A Moralist Guide to Skyrim

As Dragonborn in Skyrim, you decide who lives and who dies, who wins and who loses. Here I suggest some moral principles to live by when you are in Skyrim and justify why these moral principles matter, based on the Lore and some common sense.

1. Introduction

Why be a moralist in Skyrim? First reason is: WHY NOT? Since Skyrim is a free-form RPG, you can be pretty much whoever you want (within the confines of the game), so why not? Second, I would argue that making choices in the comfort of your own chair/couch gives you practice for the real world. In Skyrim if you realise your choice is lousy, you can just reload a previous save and redo it. In the real world, there is no save, no reload. Instead of learning lesson the hard way (i.e. learning from your mistakes), the alternative is learn through hypothetical scenarios, through literature and computer games such as Skyrim.

Now I wouldn't be the first to take Skyrim slightly more seriously. One university has already taught a course on Norse mythology using Skyrim[www.gamezone.com] because Skyrim already incorporates a lot of Norse mythology, just in different names (e.g. Sovngarde is kind of like Valhalla).

See also this post from Eric Schwarz on Gamasutra[www.gamasutra.com] on the limitation of the morality system in Skyrim. Basically I agree with Schwarz: the game itself allows only a handful of handcrafted changes as a result of your morality, so it seems like what you do doesn't really matter. However, considering that real world acts also have opaque outcomes (e.g. did the money you donate to the charity REALLY get to people in need? Did your vote for/against so-and-so in the election really matter?), I'd say this is not just a problem for this game.

2. Principles to Live (and Die) by

Principle of Self-Defense: only kill when your life is in threat

Now this principle is obvious in the real world, but it isn't obvious in Skyrim. Mainly because the game sets certain NPCs to be hostile (e.g. Bandits, Falmers), so murdering them in cold blood wouldn't count as murder in the Stats section. But just because the game doesn't count it as murder, should you, say, kill a bandit sleeping or fleeing from combat begging for mercy? As a moralist I'd say NO.

One implication of accepting this principle is that stealth infiltration is the default method of exploring. Because plenty of dungeon NPCs are non-hostile until they detect you, they aren't threatening your life as long as you are in stealth mode, so there is no reason to kill them other than for their souls and/or inventory. In other words, for a moralist there is no good reason to kill them at all when in stealth mode and undetected. Unless of course, you are clumsily detected and you have to defend yourself.

You many say: isn't this principle stupid? Because you know for a fact that those hostile NPCs like Bandits, Necromancers or Falmers are hostile, you are just preempting them from taking your life. What I would say is that, in most if not all cases of dungeon diving, YOU are the aggressor, NOT the "hostile" NPCs.

One example is Embershard Mine, a Bandit dungeon likely to encounter early in the game. This one bandit is alone outside the mine warning you not to approach the mine. Now if you INSIST on entering the mine, wouldn't YOU be the tresspassor? Skyrim is obviously big enough for everyone to co-exist, and if you INSIST on tresspassing, shouldn't THEY be fully entitled to evict you by force? And then when you enter the mine, you realise they are pretty much harmless: they mine the ores in the mine for a living. They are threatening no one.


Same goes with the Falmers. Many Falmers dungeons are designed to be self-contained: they have skeevers and mushrooms fenced off, obviously for harvesting, then they have beds for sleeping. Again like the bandits minding their own business, Falmers in these dungeons are minding their own business. Then what reason do YOU have to come in their home and start slaughtering them? NONE WHATSOEVER for a moralist! Just because they look different or non-verbal doesn't mean you have a right to kill them.

Another example: some quests say giants are harassing travellers and they deserve to die. Now it just doesn't make sense: giants are basically the LEAST threatening "hostile" NPCs in the game. They wave their arms to warn you off great many times before they attack. So how can these gentle giants be threatening to travellers? Unless the travellers are deliberately provocative, then it is their own fault that they got clubbed to death!


