire someone and have them do it for you at your order. No muss, no fuss and you didn't kill her. :)
Or just roleplay. It's the most powerful weapon at your arsenal.

By the way, '' you didn't kill her.'', sorry got to disagree for a lot of reasons but for this quote I find this invalid. You are the catalyst for Grelod dying and for that happening so you did kill her, example if someone sends a contract to the dark brotherhood than I wouldn't say the assassin killed them because they are just doing their job, the person that sended that contract did since they were the catalyst for it happening.
A difference in philosophy I guess. To me, the person performing the action is the killer. They had the choice to go through with it or not. They could have refused. I didn't touch her, therefore, I didn't kill her. I may have caused her to be killed, but that doesn't make me a murderer, it makes me an accessory.
 

jarif

Well-Known Member
I just thought of something. The most non-violent way that YOU can get rid of Greold is to hire someone and have them do it for you at your order. No muss, no fuss and you didn't kill her. :)
Or just roleplay. It's the most powerful weapon at your arsenal.

By the way, '' you didn't kill her.'', sorry got to disagree for a lot of reasons but for this quote I find this invalid. You are the catalyst for Grelod dying and for that happening so you did kill her, example if someone sends a contract to the dark brotherhood than I wouldn't say the assassin killed them because they are just doing their job, the person that sended that contract did since they were the catalyst for it happening.
A difference in philosophy I guess. To me, the person performing the action is the killer. They had the choice to go through with it or not. They could have refused. I didn't touch her, therefore, I didn't kill her. I may have caused her to be killed, but that doesn't make me a murderer, it makes me an accessory.

No it makes the assassin a accessory, they are the sword and tools for the ''murdering'' and assassins are not murders.
 

Daelon DuLac

How do you backstab a Dragon?
Or just roleplay. It's the most powerful weapon at your arsenal.

By the way, '' you didn't kill her.'', sorry got to disagree for a lot of reasons but for this quote I find this invalid. You are the catalyst for Grelod dying and for that happening so you did kill her, example if someone sends a contract to the dark brotherhood than I wouldn't say the assassin killed them because they are just doing their job, the person that sended that contract did since they were the catalyst for it happening.
A difference in philosophy I guess. To me, the person performing the action is the killer. They had the choice to go through with it or not. They could have refused. I didn't touch her, therefore, I didn't kill her. I may have caused her to be killed, but that doesn't make me a murderer, it makes me an accessory.

No it makes the assassin a accessory, they are the sword and tools for the ''murdering'' and assassins are not murders.
Hmm... interesting. In other words, the gun is not the murderer, it is the device (tool) that the murderer used. Interesting. I still stand by my philosophy though as the assassin as a thinking being capable of making their own choices while a gun is not.

Thank you! I like this debate. It's not often I get a good philosophical think in!

Query: So - in war, is the killing murder? If not, why not? If so, are the soldiers to be considered a tool or do they have free will and the folks that order the murderers? How high up can the "following orders" thing be taken (in the States for example: As the ultimate decision maker (?) and lead of the armed forces, does it ultimately end up with the President - or, because he/she cannot act without impugnity, does it rest on the shoulders of Congress that authorized the action in the first place.

Understand that I am using the Judeo/Christian definition of killing from "Thou Shalt Not Kill", a rather periodical statement.

I would be interested in your take.
 

jarif

Well-Known Member
A difference in philosophy I guess. To me, the person performing the action is the killer. They had the choice to go through with it or not. They could have refused. I didn't touch her, therefore, I didn't kill her. I may have caused her to be killed, but that doesn't make me a murderer, it makes me an accessory.

No it makes the assassin a accessory, they are the sword and tools for the ''murdering'' and assassins are not murders.
Hmm... interesting. In other words, the gun is not the murderer, it is the device (tool) that the murderer used. Interesting. I still stand by my philosophy though as the assassin as a thinking being capable of making their own choices while a gun is not.

Thank you! I like this debate. It's not often I get a good philosophical think in!

Query: So - in war, is the killing murder? If not, why not? If so, are the soldiers to be considered a tool or do they have free will and the folks that order the murderers? How high up can the "following orders" thing be taken (in the States for example: As the ultimate decision maker (?) and lead of the armed forces, does it ultimately end up with the President - or, because he/she cannot act without impugnity, does it rest on the shoulders of Congress that authorized the action in the first place.

Understand that I am using the Judeo/Christian definition of killing from "Thou Shalt Not Kill", a rather periodical statement.

I would be interested in your take.

