Lore talk:Dark Brotherhood

Archives
Archive 1: Feb 2008 - Aug 2012

Events of Skyrim

As it stands now, the article assumes that the Dragonborn joined and helped the Dark Brotherhood: this however, is a matter of choice, and not canon. For example, I personally destroyed it. As the articles should present an objective and non-selective look at canon, I believe it shouldn't be stated so matter of factly. --Lee 95 17:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to mention this and I agree completely. There are two paths. There has been no confirmation on which one will actually be considered canon. Yet the rebuilding of the dark brotherhood is on the lore page. Honestly, I think that it should be removed. Mikerobmma 00:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We assume on the lore pages that the player pursues quests, but can't presume how the player made choices until Bethesda decides for us in subsequent games. I removed the offending portions in the history section. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You cant kill the girl, so the dark brotherhood survives and is rebuilt (logical assumption). The Silencer 03:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is more detail below. Babette and Cicero are not present when you destroy the brotherhood or, Babette and Nazim and/or Cicero survive the main quest. If there are survivors then surely the brotherhood survives. The Silencer 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we can infer, without further indication, that the Dark Brotherhood will be rebuilt because some of its members survive even if the player chooses to "destroy" it. That some members survive an organization's dismantlement doesn't necessarily mean the organization will be rebuilt. Real-world analogy: the American Civil War. Plenty of southerners survived the Confederacy, yet the "South shall rise again" prophecy hasn't quite panned out.

I agree with the notion that we should try to find an eloquent, reasonable way to include any facts which are uncontroverted because they are evident in both branches of the quest line. We just have to be careful about what inferences we can reasonably make based on those facts. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 22:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) I agree. My reasoning is that the brotherhood or a renamed version will be in the next game, but until that is confirmed its only speculation, which can be inferred but not stated on the page. I think I put the claim that the brotherhood has been wiped out may be premature or words to that effect after a bit about cicero surviving, on the page but its gone. The Silencer 22:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The article still improperly includes game details that are not canon. There are 2 possible fates for the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim and if the one to destroy the Dark Brotherhood is taken there is no raid. The Dovahkiin single handedly (or with a follower) kills all of the members of the Dark Brotherood except Cicero and Babbette. Cicero may or may not be in the Dawnstar Sanctuary and Babette disappears from the game, but even if Cicero is in the Dawnstar Sanctuary he doesn't move there as he never was at the Falkreath Sanctuary to begin with. Further, the Emperor is not assassinated by the Dark Brotherhood if this path is taken. Because the two paths are so divergent from one another in terms of results I don't think any content about the Dark Brotherhood from the game can be included until Bethesda takes a position on which is canon.--DagmarH 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it was still stating things improperly. I think I've taken care of it now. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 06:15, 13 September 2012 (GMT)

It still goes too far into speculation. I know many would like to see game content incorporated into the lore but it goes to far to say anything about the fate of the emperor or the Dark Brotherhood. It only makes things confusing by placing polar alternate possibilities into a lore article. We're simply going to have to wait to see if Bethesda asserts one as canon, either by direct statement or conclusive implication in future content.--DagmarH (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2012 (GMT)

It's common practice to include game events on lore articles. This issue has been discussed to death and is as neutral as it could possibly be at this stage. Removing it outright isn't an option. —Legoless (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2012 (GMT)

"Some reports out of Skyrim claim the Brotherhood was wiped out. Conflicting reports assert that the Brotherhood not only survived, but succeeded in assassinating the reigning Emperor, Titus Mede II." I fail to see the speculation. This is the literal truth, stated plainly. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 19:00, 29 September 2012 (GMT)

There are no reports of the assassination of the Emperor if you don't engage the quest line. It is not canon and it has no place in a lore article. It is not common practice to include game events which never take place if you don't do a side quest unless Bethesda adopts them as canon later on.--DagmarH (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (GMT)

It's common practice on the UESP to presume quests are pursued. Divergent endings to questlines like what we have here present special cases, but if we remain silent on the matter, we will just end up reverting edits for the next half a decade, maybe longer, as new editors tried to imperfectly add Skyrim's game events over and over. So adding the summary discourages that behavior and ensures that they're presented neutrally and accurately. It's an imperfect solution, certainly, but basically necessary and definitely temporary. This is the approach taken all over the lore section right now. For instance, look at Lore:Fourth Era. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 18:15, 1 October 2012 (GMT)

This is one of only two sets of alternate quest lines with a divergent ending. Incorporating other sidquests into the lore is not problematic because we can assume that regardless of whether the Dovahkiin pursues them, there is only one outcome to those quests. The only example on the Fourth Era lore page which comports with what you claim is the entry for Titus Mede II. In other words, it's the exact same issue, and citing to it only underscores the problem. Contrast that to the Stormcloaks/Imperial Legion divergent quests.