Of course there are exceptions: in some Animal, Bandit, Falmer, Forsworn, Necromancer or Vampire dungeon, you see prisoners or corpses that suggested they enslaved or murdered other people. And there are quests from the Companions or Dawnguards saying that such-and-such Vampires and Falmers from so-and-so dungeons are harassing travellers and/or kidnapping people. I would suggest using your judgement in these cases: does justice demand that they pay for their murders? Treat every case individually, don't class them all as "they are bandits/falmers/necromancers/vampires and therefore they deserve to die". Look at the evidence, then decide.

In cases where the "hostile" NPCs don't deserves to all die, but a quest asks you to clear an area, I suggest killing ONLY the dungeon boss just so to finish that quest off. This is a gameplay compromise because you don't have the option to quit a quest.

The Undeads and daedras are IMO a completely different category. They are merely tools of some greater evil, and that is fair game. In principle they don't die: daedras got banished, and you can't kill undead that is already dead. I'd say you are doing a service to Skyrim by destroying them all.



Principle of Defend-Others: kill only those threatening others

This principle provides the main motivation to do the many quest lines. Obviously as Dragonborn you are tough enough to survive on your own. As you gain levels and equipments, you basically becomes a superman where pretty much NOTHING can hurt you. The self-defense principle is pretty inapplicable as you march towards the skill and level cap. Then Defend-Others principle compells you to actually kill Alduin and protect others rather than wander Skyrim for your own selfish sake.

3. Alduin and Dragons

Alduin is the default antagonist in Skyrim. He is threatening the world so the principle of Self-Defense and Defend-Others require you stop him. However in many cases, there is no reason to slaughter ALL dragons.

Paarthurnax is one example: he helps the Dragonborn to defeat Alduin, and he is by default non-hostile. So what reason is there to kill him? The Blades of course task you to kill it, while the Greybeards say you shouldn't. In this case the self-defense and defend-other principle both say you shouldn't kill Paathurnax. Let him be.


There are also random dragons you encounter. Some are immediately hostile, so the choice is easy. But some are just flying around not attacking anyone. Or they are just sleeping on buildings and/or word-walls. In these cases you should just let them be (but beware that they may turn hostile eventually rather than flying away). In case of dragon guarding word-wall, just sneak in and/or use invisbility to get the shout, then back away immediately so as to not turn them hostile.

4. Legion or Stormcloaks?

This is a tough one, a decision for a long time playing as a moralist I just can't make because both sides have their faults. Gameplay wise it is best to leave this questline for the last so you wouldn't be missing much if you do this last.

Pros for the Legion/Cons against Stormcloaks

• Legion is not racist. Stormcloaks, in partcular Ulfric, treat the "lesser" races like the Argonians, Dark Elves and khajiits badly. You can see this in Windhelm, where these "lesser" races are actively shunned and Nords are taken to be superior. On the other hand, the Legion openly welcomes other races.
• Ulfric, the leader of Stormcloaks, is compromised. The intelligence from the Thalmor embassy suggests he sold out the Empire when he was himself a Legionnaire just to save his own skin, and Thalmors are primed to use this information to blackmail him. It is an open question whether the Thalmors can successfully blackmail him, but the possbility is there. There is no such worry with the Legion leadership in Skyrim.
  
  Other NPCs also suggest in conversation that Ulfric isn't a noble hero standing up for Skyrim, he just want power for himself. Because he didn't have to kill the previous High King, the previous High King already holds Ulfric in high regard and would readily listen to him.

Cons against the Legion/Pros for Stormcloaks

• The Legion is repressing religion. One major bone of contention is that Talos, a deity in the game, is being suppressed by the Legion and the Empire because of a treaty with Aldermi Dominion, while Stormcloaks openly worship Talos. Aldermi Dominion itself is a racist empire that advocates the superiority of elves over other races, and because of the treaty they signed with the Empire, they have free rein to prosecute Talos worshippers in Skyrim. THIS is a pretty good reason for the Stoamcloaks to rebel against the Empire, regardless of whether Ulfic is a SOB.
  
• The Stormcloaks aren't sexist. This is a subtle point: Stormcloaks soldiers are men AND women, but the Legions, with the glaring exception of Rikke, are men only.
  
