Canon results of the civil war?

[Minor Edits]

I imagine that's why people are resistant to a Dragon Break, they consider it too powerful of a concept, which is then considered "cheap". But it's a part of TES, we have parameters for when it might occur, and they're satisfied by Skyrim, so let's accept that and move on.

If you saw someone lying in an alleyway with a small, bloody hole in their chest, you would think "gun". You wouldn't think, "Nah, guns are a cheap way to kill someone. Must have been a bow and arrow."

Skyrim can't be both independent and not, Talos can't be both banned and legal, etc. So what intervening events could occur that would reconcile these discrepancies? Again, exploring that is the only real productive conversation to be had on this topic.

How does a choice matter if it has no effect? Thanks to a dragonbreak it would be canonized I killed Ulfric, but how does it matter if he ended up being alive afterwards due to dragonbreak screwing up timelines? I would definitely not feel like my choices were canonized. Does it really count as having happened if it only happened in some dead-end pocket timeline which does not affect anything? I don't think so.
The final results cannot be affected by dragonbreak. Once it ends, things are set, and they are set the way they are, no compromises.
As for Mede, why can't lore just say he was assassinated? Maybe it could even say that it is "rumored" to have been DB.
As for your analogy with guns and arrows, I don't think it is accurate, because it is observation of what already happened, not a choice of what should be chosen as right approach. I would compare it more to cutting a tomato with a titanium katana instead of a kitchen knife. As I said, it is completely possible for both Tulius and Ulfric to die, you don't need to be twisting timelines for both events to occur.

The effect would be the Dragon Break, and that's a pretty powerful one to have. You can't stop Ulfric's rise to power in Skyrim, but you can provide an equal and opposite alternative to it. Your choice is canon, so is the choice of Stormcloak supporters.

The "pocket" timelines wouldn't dead-end, but reconverge, and I think this would likely happen once circumstances had rendered them (or soon would render them) substantially similar.

"No compromises" is exactly the goal of a Dragon Break as a story-telling device. The lore simply saying that Mede was assassinated, without saying when, where, or by who, would be a compromise. That is equivalent to ignoring/glossing over the issue, not actually addressing it. That's why your kitchen knife is unable to deal with this particular tomato.

The point of the body-in-the-alleyway metaphor is that you're letting your personal distaste for an aspect of the TES-verse influence your reasoning. It doesn't strike me as a rational way of approaching the matter.

[Snail's Pace]

It's an aspect of the TES universe that was invented to resolve multiple endings for a game that came out 18 years ago, and that they wrote at a time when they probably weren't looking ahead to the next game, because the notion that there would be a next game probably seemed like a pipe dream to Bethesda at that time. Multiple endings? Why not?

It is rational to include personal distaste in approaching the matter. If a large portion of the fan base would be alienated by using a Dragonbreak again, then Bethesda has a reason to avoid going that route. A few people might think it's cool, but probably far more would be alienated by it. Look at how much mistrust exists already toward Bethesda because of one (necessary) use of a Dragonbreak. Do you really think they want to repeat that when it isn't necessary?

I think they plotted Skyrim more carefully than they are getting credit for, and the next game will show that they did not include the divergent endings recklessly. It may not be the scenario I posted before - that one might actually be too obvious - but I think they will tie together the loose ends of Skyrim in a way that shows they were setting up the next game all along.

[Minor Edits]

I, for one, have no problem with a Dragon Break occurring. I don't think the active haters of Dragon Breaks constitute a "large portion" of the fanbase. I think the concerns of a small but vocal minority are being exaggerated here (as often happens on the internet), and that the majority of the fanbase would be fine with it. And see my previous comments on necessity. They can either essentially ignore the problem, or go with a Dragon Break.

They started setting the stage for Skyrim during Morrowind, so I have no doubt they've planned for the future. But Morrowind was also the game where the Dragon Break was introduced, so I don't buy that they never planned on utilizing it again to reconcile contradictory player choices.

[CBR JGWRR]

Consider Ulfric's aim - re-instatement of Talos.

Consider Tullius' aim - to retain Skyrim in the Empire.


The logical solution is the Empire and Skyrim put the Dragonborn in charge, re-instate Talos and give the Thalmor the traditional sex and travel advice. They don't like it? They then have to face a being closer to god than man capable of wiping them out with one sentence.

The Thalmor have a V2 rocket. The Dragonborn skips the nuke stage straight to a full blown Death Star.

[Snail's Pace]

I don't think the active haters of Dragon Breaks constitute a "large portion" of the fanbase. I think the concerns of a small but vocal minority are being exaggerated here (as often happens on the internet), and that the majority of the fanbase would be fine with it.