You don't see anything in the Fourth Era lore page about the outcome but the rationale you're advocating would advocate the entry that the Stormcloaks may or may not have won the civil war and Skyrim may have independent from the Empire and the Imperial Legion may or may not have put down the Stormcloak Rebellion with Ulfric being slain if people kept on writing those outcomes into lore articles. While the latter would be more attributable as vandalism, the solution shouldn't be any different. I don't know about the funcionality of this website software but on other wiki sites the admins would put restrictions on editorial permissions on the section of the article or the article itself with an appropriate notation. It's not a great solution as it inhibits people from contributing to the article but it's better than having information that is not canon in a lore article.

The purpose of UESP may be to provide accurate and verifiable information, but lore articles are a particular subcategory that have their own set of rules including the exlusion of content that is not canon. If users want accurate reliable information on the possible outcomes they need only go to the UESP articles for the quest line, which is logically where most people would go. Regardless of what you may think about the average intellect of the userbase I can tell you from repeated experience that the userbase does rely on UESP lore articles as support for assertions of what is canon, and they quite often do it blindly without understanding the process that goes into editing the content, e.g. why it is reliable as canon and why it can be questioned and challenged when content is cited that is not canon.

Everytime a user cites to this lore article to support the notion that Titus Mede II is assassinated in Skyrim or even might have been assassinated in Skyrim it undermines the credibility of the UESP, and it's guaranteed to happen.--DagmarH (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2012 (GMT)

(←) "[L]ore articles [...] have their own set of rules including the exlusion of content that is not canon." Please see our lore guidelines page, which outlines what is acceptable on lore articles. If you want content that is strictly canon, play the games or read the source material. Including possible game events on lore articles is a long-standing guideline in the namespace; for example; see Lore:Aundae Clan. It states that members of the clan were killed, as do the other two Morrowind vampire clan articles, even though only two of the three factions can be attacked as part of a questline. By your logic, we should just ignore the events completely. As a compromise, it may be wise to include a note explaining the alternate, conflicting events of Skyrim, but removing them outright from lorespace is not going to happen. —Legoless (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2012 (GMT)

Game events should be described as historical events from the perspective of an anonymous citizen of Tamriel following the latest chronological events of the officially approved TES media. The absence of a statement that explicitly says that lore content should be canon is unnecessary because that is exactly what historical events in the Elder Scrolls are. I already stated that its not problematic citing possible game events. It is problematic setting forth conflicting versions of historical events in a lore article. While it may or may not be a long standing practice to do so, it is not embodied in the guidelines and you've cited nothing to illustrate a tradition of doing so in UESP lore articles. The killing of members of one vampire clan or another that are simply generic vampires do not conflict with one another. Further they are generic as opposed to the being an extremely relevant historical character in the Elder Scrolls Universe such as Titus Mede II. It's comparing apples and oranges.

If the article is going to maintain content that violates the very guidelines you cite it would be prudent to have the article state conspicuously why this is being done and disclaim it as canon notwithstanding the UESP guidelines regarding lore articles. However I don't see why you're so adamant about insisting that it stay. To me it makes sense to remove it and revise footnote 5 which simply refers to events in Skyrim to one that points specifically to the Articles on the two quests for those readers curious about learning more details about the possible outcomes. That is more consistent with the Lore Article on the Aundae Clan than what you're suggesting. --DagmarH (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2012 (GMT)

There are some things that happen, independent of which quest is completed. I summarized them in a section below a while ago (#The Vile Lair). I also fail to see your problem Dagmar, it currently says that there are two possibilities, this concerning an underground organisation that rarely leaves traces of itself in order to confirm the facts in any case. That is why this page is so short compared to other organisations like the mages guild where most people who work for it write a book of some kind. Golden Silence^{Break the Silence} 23:09, 1 October 2012 (GMT)

