To Kill a Dragon or Not to Kill a Dragon

[mara_dienne459]

Time for another random article!

Does everyone know or remember Skyrim? Have you watched a video about it, or played it? Do you remember a dragon character named Paarthunax? If you don't, that's okay! Very briefly, Paarthunax is the younger brother of the game's villain Alduin. He was also Alduin's trusted lieutenant in the Dragon War and he committed a whole bunch of atrocities. Eventually, Paarthunax betrays his brother because Alduin basically wanted to conquer the world and he was getting pretty far out there about it. Together with some allies, Paarthunax teaches them how to use the Thu'um (the Storm Voice, or Voice, which is basically a form magic that uses Dragon Language) to banish Aldiuin and save the world.

So here's the debate: do you let him live or do you kill him?

As the Dragonborn (the player character) you can meet Paarthunax, and he seems repentant about what he did in the past. However, a lot of people argue that he never got the chance to repent at all. So this is where the schism comes in. You can choose to side with the blades and kill him or you can spare him and get access to a bunch of cool magic. There's literally no consequences for leaving him alive, but killing Paarthunax locks the Dragonborn out of magic. Which, from a gameplay standpoint, is extremely counterproductive, because the Dragon Shouts (the magic the Dragonborn uses) play major roles in combat. 

Okay. Now you might be asking "Mara, why are you posting an article like this to this spork site?" To which I would reply, "Because Paolini weighed in on the debate!"

How did he weigh in on the debate? By declaring Paarthunax deserves to live! And we should feel bad for wanting to kill him.

Some guy named Tyler Richmond said that he "killed Paarthunax in all [his] playthroughs". To which Paolini claps back and says "You did a bad thing and should feel bad."

Yeah.

This is the same guy who wrote a story where his dragons are little more than personal batteries and glorification extensions and have little to no role in the actual story, where his "villain" was far and away more sympathetic than his "heroes" and who deserved to have a redemption arc. But one was forced to commit suicide as punishment while the other just got a spear through the eye because the "good guys" deemed him "unable to be saved". Galbatorix did bad things for a cause - we aren't arguing that point, because he did do bad things for the cause. We don't get to know what those bad things are, of course, unless you take the world of Brom and Oromis as gospel truth. Even though, if you think about it hard enough, the Riders committed worse atrocities than the Forsworn ever did. But he did those things (ostensibly) because he wanted revenge. Paarthunax did what he did under Alduin because he believed in Alduin's cause... until Alduin went off the rails and became too dangerous and decided he wanted to rule the world, or so we can assume. We don't know why Paarthunax switched sides and helped defeat his brother. We don't get to find out what "atrocities" Paarthunax committed because the two characters that say he did these bad things don't elaborate. When it comes to Galby, we're told by characters who have reason to hate him how awful he is, but when we see Alagaesia proper, we can see Galby isn't as villainous as he's being made out to be. Even Paarthunax asks the Dragonborn if it's better one should be born inherently good or if one should be given the chance to redeem themself from their sins.

So, I would argue that Paolini is saying Paarthunax has more value than Galbatorix - and, arguably, Shruikan. That we should feel bad for killing - or, even considering killing - Paarthunax. Who did bad things. But switched sides and became "good", sharing his knowledge with humans and teaching them magic, and helping the Dragonborn on their quest. Neither Galby nor Shruikan got the chance to even try to atone for whatever sins they committed. They were just murdered, the knowledge Galby had stolen and squirreled away by Eragon and the elves, never to be shared with the common people. Shruikan was murdered because nobody wanted to give even a token of effort to save him. They said "he's too insane, too corrupted" to try to save, so they murdered him. Even if Galby had to die to bring closure to the story, Shruikan didn't have to die. Shruikan's bond to Galby was a false, forced one. They could have tried to help him. But they didn't.

It just... amuses me in an angry sort of way that this guy who wrote a series of books where the whole over-arching story was basically trying to right the wrongs of one guy while ignoring the 'why' of it all - for example, why did Galby choose to rebel? how did 13 guys defeat an order of hundreds? why did that one guy decide to turn himself into a nuclear bomb in the EGG HOUSE (thus killing the dragon eggs that didn't get chosen to go in the stupid vault) which also killed a whole bunch of Riders and only ONE Forsworn? why does it seem that Oromis resents Galby so much for depriving him of the power he once had? - is saying that we should just ignore the (alleged) atrocities this one dragon committed in war and let him live and even Ascend, while he wrote his "heroes" murdering a man and an arguably innocent dragon for their (alleged) atrocities.