You may be right about that, I don't know. Neither of us knows. Regardless, I shouldn't have mentioned that, whether true or not, because I wouldn't want Bethesda to write a game that simply panders to the prevailing sentiment.

And I actually could be fine with a Dragonbreak, if it was done well. I'm not sure what that would mean, but I suppose it is possible. Something like the Warp in the West? No. Clumsy, deus ex machina. It would need to have precedence, so that players could say "Ah, I should have seen that coming, because it was hinted at all along."

And see my previous comments on necessity. They can either essentially ignore the problem, or go with a Dragon Break.

I read them and remain unconvinced. Where you see necessity, I see false either/or propositions.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter, as it is just speculation. It can be fun to speculate, but I'm afraid this is going to turn into an an argument (about speculation), and arguing on the internet ranks somewhere near stabbing myself in the hand with an icepick on my list of favorite things to do. In short, I'm done with the topic of Dragonbreaks.

Spoiler:

Yes, I have stabbed myself in the hand with an icepick, once.

[Minor Edits]

So your hangup, essentially, is that the Dragon Break is too obvious? You dont want Bethesda to take this route because many fans have been presuming they will do so for almost three years?

I fail to see how the statement is false, provided you take a broad interpretation of what I mean by "essentially ignore."

[Snail's Pace]

The only solution I said might be too obvious was the scenario I posted previously.

[Imbalance]

I think you're both exaggerating, in that the vast majority of TES fans have no idea what you are arguing about, and just want to play video games. If you want to narrow down the cross-section to just the avid lore fans, I would still bet that fewer than half really care that much about how one game ties up the loose ends of its predecessors.

The Daggerfall Dragon Break was a convenient device for background information. If they really want to start hanging heir hat on it for every chapter, so be it. If they come up with some other metaphysical MacGuffin, so what? Does it hamper your enjoyment of the game at hand? I feel bad for you if that's the case. Personally, I'm more upset over the fact that after all these years of destroying god-like beings and gaining strength enough to carry a truckload of gear and still swing an axe, I still have to use magic or a key to get past a simple wooden door.

[Bulvik]

You focus too much on what "happens" and too little on what remains. You are satisfied with "having done" something and in the end of the day don't care if it gets undone by dragonbreak. I do care. I don't kill Ulfric because I like seeing his blood on my sword, I kill him because I don't want him to win and rule, and if you canonize the act of the killing but not him remaining dead, I do NOT feel like my choice was respected.

Only details need to be left obscure. Mede would be killed at the specified time, in the specified place, specifically in a ship on his visit to Skyrim, as really happened. Leaving the killer anonymous makes perfect sense, as there are no living witnesses and I don't remember leaving a note. The one who ordered the assassination could be revealed. People will not care about minor events. Nobody will complain about lack of in-game books describing how Skald lost Jarlship. Actually, including informations from both timelines would create huge confusion among new players, and even old players who aren't that much into lore to know dragonbreaks.

There's a tool for every job and a job for every tool. Using dragonbreak too often will have negative effects on the story. The storyline would look comical if every other major event was resolved that way and nothing would need to make sense anymore. A small bunch of bandits could conquer Tamriel by attacking every settlement with full force ten times within one night, then take the protected cities a week before with their newly acquired armies. Such things are unlikely, but if you make dragonbreak a regular event, similar silly things are statistically bound to happen sooner or later.
I am not categorically against it, I just think it should be only an ace in the sleeve to be pulled to fix the unfixable, but Skyrim is FAR from unfixable. I really don't understand why you think it is necessary. Keep in mind the next game is not taking place in Skyrim, until we return there, we don't need details, and once we do, it will be long enough past to make them dusty and unimportant.

[Mattbott]

the Thalmor will probably write the official version of history, and by the time they are gone perhaps so much time will have elapsed no accurate account of the civil war will be possible. Might be an amusing lore book in TES6 - the Skyrim Civil War: the fight nobody won

[Nord85]

the Thalmor will probably write the official version of history, and by the time they are gone perhaps so much time will have elapsed no accurate account of the civil war will be possible.

That's actually what I dread. It would be a return to the annoying obscureness Morrowind's backstory had. Everyone had their own versions of what really happened to e.g. Nerevar at the Red Mountain and the player couldn't know which account was the truest one. Not even at the very end, IIRC, did the objective, clear truth get revealed. That might have been fine with that one particular detail, but it was the same with every single thing. That isn't intriguing anymore, but just confusing and boring.

There is a point where mysteries get so obscured and convoluted that one can't really be bothered to figure it out anymore, especially as there's nothing to tell if one's guess is right. Morrowind went far past that point. I certainly hope that doesn't happen in TES VI. I would be fine with whatever outcome of the Civil War, even if it didn't take all player choices in account. The main thing is that there is at least a single account which accurately represents the canonical truth, and it can be proven to be just that. So, the last thing I would like to see would the Thalmor having warped history unrecognizable in a Stalinist style.