• The Legion tried to kill an innocent you! You start the game being an innocent caught in a raid. They weren't interested in the facts, they just kill anyone caught alongside Ulfric.

In the end, I think the Legion is the lesser of two evils, because the repression of religion can be undone if the Empire becomes strong enough to resist the Thalmors, i.e. have Skyrim firmly in its control. Ulfric, if he captured Skyrim, may be strong enough to conquer the whole Empire as well, and that would be bad for any race other than Nords. Stalmate isn't better eiither (i.e. ignore this questline) because you get the worst of both worlds.

5. The Companions

The biggest moral challenge is what to do with being a werewolf. The Silver Hands think werewolves are a blight to this world, which is not entirely untrue, because the werewolf form is a blesssing/curse that encourages killing (only by killing and eating corpse will you gain power). The Companions are also pretty much blackmailing you to become a werewolf in order to advance the quest line.


So IMO the right thing to do is either leave the Companions questline unresolved, or just do the least killing in order to resolve this questline for completeness sake.

The radiant random quests, on the other hand, are less problematic for a moralist because the principles of self-defense and defend-others can and do apply. Save the kidnap victim. Kill the beast attacking home. Don't kill random dragons. And so on.

6. Thieves Guild

Thieving in Skyrim is an interesting pursuit. As a gameplay fact, stealing from NPCs do not deprive them their lives or even material comfort. Many items in NPCs' house respawn over time, magically. Unlike in the real world, NPCs don't have to pay extra to replace stolen items. So you can argue that, unlike stealing in real world, stealing in Skyrim is a victimless crime that only has nominal impact and therefore fair game. Thieves Guild in particular do not condone killing, so that makes thieving even more victimless.

Still, stealing is stealing and NPCs will go hostile if you are caught, so the most moral stance would be to never steal, and never join the Thieves Guild. The least bad option is to do just enough to complete the Thieves Guild questline just to see what you would be missing if you never joined.

The deal Noctunal offers you as a Nightingale is pretty crap anyway: you are already Dragonborn, you don't need the crappy power she grants you! And the price you have to pay for those crappy power is just too much (i.e. your eternal soul). You don't need to be a moralist to reject the deal she is offering.

7. College of Winterhold

This questline is pretty straightforward morally, because you see undead most of the time. The final decision to "donate" the Eye of Magnus to the Psijic Monks is pretty much taken out of your hands, and it is not clear whether it is the right thing to do. Such powerful artifact should be studied transparently and openly, just like how science is conducted (ideally) to avoid abuses, not hoarded by one faction or another.

One branch of magic that is very helpful to a moralist is illusion magic. You can avoid fights by either pacification or invisibility. If you focus on illusion, after you get master of the mind perk you can walk almost anywhere without getting into fights. So getting entry to the College for the master level trainer in illusion is very helpful.

8. The Dark Brotherhood

This questline is interesting because it starts you off with a moral dilemma: to kill Grelod the "kind" or not? While the self-defense principle doesn't apply, the defend-others principle MAY. I said MAY because it is not clear if killing Grelod necessarily protects the orphans. Her assistant, Constance, is already doing her best to "moderate" Grelod's unloving behaviour towards the orphans. So Grelod is not immediately threatening the children. It is also an open question as to whether the orphans will necessarily turn out bad when they grow up, simply because Constance is there to love the children. The Aretino boy who gave you the quest is a bit of a brat in any case: just because Grelod is cruel, it doesn't mean she deserves to die.


In the real world, there are government agencies, newspapers and/or media to complain to so that these kind of abusive behaviour can be stopped. Skyrim, being a game, doesn't have this kind of option. So in the game it boils down to a simplistic binary choice of killing or sparing Grelod. The moral choice is to spare Grelod and ignore the quest completely.

If you actually kill Grelod, you will be presented with another dilemma: to join the Dark Brotherhood or not? Joining the Dark Brotherhood requires you to kill one or more defenseless person(s). None of the potential victims you are asked to kill is obviously innocent, but none of them obviously deserves to die either. And the Dark Brotherhood, at its very core, is a contract killing organisation. People pay money to get someone killed. No one will ask whether the victim deserves it or not (unlike Morag Tong). So the moral choice is to not kill any of the three potential victims and kill Astrid instead, to protect others.