Have you heard of their is a law in America that they keep guns? Or the incident with the Batman cinema killings? Have you also heard their are weapons in all around Tamriel? All these link with weapons, the gun is not the murderer but the person carrying it, guns are neither murdering tools or saving tools. They are are just tools that are quite incipient to the human mind or brain such as these can be used for their own purposes such as murder or killing and their is a difference or you can use the gun for saving, though do you see Batman using a gun? It's up to the brain how it defines the tool. Your body is also a tool, a tool to do for your own purposes as well.

When you are in war, you are not murdering though however if your definition murder could imply to World war II because of the propaganda has brought people has led to believe that it is not worth dying for your country, some or most even believing the propaganda was a lie and theer sheer number deaths but in today's I don't believe this. Militaristic of the government.The military are soldiers. Soldiers to be used as ''tools'' for example the commander says you are going to be a troop and flank the enemy while you are going to blah blah, and the military is trained to kill including both sides. Lets look at the definitions of ''murder'' and ''kill''. Murder is when is you force to kill someone against their will or intentions against of the other party, I would not say self defense is ''murder'' because the other party has now the intention of killing you in response to your attack and might be willing to die if by the situation it a possibility however ''kill'' is when you don't murder someone if their killed or life is gone like the phrase the strongest survive and the weak perish is a survival statement and because you are so called surviving than it would not count as murder because you must kill in order to survive, the military as we said is trained to kill and is willing to die, despite how empty I sound, if one military is attacked by another military than they must be willing or ready to face the consequences or possibility of dying. If you join the military and thinking and think you are going to survive than you are naive. So they are just treated as tools by their superiors like the President however if they are told to do some sort of operation than its not up to the President how these ''tools'' think because at the end of the day they still are humans so have you ever heard of someone disobeying orders or somehow changing the plan? Its up to you to use the tools and its up to you how you use them. Here's a media aspect of this, if a President sended Soldiers to kill innocent people than you are strictly going to say the President killed or rather murdered the innocent because he was the catalyst and decided he was going send a pair of guns to kill people. Here's another example, one of the Prime ministers (no disrespect) sended a couple of soldiers (very few) to Iraq and they died, who was to blame? Arguably the Prime minister because he made that decision.

So killing someone, means how you used your brain because at the end of the day despite the tools you used, it was you that made that decision. (Their could of been a extra sentences on here but I forgot what I was going to write)

And all this is coming from a 16 year old.
 

jarif

Well-Known Member
my excuse; there is a mod for that

Very sorry to go off topic and to avoid going of topic further than only you and me can reply.
Is it alright that I comment on your characters backstory, theirs something that bugs me and it has to do with Miraak. It could be lore breaking.
 

Daelon DuLac

How do you backstab a Dragon?
No it makes the assassin a accessory, they are the sword and tools for the ''murdering'' and assassins are not murders.
Hmm... interesting. In other words, the gun is not the murderer, it is the device (tool) that the murderer used. Interesting. I still stand by my philosophy though as the assassin as a thinking being capable of making their own choices while a gun is not.

Thank you! I like this debate. It's not often I get a good philosophical think in!

Query: So - in war, is the killing murder? If not, why not? If so, are the soldiers to be considered a tool or do they have free will and the folks that order the murderers? How high up can the "following orders" thing be taken (in the States for example: As the ultimate decision maker (?) and lead of the armed forces, does it ultimately end up with the President - or, because he/she cannot act without impugnity, does it rest on the shoulders of Congress that authorized the action in the first place.

Understand that I am using the Judeo/Christian definition of killing from "Thou Shalt Not Kill", a rather periodical statement.

I would be interested in your take.

Have you heard of their is a law in America that they keep guns? Or the incident with the Batman cinema killings? Have you also heard their are weapons in all around Tamriel? All these link with weapons, the gun is not the murderer but the person carrying it, guns are neither murdering tools or saving tools. They are are just tools that are quite incipient to the human mind or brain such as these can be used for their own purposes such as murder or killing and their is a difference or you can use the gun for saving, though do you see Batman using a gun? It's up to the brain how it defines the tool. Your body is also a tool, a tool to do for your own purposes as well.