[Mattbott]

bear in mind that they made a conscious decision to leave the story in it's current state, so perhaps TES6 will follow on quite quickly after the events of this one, or at least we might expect some resolution either in a novel or a release from the devs themselves

[Minor Edits]

I think you're both exaggerating, in that the vast majority of TES fans have no idea what you are arguing about, and just want to play video games.

That was implicit in what I wrote.

[Lorenzo]

Its really good to here this interesting story about cannon results of the civil war,, this kind of weapon use by this war is really powerful,


__________________________________________
bruce lee nunchucks

[LordAshton]

I would say the winner will become unimportant with the next great war coming up. In the next game, the last games seem to not matter. Either it will end up with the last one or a dragonbreak will happen.

[Dark Spark]

Frankly, the matter of whomever is sitting on the High King's throne hardly warrants a Dragon Break. A Dragon Break over the rule of Skyrim is like starting a nuclear war just because your country didn't medal in the Olympics.

Its really good to here this interesting story about cannon results of the civil war,, this kind of weapon use by this war is really powerful,

You misspelled that. 'Canon' refers to the story as it will be set down and referred to in subsequent works. 'Cannons', of course, are the arm pieces in a suit of plate armor...

...what, you were expecting something else?

[Pilaf The Defiler]

People who obsess over the civil war and see it as a main focal point of Skyrim's narrative are missing the point.

Whether you end up sending Rikke or Ulfric to Sovngarde, they'll both express their regrets about their actions in life when spoken to. The spilling of Nord blood on Nord soil - despite the uniforms they wear - helped to deactivate the Snow Tower, and to strengthen the World Eater.* You could also factor the Thalmor into this but those reasons alone serve to illustrate the war as a mistake and a lesser plot point.

Skyrim was about the same thing all the other games have been about. A prisoner rises from obscurity to save the world. The immediate threat to the world in this instance was Alduin. Not Ulfric. Not Tullius. The ancient dark god in the form of a great black dragon who intends to either consume or enslave the world. That's what this game was about. The civil war was a red herring. It'll be about as relevant in future games as whether the Nerevarine chose House Hlaalu or House Telvanni, which is to say not at all.

*Alduin: "I've killed you once, now your souls will feed my power." "This World is mine." "(I) Will devour your souls in Sovngarde"

[LordAshton]

Frankly, the matter of whomever is sitting on the High King's throne hardly warrants a Dragon Break. A Dragon Break over the rule of Skyrim is like starting a nuclear war just because your country didn't medal in the Olympics.

It was a joke.

[Sirocco]

The details of the rebellion is not really interesting. The only obvious thing about it is that the empire will crumble not just because of the rebellion but because of the infights, the other provinces will see they can break free from the chains of the empire. Hammerfell is already free, Skyrim next and followed by every other region.
The thalmor are possible antagonists in a new TES game (dont give me [&@%!], that there will be no next elder scroll game) so they will obviously survive the events of skyrim, especially since noting threatens their power.
A good story for the next TES game would play in valenwood where you would liberate it from the thalmor, with an expansion that takes you to summerset isle to siege and destroy the thalmor. Ofc the empire would be dead by then or annexed by the thalmor because who cares about treaties really.
Anyway, the empire is doomed. With the white gold concordate it lost its moral standing. With the thalmor in control, hammerfell free, skyrim in rebelion, they have no chance to strenghten themselves. The empires past determines its doom.

[Leckan]

Perhaps "season unending" will be the end of the war? Maybe even the Dragonborn becomes the new emperor and Ulfric stops the civil war out of Nordic honor?

[VirtualWeasel]

It's kind of implied in-game that the conflict wasn't really "won" by anyone. It was more of a lukewarm stalemate, that lightly favored one side.

[spin]

I think in later history it won't be viewed as a huge deal, but as a minor political disagreement that didn't last all that long and so doesn't impact the world to a great degree regardless of which side wins. In future games, at most they'll reference the Stormcloak uprising, but won't say much about who wins or what exactly happened in it.

[Minor Edits]

Arngeir says that the era is ending when u first meet him. We're heading into the Fifth Era. Perhaps MK's Landfall will play a role.

[Pilaf The Defiler]

I hope so, but I really doubt that's the direction Bethesda will take the series in. It's pretty well established at this point as a DnD style fantasy universe. Those deeper metaphysical and techno-magickal things are a big part of the appeal of the lore, but as far as making and selling games based on those concepts, that doesn't really fit the brand they've established, not does it?

Edit: Says Pilaf, the guy with the MK story sig and avatar, I know.

[Imbalance]

Lol, took me a minute. I'm like, "what does either one of those have to do with Mage Knight?"