Here's the actual article if you wish to peruse.

https://gamerant.com/eragon-author-christopher-paolini-skyrim-paarthurnax-debate/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3xslxljhONEiR3lgFkaxoCDWiCdp1BMSKmis1xhiJxe6GwCq8fR3_kpp0

It pictures the tweet, goes into Paarthunax's past and role in the game a little bit, discusses the merits of killing him versus keeping him alive, but has a distinct lack of information as to why Paolini feels this way, other than a token "oh, he wrote a story about dragons so his perspective may be skewed". 

Comments

[epistler]

Ugh, those hacks will try to spin anything into an entire article just to add more content.
And you're right; Paolini is in no position to throw in his two cents on the value of dragons (or lives in general given how cheaply he handles death) or villain redemption arcs. It would be just peachy if people stopped treating his opinions like they're the least bit important or authoritative.

[ultimate_cheetah]

In To Sleep in a Sea of Stars, Trig literally burns a bunch of Jellies before they can hatch (it's really weird that this has happened twice in his books). Even if they were getting regrown into a new body, they didn't get the chance to commit shit.

[ignoresandra]

I think it's worth noting that Paolini's comment here comes years after the publishing of Inheritance. A person's opinions and perspective can change over time.

Ultimately though I think what might be happening here are two things.

1) Paarthunax is being presented in the semi-competent way Bethesda does things so his story speaks to Paolini more than the one he wrote.

2) Killing Paarthunax locks the player out of what sounds like a great deal of power. It's possible to confuse someone doing something good for you with that someone "deserving" redemption.

I don't play Skyrim. My two cents are that Paarthunax should be spared because he's making an effort to atone. That effort may be insufficient, but he's trying. If we killed everyone because they did something bad in the past, there wouldn't be any people left. Perhaps my opinion might change if I had specific evidence of Paarthunax's actions, but I don't.

I'm sure y'all can see the parallels with Galbatorix and particularly Shruikan.

[epistler]

I think it's worth noting that Paolini's comment here comes years after the publishing of Inheritance. A person's opinions and perspective can change over time.

True, though in his case sadly the only change I've noticed is that he seems to have become increasingly bitter and right wing.

I've played Skyrim many, many times and I have never once opted to kill Paarthunax. He's far too likeable (and quite frankly the character whinily insisting that you kill him is far too obnoxious and by this point you're likely already completely sick of being ordered around by her).

Fortunately there's an easily available mod where you can finally put her in her place and continue getting quests from her faction without having to betray and murder one of your most important allies.

[dryaddryagain]

"oh, he wrote a story about dragons so his perspective may be skewed".

Pretty silly, considering the Shruikan problem alone. I've also seen a fan's tweet that they had a hard time killing dragons in Skyrim because of Inheritance and Paolini respond with how much he gets into it himself.

I've seen a couple of headlines around with Paolini's name, probably a publicity team trying to stir up interest and recognition more than anything. I think a NYT one was "He wanted a job with dragons, so he created one". C'mon NYT. He did not create the job of author who writes about dragons.

killing Paarthurnax locks the Dragonborn out of receiving the Radiant quests that point towards unclaimed Word Walls, and given that Dragon Shouts in Skyrim play a major role in combat, siding with Paarthurnax is the most valuable choice from a pure gameplay perspective. Ultimately, fans hope that Bethesda will introduce more layered choices in the next Elder Scrolls title, which is currently in early development.

I only played a little Skyrim back around its release, and I remember trying to role play as more lawful-good and avoiding quests that aided the demon things. If players want to role play and make choices that make the game more challenging, power to them. Even if they choose to role play someone who is bad and should feel bad, it's their playthrough. If they take bits of lore and expand on that in their heads so that Paarthurnax must be brought to justice, that's cool too.

Neither Galby nor Shruikan got the chance to even try to atone for whatever sins they committed.

It could be argued that Galby atoned through running a safe empire and maybe? was still trying to expose the eggs to potential partners. Binding Murtagh and Thorn doesn't support me there though. I'm hung up on the idea that Shruikan could have been an awesome secret partner to the other pairs, particularly the idea that he could have been the one to send away Saphira's egg so he wouldn't be forced to mate with her.

why did that one guy decide to turn himself into a nuclear bomb in the EGG HOUSE (thus killing the dragon eggs that didn't get chosen to go in the stupid vault) which also killed a whole bunch of Riders and only ONE Forsworn?