If you choose to kill Astrid, then you will be given the Destroy the Dark Brotherhood quest, which tasks you to kill almost ALL the Dark Brotherhood members in Skyrim. It can be justified by the Defend-Others principle.


If you just want to complete the questline just to see how it goes, I would suggest killing the least amount of NPCs just to get to the end of the questline. That means targeted assassinations, not frontal assaults. Then you will see the true nature of the Dark Brotherhood.

One argument against painting the Dark Brotherhood as bad is that they are merely an instrument to other people's ill will: you are helping others kill their enemies, so the fault lies in others, not you. The problem with this argument is that Dark Brotherhood don't ask question. They take money, and then they kill. The question of whether the victim deserves to die never comes into play. So by doing contract killing, you become a cold-blooded murderer. There is simply no way to get around that, even if your gameplay stats say otherwise.

9. Vampires or Dawnguards?

Vampirism is again an interesting case. If you are a vampire, you can see that you do not necessarily become a homicidial maniac. You just need to feed, and that can be done without real harm done to the victim. The main moral problem is that you have to feed on humans against their will (NPCs will turn hostile if they catch you feeding). Now if you are prepared to never feed on human, you can still survive but NPCs will attack you on sight. In a sense these NPCs have a prejudice against a harmless non-feeding vampire. So it is not obvious whether being a vampire is moral or not.

Many vampire dungeons, however, show signs of coercion and/or murder, so in these cases it seems justified to kill vampires to protect others. There are, however, vampires who are not aggressive (e.g. Hert in Half-Moon Mill) and therefore do not deserve to die.

Being a vampire lord, however, initially requires you to join the Volkihar clan. Harkon's motive is to dominate and exploit others, so the moral choice is obviously not to join Harkon (don't worry, if you side with the Dawnguards to the end, you still have a choice to become a vampire lord through Serana).

10. The First Dragonborn

The First Dragonborn questline is pretty straightforward morally. The only wrinkle is with Served Cold quest. You are mixed up in some old family feud, it is not clear whether people involved deserve to die. For selfish reason of course there is reason to solve this quest, because you get a house as a reward (which is absolutely essential gameplay wise, in order to store all your crap while in Solstheim). Ideally you should just stay out of this.

11. Daedric Quests

Most (but not all) Daedric Quests require you to murder someone in cold-blood, so the answer is pretty obvious. Some are darkly humourous, so you may want to follow these through for completeness sake only. The rewards you get for doing dark deeds are not that impressive in any case, unlike the Dark Brotherhood questline.

[HISTORY PROF OF PAIN]

You lost me at "spare Grelod."

[drunken.dx]

I recently started Skyrim again, and I'm amazed how much little things and subtle hints author misses.

I mean, idea behind this guide is EXCELLENT, but execution? Total fail.

that's why I wrote those walls of text. (and that's not even scratching surface of problems with this guide)

[Cookie]

Does almost everyone, though? I used to watch a lot of blind Skyrim playthroughs on Twitch, and most people weren't just murdering every traveler they saw. You are right that the "logic" in this guide is pretty far from logical, though.

[pannacotty]

I love the spirit behind this guide bc almost everyone acts like a bastard maniac in Skyrim playthroughs, but the logic is contradictory and subpar in some parts!

[Bobious]

Reminds me a bit of SAVE THE SLIMES!!

[Malford]

Everyone dies

[Cookie]

Just a reminder for everyone coming here in the future, this guide author thinks that bandits are just peacefully living their lives in caves and trading for food using septims they definitely didn't wait to count out after someone started running so they could stab them in the back.

[SacredDatura]

An interesting take on Skyrim! Very fun read, glad I stumbled onto this. Though I still have some doubts that playing Skyrim while going out of the way to not kill would actually be fun.

[Cookie]

Dang drunken. You drove the point home about the lore in ways I didn't even think about when I first commented on this years ago, but the rest of that long response was very well put too.

[T.K.]

Moralist guide 101: Kill them all. Just slay them all.