None of the examples summarized include the assassination of Titus Mede II. The article implies it may have happened which is also not consistent with the UESP guideline of describing it as a historical event from the perspective of an anonymous citizen of Tamriel. There is no proper context that allows for describing the assassination of one of the most important and prominent figures in the Elder Scrolls universe as something that may or may not have happened and attributing it as a description of a historical event. It either happened or it didn't and a description of it as a historical event would characterize it as such.--DagmarH (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2012 (GMT)

I really don't see the problem, DagmarH. So the ending isn't conclusive. Does that mean that we pretend that the events don't exist? What about the Civil War? It could end in Stormcloak victory, Imperial victory, no victory, or one of hundreds of possible endings, due to partial completion or completion of Season Unending. Do we just pretend that it doesn't exist? No, of course not - we just leave it open-ended. Heck, on one of my save profiles, I haven't completed any of the Daedric quests. Does that mean that the Daedric artifacts have never been recovered? Well, why shouldn't it? I haven't recovered the artifact, and I'm sure countless other people haven't. It isn't canon if it hasn't happened with every single person, right? Of course not. Under that (inane) logic, we wouldn't have a lore section, because you can't guarantee that every single gamer has had that exact outcome.

Obviously, we've been operating under the assumption that all quests have been completed, even in cases where that would be impossible (for example, the House quests for Morrowind). If they do not have mutually exclusive endings, then the endings are listed. If they are mutually exclusive, though, then we use whatever facts are guaranteed, report them, and then try to report the possible outcomes in a somewhat vague, open-ended way that doesn't presume one scenario over the other. We don't simply not report on the event, because that would leave huge holes in our Lore, and detract from our Lore section in general.

Again, I really don't see the problem that you are having with this. If you don't like the current phrasing, then just say that. Arguing that we should omit that entire section is pointless and quite frankly ridiculous. • JA^T 01:48, 2 October 2012 (GMT)

The summary treats real-life ambiguity like in-game ambiguity. That seems to be the heart of Dagmar's complaint. But my question is: so what? This is a meaningless distinction in the lore section. Let me unpack the premise of the lore perspective: we essentially are the reporters, the in-game historians assembling these reference materials, summarizing all that can be known of historically noteworthy events based on the accurate and verifiable knowledge about them that can be gleaned from a full analysis of every facet of the officially approved TES media, omitting game-specific details. That is the perspective we must adopt when writing the content sections.

The fact that the questline has alternate endings is a game-specific detail we, the historians, can't claim to know or understand. However, we can say something that's universally agreed upon among us: we've noticed there are unreconciled contradictory accounts regarding recent developments in the Dark Brotherhood. The equally credible "reports" we're collecting present the same times and places different ways, conflicting with each other. It's like Fox News is calling the 2000 US election for George W. Bush, while MSNBC is calling it for Al Gore. We don't have any information on why they disagree, but some reports speaks of things the consumer would want to know. Fox News is saying George W. Bush was so happy he won that he shot Al Gore, MSNBC is saying the victorious Al Gore nodded his head and went to sleep uneventfully. Even though it's being contradicted, George W. shooting Al Gore is an historically noteworthy event worth mentioning. The fact that some of the reports don't comply with that narrative introduces a question of credibility, but it does not really diminish the potential historical significance of the events being discussed therein. We (let's say, CNN) are still going to mention Fox News' claims.

"History", by the way, is the study of past events; it's a word which bears no bias against recent past events, even if it's often perceived that way. There's no cut-off date here; an historical event is an historical event, even if it can't be totally corroborated. It's basically the same approach taken by the in-game historians who wrote The Pocket Guide to the Empire, Third Edition: they knew that their "Current Events" section would quickly be become outdated and would be prone of ambiguity and possible inaccuracy. Two hundred years after their publication, and we're not aware of any Fourth Edition being made. The sections are filled with what was emerging gossip at the end of the Third Era, much of which could not be confirmed. But they still included the recent news that seemed to be historically significant, because, right or wrong, the reader at the time of publication would want to know. And that's basically the mindset that must be adopted here: we're all currently writing a section on the Dark Brotherhood for the Pocket Guide to the Empire, Fourth Edition, which is set to be published in a couple hours. The information we have is all we are going to get. The current event related to the Dark Brotherhood is that some reports are claiming they have killed the Emperor, while conflicting reports state basically the exact opposite, that there is no more Dark Brotherhood. Noteworthy? I say yes every time. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 03:30, 2 October 2012 (GMT)