When you are in war, you are not murdering though however if your definition murder could imply to World war II because of the propaganda has brought people has led to believe that it is not worth dying for your country, some or most even believing the propaganda was a lie and theer sheer number deaths but in today's I don't believe this. Militaristic of the government.The military are soldiers. Soldiers to be used as ''tools'' for example the commander says you are going to be a troop and flank the enemy while you are going to blah blah, and the military is trained to kill including both sides. Lets look at the definitions of ''murder'' and ''kill''. Murder is when is you force to kill someone against their will or intentions against of the other party, I would not say self defense is ''murder'' because the other party has now the intention of killing you in response to your attack and might be willing to die if by the situation it a possibility however ''kill'' is when you don't murder someone if their killed or life is gone like the phrase the strongest survive and the weak perish is a survival statement and because you are so called surviving than it would not count as murder because you must kill in order to survive, the military as we said is trained to kill and is willing to die, despite how empty I sound, if one military is attacked by another military than they must be willing or ready to face the consequences or possibility of dying. If you join the military and thinking and think you are going to survive than you are naive. So they are just treated as tools by their superiors like the President however if they are told to do some sort of operation than its not up to the President how these ''tools'' think because at the end of the day they still are humans so have you ever heard of someone disobeying orders or somehow changing the plan? Its up to you to use the tools and its up to you how you use them. Here's a media aspect of this, if a President sended Soldiers to kill innocent people than you are strictly going to say the President killed or rather murdered the innocent because he was the catalyst and decided he was going send a pair of guns to kill people. Here's another example, one of the Prime ministers (no disrespect) sended a couple of soldiers (very few) to Iraq and they died, who was to blame? Arguably the Prime minister because he made that decision.

So killing someone, means how you used your brain because at the end of the day despite the tools you used, it was you that made that decision. (Their could of been a extra sentences on here but I forgot what I was going to write)

And all this is coming from a 16 year old.
I am duly impressed! And that's from someone you just made feel really, really old!

I absolutely agree with you, however, I still don't think we've addresseed the root of this. Is an assassin considered a tool and therefore not culpable for his/her own actions, using the excuse of "it's my job", "I was paid to" or "I was following orders" not a murderer? What happened to free will. I agree that, the concious decisicion to "kill" the other party with or without malice and not in the act of self defense, is murder. You are absolutely right that the definition of "kill" is far to vague.

'This whole thing could get very, very muddy. Thank you. You have made me think. A rare occurance in my case (not the making the actual doing :))
 

jarif

Well-Known Member
Hmm... interesting. In other words, the gun is not the murderer, it is the device (tool) that the murderer used. Interesting. I still stand by my philosophy though as the assassin as a thinking being capable of making their own choices while a gun is not.

Thank you! I like this debate. It's not often I get a good philosophical think in!

Query: So - in war, is the killing murder? If not, why not? If so, are the soldiers to be considered a tool or do they have free will and the folks that order the murderers? How high up can the "following orders" thing be taken (in the States for example: As the ultimate decision maker (?) and lead of the armed forces, does it ultimately end up with the President - or, because he/she cannot act without impugnity, does it rest on the shoulders of Congress that authorized the action in the first place.

Understand that I am using the Judeo/Christian definition of killing from "Thou Shalt Not Kill", a rather periodical statement.

I would be interested in your take.

Have you heard of their is a law in America that they keep guns? Or the incident with the Batman cinema killings? Have you also heard their are weapons in all around Tamriel? All these link with weapons, the gun is not the murderer but the person carrying it, guns are neither murdering tools or saving tools. They are are just tools that are quite incipient to the human mind or brain such as these can be used for their own purposes such as murder or killing and their is a difference or you can use the gun for saving, though do you see Batman using a gun? It's up to the brain how it defines the tool. Your body is also a tool, a tool to do for your own purposes as well.

When you are in war, you are not murdering though however if your definition murder could imply to World war II because of the propaganda has brought people has led to believe that it is not worth dying for your country, some or most even believing the propaganda was a lie and theer sheer number deaths but in today's I don't believe this. Militaristic of the government.The military are soldiers. Soldiers to be used as ''tools'' for example the commander says you are going to be a troop and flank the enemy while you are going to blah blah, and the military is trained to kill including both sides. Lets look at the definitions of ''murder'' and ''kill''. Murder is when is you force to kill someone against their will or intentions against of the other party, I would not say self defense is ''murder'' because the other party has now the intention of killing you in response to your attack and might be willing to die if by the situation it a possibility however ''kill'' is when you don't murder someone if their killed or life is gone like the phrase the strongest survive and the weak perish is a survival statement and because you are so called surviving than it would not count as murder because you must kill in order to survive, the military as we said is trained to kill and is willing to die, despite how empty I sound, if one military is attacked by another military than they must be willing or ready to face the consequences or possibility of dying. If you join the military and thinking and think you are going to survive than you are naive. So they are just treated as tools by their superiors like the President however if they are told to do some sort of operation than its not up to the President how these ''tools'' think because at the end of the day they still are humans so have you ever heard of someone disobeying orders or somehow changing the plan? Its up to you to use the tools and its up to you how you use them. Here's a media aspect of this, if a President sended Soldiers to kill innocent people than you are strictly going to say the President killed or rather murdered the innocent because he was the catalyst and decided he was going send a pair of guns to kill people. Here's another example, one of the Prime ministers (no disrespect) sended a couple of soldiers (very few) to Iraq and they died, who was to blame? Arguably the Prime minister because he made that decision.

