Board Thread:Skyrim/@comment-112.210.97.129-20130417182822/@comment-85.224.186.44-20181007030127

2601:4B:280:3320:614F:949:3A6A:70DD wrote: 98.114.59.185 wrote: picture it this way. theres a 30 year old cold case where a young woman had been raped. you found the man responsible. he has a family and is an active member of society and the victim has passed on a few years prior. would you let him go? Sorry for long reply,

Picture it this way. theres a 30 year old case where a young woman had been raped by a Gang Leader, his Younger Brother and the rest of the gang. The Younger Brother was convinced to turn against his older brother. He established the very first Police force and instructed them in ways to combat his older brother. The Police were able to arrest the Gang Leader and send him to Jail for 30 years. During that 30 years, the Younger Brother continued to teach and instruct new Police recruits. The Gang Leader's "Sentence" is up after 30 years and he is back on the streets getting his old gang back together. The Younger Brother teaches the latest, best Police Recruit the skills that will finally take down the Gang Leader. The new Police Recruit faces the Gang Leader with some old members of the Police Force and they defeat the Gang Leader for good. The Younger Brother plans to contact the rest of the old gang and convince them to lead new lives of lawful peace. The new Police Recruit is reminded that the Younger Brother has never faced Justice for the crime from 30 years ago and he must decide if he should also "finish" the Younger Brother or allow him continue providing invaluable "training" for generations to come. Would you let him go? Agreed. Killing Paarthunax is not the best choice in my eyes. Not to mention, there's a difference between war and personal attacks. In a war you have soldiers set out to fight for a cause. The dragons fought for Alduin, the mortals for their survival. Would you consider a general or other higher up who's been in charge and part of battles, who discovers something awful about the side they're fighting for, and who then switches sides and starts helping the other side instead to be killed for the atrocities they made in the early stages of the war, before they switched sides and started thinking for themselves? I'd argue not. Not only is that strategically stupid, it's also morally questionable. We generally don't commit genocide when the other side surrenders, perhaps we kill the driving force behind the war from the other side, but we spare the soldiers. Wars are horrible things with lots and lots of death. I think that if given the chance, we should stop the endless cycle of death!

...

But then, I am the listener of the Dark Brotherhood... And my own voice in my head told me to kill the blades because they annoyed me to bits. Hello console! What's that? "setessential  0"? Oh sorry blades... you're no more!