The attempt to make an analogy to the description of the civil war in Skyrim is completely invalid. Stating that Titus Mede II may have been assassinated is the equivalent of adding in content it the lore article on the civil war that there are conflicting reports as to whether the Imperial Legion suppressed the Stormcloak rebellion with Ulfric Stormcloak dying at the Battle of Windhelm or the Stormcloaks succeeded in securing the independence of Skyrim from the Empire by defeating the remaining forces of the Imperial Legion at the Battle of Solitude. As a historical accounting that makes no sense at all. (There is actually a tag on the article now because of its inclusion of details of conflicting events described in the article.)

The problem with the overall arguments for including an assertion that Titus Mede II may have been assassinated is that it doesn't sound credible from the perspective presented or prescribed by the UESP lore guidelines. If it were someone of less importance in the Elder Scrolls Universe, one might be able to get away with an ambiguous reference to the possiblity of their assassination, but if the Emperor is assassinated that is not something for which the details are going to be hazy as to whether it occured or not, and attempting to describe it as such simply sounds absurd. It would be like saying President John F. Kennedy may or may not have been assassinated days after the event already occured, or that President Ronald Reagan may or may not have been assassinated days after the event. People don't describe events like that in that manner. The Emperor's assassination is going to be something that is going to be quickly known and knowable from the perspective of any anonymous citizen of Tamriel. We know this because it actually happens in the game once the event occurs.

Contrary to what has been posited by some, history does bear bias against current events. When one speaks of describing something from the perspective of being a historical event it means presenting it with enough passage of time and discovery so that a de minimis of certitude can be presented about the the events being described, which is why the analogy of the reporting of events as they unfold before the media is not in keeping with the UESP guideline of describing something as a historical event. If it were otherwise, the guideline would be of little if any use because highly speculative things could be described as long as there was a possibility of inference of the same from the game content. Claiming something is a historically noteworthy event simply begs the question as to whether in fact it is historically noteworthy as opposed to being newsworthy. The attempt to make an analogy to the 2000 US presidential election results is an inappropriate one because they were conflicting descriptions of the same event, not conflicting descriptions as to whether the event ever happened at all. Similarly, with regards to recent events concerning the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim, there are no conflicting reports of what happened, there are literally different things occuring based on player choice. The assassination of the Emperor is not emerging gossip. That kind of assertion is incredulous and there is also no metaphorical Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads that compels us to include content in such manner at this time, only personal preference.

In all likelihood Bethesda is going to adopt one event line over the other just as it will adopt one for the civil war. When it does, that would be the appropriate time to incorporate the content into the article. Trying to present it in this fashion is awkard and lacks credibility from the perspective presented. It also sets forth an problematic precedent. What's to stop someone from doing the same form of description about the conclusion of the civil war in that article if we follow this chain of thought to its conclusion? Are we fine with making an analagous entry into that article?--DagmarH (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2012 (GMT)

(←) I think this conversation has run its course if it's going to continue discussing removing the events of Skyrim from the article due to the branching storyline options. Instead of arguing over this, I'm just going to say the notation on both events being possible is almost definitely staying. There is no point arguing over it, as it's not going to change until later updates to the franchise provide a more conclusive answer. Nothing that can be said at this point will change the current consensus. The only thing really worth discussing is discussing altering the text that is the subject of this discussion to explain the lack of clarity. To be entirely clear however, consensus says that it is saying, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:26, 2 October 2012 (GMT)

Considering that Minor Edits drafted the current lore guidelines, deferring to his interpretation of it may be wise. Lore articles always have to be flexible, even if it means bending the style guide a bit. Like AKB said, a consensus was already reached regarding the events of Skyrim on this article. As was already recommended on User talk:Minor Edits, this debate should be moved to the Community Portal as a change of policy if it is to be continued. —Legoless (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2012 (GMT)