EGG-BREAKER. This is Paolini working backward from his assumptions instead of developing them. It is preferable that baby dragons trapped in their eggs be destroyed instead of fall into the hands of the foresworn! Because Evil! Nevermind that the eggs would still only hatch for the people they chose, or that 13 dragons were also rebelling against the Riders. The Good Guys thought it was worth committing an atrocity just to take out ONE guy! That shows how evil that one guy must be!

[ultimate_cheetah]

This is Paolini working backward from his assumptions instead of developing them.

I agree, although I think Paolini probably thought that all the dragon eggs made it into the vault.

He needed Vronguard to be a wasteland, but also needed most of the Foresworn to have survived. Therefore, he had the Riders concoct a plan where they wouldn't inform their side of the incoming nuclear explosion, or even place wards on them, for no good reason at all.

[epistler]

I think a NYT one was "He wanted a job with dragons, so he created one". C'mon NYT. He did not create the job of author who writes about dragons.

Seriously?! That's even more pathetic than the other article which dubbed him "Prince of Dragons".

Even if they choose to role play someone who is bad and should feel bad, it's their playthrough.

And really, speaking as a gamer, playing as an evil character can be really cathartic as well as fun. We do after all play games so we can do things we can't do in real life, and in some cases wouldn't even if we got the opportunity. I always love doing the Dark Brotherhood quests because, duh, roleplaying as a merciless assassin makes me feel like a badass. In real life I still feel horrible about the time I killed a mouse which was caught in a trap and had to be put out of its misery.

It could be argued that Galby atoned through running a safe empire

I always liked that interpretation. That he led this rebellion which resulted in a horribly destructive war and having won went "I never wanted to rule but I realise now that it's my responsibility to take charge and rebuild the country so that's exactly what he did, only to be met with complete ingratitude.

[ultimate_cheetah]

So Paarthunax commits war crimes and gets to live, whereas the Ra'zac, who eat humans, which they have to do to survive, get killed. And a baby Ra'zac gets killed. And I'm not buying Paolini's argument that killing them was self-defense. While the first one was admittedly about to eat Eragon and Arya, the second one was still in its shell. There was no immediate danger. Eragon literally could have put it to sleep. Self-defense my ass. Try getting that to hold up in court.

[teres]

And Solembum could have just plucked the first away. No need to kill it at all.

[ultimate_cheetah]

Exactly. I can excuse Solembum doing that in a panic, because he was in a lot of pain and his ear was missing, and then he sees Eragon about to get eaten. And it would be dangerous to try to get the Ra'zac away without getting even more injured. Also, he's a cat. They don't tend to do non-lethal pouncing. But the second one has no excuse. Also, it makes no sense why the priests just left. I know it's because of the plot, but if I was guarding a god, I would damn well make sure no harm could come to said god.

[teres]

Good point. Though Angela could still have held him back...

Relatedly, I really love how the Dreamers are much less threatening than the cult of Helgrind on every level, despite ostensibly being a larger threat.

Edit: Also, we see that Angela paid this cult a visit, too. Given how large a part she played in briging the cult in Dras-Leona down, why didn't she roll up the Dreamers single-handedly? Really makes it seem like it wasn't worth the effort to her. What a letdown.

[ultimate_cheetah]

Though Angela could still have held him back...

Then Eragon would've gotten eaten, which, although we may hope for that to be the case, Angela would have wanted to prevent.

Relatedly, I really love how the Dreamers are much less threatening than the cult of Helgrind on every level, despite ostensibly being a larger threat.

Really goes to show how actually doing creepy things can go much farther than just acting creepy.

Also, we see that Angela paid this cult a visit, too. Given how large a part she played in briging the cult in Dras-Leona down, why didn't she roll up the Dreamers single-handedly?

Either she wanted the drama of keeping them around or the monster that they serve is too powerful.

[minionnumber2]

No no you don't understand it's endearing when dragons eat people and terrible when icky bug people do it.

[epistler]

Because ugly = evil and dragons are all kewl and sparkly!!

[ultimate_cheetah]

Because dragons tongue elf and Sue ass. This is Paolini's protagonist-centered morality in action. He picked a designated antagonist race, stuck them in their role, and didn't think about how the actions looked in the greater context of the story.