To Kill a Dragon or Not to Kill a Dragon
Dec. 7th, 2023 10:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mara_dienne459 posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
antishurtugal_rebornTime 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".
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".
no subject
Date: 2023-12-10 06:52 am (UTC)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.