So killing someone, means how you used your brain because at the end of the day despite the tools you used, it was you that made that decision. (Their could of been a extra sentences on here but I forgot what I was going to write)

And all this is coming from a 16 year old.
I am duly impressed! And that's from someone you just made feel really, really old!

I absolutely agree with you, however, I still don't think we've addresseed the root of this. Is an assassin considered a tool and therefore not culpable for his/her own actions, using the excuse of "it's my job", "I was paid to" or "I was following orders" not a murderer? What happened to free will. I agree that, the concious decisicion to "kill" the other party with or without malice and not in the act of self defense, is murder. You are absolutely right that the definition of "kill" is far to vague.

'This whole thing could get very, very muddy. Thank you. You have made me think. A rare occurance in my case (not the making the actual doing :))

Thank you.

Assassin would be considered as a tool yes. Think of the assassin as a invisible or visible gun or sword rather than a person if that helps you visualize.
 

jarif

Well-Known Member
my excuse; there is a mod for that

Very sorry to go off topic and to avoid going of topic further than only you and me can reply.
Is it alright that I comment on your characters backstory, theirs something that bugs me and it has to be Miraak. It could be lore breaking.
very well what is it?

Well if we do our research than about the mask and how it links to Miraak. You claim the Konahrik Mask is yours but I think it is Miraak well their are small hints. Well I will just throw it out their first, firstly Miraaks mask and Konahrik maks are very if you take in the fact that Miraaks mask is not a dragon priests mask but a mask granted by Herma Mora since his mask has a Apocrapha feel to it and its likely that Miraak would take power from Herma Mora especially since he escaped his own death from his fellow Dragon priest. It is possibly that Herma Mora would create a mask similar to a dragon priest since has almost infinite knowledge. The Konahrik is the highest and most powerful dragon priest mask and it requires all dragon priest mask and Miraak is the most powerful dragon priest and his level 150 proves this fact especially since he is dragonborn. The mask translates to ''Warlord'' and it is fitting towards Miraak since he is so powerful and it kinda is a another word for his class, battlemage, warlock? And being to claim to being to defeat Alduin is a bold statement especially since he is dragonborn. It is likely he ditched the mask for Herma Mora. I would like you establish this, maybe you challenged Miraak to a duel or he made it yours since he didn't need it?
 

Daelon DuLac

How do you backstab a Dragon?
Have you heard of their is a law in America that they keep guns? Or the incident with the Batman cinema killings? Have you also heard their are weapons in all around Tamriel? All these link with weapons, the gun is not the murderer but the person carrying it, guns are neither murdering tools or saving tools. They are are just tools that are quite incipient to the human mind or brain such as these can be used for their own purposes such as murder or killing and their is a difference or you can use the gun for saving, though do you see Batman using a gun? It's up to the brain how it defines the tool. Your body is also a tool, a tool to do for your own purposes as well.

When you are in war, you are not murdering though however if your definition murder could imply to World war II because of the propaganda has brought people has led to believe that it is not worth dying for your country, some or most even believing the propaganda was a lie and theer sheer number deaths but in today's I don't believe this. Militaristic of the government.The military are soldiers. Soldiers to be used as ''tools'' for example the commander says you are going to be a troop and flank the enemy while you are going to blah blah, and the military is trained to kill including both sides. Lets look at the definitions of ''murder'' and ''kill''. Murder is when is you force to kill someone against their will or intentions against of the other party, I would not say self defense is ''murder'' because the other party has now the intention of killing you in response to your attack and might be willing to die if by the situation it a possibility however ''kill'' is when you don't murder someone if their killed or life is gone like the phrase the strongest survive and the weak perish is a survival statement and because you are so called surviving than it would not count as murder because you must kill in order to survive, the military as we said is trained to kill and is willing to die, despite how empty I sound, if one military is attacked by another military than they must be willing or ready to face the consequences or possibility of dying. If you join the military and thinking and think you are going to survive than you are naive. So they are just treated as tools by their superiors like the President however if they are told to do some sort of operation than its not up to the President how these ''tools'' think because at the end of the day they still are humans so have you ever heard of someone disobeying orders or somehow changing the plan? Its up to you to use the tools and its up to you how you use them. Here's a media aspect of this, if a President sended Soldiers to kill innocent people than you are strictly going to say the President killed or rather murdered the innocent because he was the catalyst and decided he was going send a pair of guns to kill people. Here's another example, one of the Prime ministers (no disrespect) sended a couple of soldiers (very few) to Iraq and they died, who was to blame? Arguably the Prime minister because he made that decision.

So killing someone, means how you used your brain because at the end of the day despite the tools you used, it was you that made that decision. (Their could of been a extra sentences on here but I forgot what I was going to write)

And all this is coming from a 16 year old.
I am duly impressed! And that's from someone you just made feel really, really old!

I absolutely agree with you, however, I still don't think we've addresseed the root of this. Is an assassin considered a tool and therefore not culpable for his/her own actions, using the excuse of "it's my job", "I was paid to" or "I was following orders" not a murderer? What happened to free will. I agree that, the concious decisicion to "kill" the other party with or without malice and not in the act of self defense, is murder. You are absolutely right that the definition of "kill" is far to vague.

'This whole thing could get very, very muddy. Thank you. You have made me think. A rare occurance in my case (not the making the actual doing :))

Thank you.

Assassin would be considered as a tool yes. Think of the assassin as a invisible or visible gun or sword rather than a person if that helps you visualize.
I understand where you're coming from, but that still discounts the free will of the assassin themselves. They still had the choice not to commit the murder. Just my take.
 

jarif

Well-Known Member
I am duly impressed! And that's from someone you just made feel really, really old!

I absolutely agree with you, however, I still don't think we've addresseed the root of this. Is an assassin considered a tool and therefore not culpable for his/her own actions, using the excuse of "it's my job", "I was paid to" or "I was following orders" not a murderer? What happened to free will. I agree that, the concious decisicion to "kill" the other party with or without malice and not in the act of self defense, is murder. You are absolutely right that the definition of "kill" is far to vague.

'This whole thing could get very, very muddy. Thank you. You have made me think. A rare occurance in my case (not the making the actual doing :))

Thank you.

Assassin would be considered as a tool yes. Think of the assassin as a invisible or visible gun or sword rather than a person if that helps you visualize.
I understand where you're coming from, but that still discounts the free will of the assassin themselves. They still had the choice not to commit the murder. Just my take.

Very true, its up to how the tool does it but regardless they are still just the gun and you are the shooter.
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
What if you frenzy the bitch and claim self defense?
 

tx12001

I will not tolerate failure...
Very sorry to go off topic and to avoid going of topic further than only you and me can reply.
Is it alright that I comment on your characters backstory, theirs something that bugs me and it has to be Miraak. It could be lore breaking.
very well what is it?

Well if we do our research than about the mask and how it links to Miraak. You claim the Konahrik Mask is yours but I think it is Miraak well their are small hints. Well I will just throw it out their first, firstly Miraaks mask and Konahrik maks are very if you take in the fact that Miraaks mask is not a dragon priests mask but a mask granted by Herma Mora since his mask has a Apocrapha feel to it and its likely that Miraak would take power from Herma Mora especially since he escaped his own death from his fellow Dragon priest. It is possibly that Herma Mora would create a mask similar to a dragon priest since has almost infinite knowledge. The Konahrik is the highest and most powerful dragon priest mask and it requires all dragon priest mask and Miraak is the most powerful dragon priest and his level 150 proves this fact especially since he is dragonborn. The mask translates to ''Warlord'' and it is fitting towards Miraak since he is so powerful and it kinda is a another word for his class, battlemage, warlock? And being to claim to being to defeat Alduin is a bold statement especially since he is dragonborn. It is likely he ditched the mask for Herma Mora. I would like you establish this, maybe you challenged Miraak to a duel or he made it yours since he didn't need it?
simple Miraak would have had a Mask resembling the Acolyte Dragon priests of Solstheim not the Dragon Priests of Skyrim as they have 2 ompletly different Designs and besides Konahrik was made in the original game before Miraak even Existed, Also Miraak was NOT the most powerful of Dragon Priests he was defeated by Vahlok the Jailor Miraak only became powerful when Mora taught Miraak his Knowledge and a thing about the names, Miraaks real name is Miraak, who says they were not given Names pretty much the same way an Argonian is named after the things they do, they did live in the time of the dragons where they most likely would have been named in the Draconic tongue.
 

Recent chat visitors

Latest posts

Top