(edit conflict) In that case, I'll put my longer response to Dagmar on the back-burner. But I do want to say that I deserve no deference on the lore guidelines; better editors than I put virtually all that stuff together. I get a ton of stuff wrong; half my edits are just me trying to fix my own mistakes. I would totally understand if, in the end, people wanted to alter or remove the sentences Dagmar is opposing. I don't believe they infringe the guidelines, but that doesn't necessarily mean they deserve to stay. My opinion is this information is worth mentioning, but it's always an open question to me whether any given page is conveying information in the most appropriate way. Nothing's set in stone, and I don't want to discourage anyone from trying to improve things. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 20:32, 2 October 2012 (GMT)

It's not that I think that it's set in stone, more that I didn't see this going anywhere when the result was clear and wanted to save everyone a couple pages worth of replies. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 22:26, 2 October 2012 (GMT)

I agree the article is written stupidly now but only because the emperor obviously WAS assassinated as canon. They give YOU the choice to not join them but I think it should be treated as, even if the last dragon born [for you] didn't kill the emperor it still will happen. That is a huge event and it's not going to be ignored. The dark brotherhood is a very important part of TES. It's not just going to be destroyed. Titus was already old and would have died soon, they already knew that so of course they will make the assassination canon. Thinking otherwise is silly. Which path took more work to write for Bethesda? 71.68.41.99 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Break 1

The Silencer reverted a clarification edit based on the false premise that the consensus reached was that ANY change to the content about events in Skyrim was unacceptable. Based on the long discussions here the only consensus appears to be that the substance of what happened in Skyrim was staying. There is absolutely nothing in the discussion to indicate consensus on anything else. I didn't even touch the narrative content. As stated in the comments edit I simply added a notation to explain the lack of clarity per AKB's statement on the Discussion page - "The only thing really worth discussing is discussing altering the text that is the subject of this discussion to explain the lack of clarity." Nevertheless he decided to revert the edit. He also made an irrelevant argument regarding the form of the edit when I pointed out that if the form of my edit rather than the substance was the issue to note that the edit is consistent with the disclosure of conflicting events that has been on the Stormcloak Rebellion lore page for months, but in a less intrusive way by not inserting itself into the actual lore narrative to allow the narrative to be as consistent as it can in reflecting the perspective of an anonymous citizen of Tamriel following historical events of TES media. He responded that a cleanup tag was on there that stated possible issues with the content which were already addressed by the form I used which actually followed the spirit of the suggestion in the cleanup tag as was already pointed out to him. In addition pointing to a cleanup tag doesn't rebutt the inclusion of the content especially in light of the fact no one has felt it necessary to remove or modify the content of one of the most significant side quests in the game for all this time while he for whatever reason felt the need to revert my edit within hours without even bothering to check as to whether there was any consensus on the matter. What is going on here? Does he speak for the entire administrative staff and has AKB's suggestion regarding edits for clarity been rescinded?--DagmarH (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (GMT)

Users speak for themselves, nobody (except maybe Daveh) has the authority to speak for the entire administrative staff. As for the clarifying reference, personally I think it was a bit overlong. Something like a pointer to the two quests leading to the different outcomes would suffice I think. --Alfwyn (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (GMT)

Agreed. I don't mind the idea of clarifying in a reference, but it should be more concise. I would suggest "Player choice-dependent events of Skyrim." Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 19:55, 18 November 2012 (GMT)

trim the fat ?

What do you need me to do? Cut out the unnecessary info? Find references ? Put me to work, I have way too much time on my hands. — Unsigned comment by J'ZhirrthePriest (talk • contribs) at 23:39 on 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you ask the user who originally requested the cleanup, Minor Edits, on his talk page. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Than you. Im pretty new at this but Im willing to help with anything lore. — Unsigned comment by J'ZhirrthePriest (talk • contribs) at 00:09 on 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I can answer, actually. A lot of the references used are rather unspecific, it would be better to reference what specifically reveals parts of The Brotherhood's past (such as Cicero's Journal. As for trimming the fat, brevity is the soul of wit. Certain details could possibly be summarized a bit better than they were. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 00:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay Ill get on references. Thanks for your direction — Unsigned comment by J'ZhirrthePriest (talk • contribs) at 00:11 on 26 March 2012

Cicero is a survivor of the Bruma Sanctuary

The article currently says that the Bruma Sanctuary was lost with no survivors, but Cicero's Journal clearly implies that he was originally with the Bruma Sanctuary ("The Bruma Sanctuary may be gone, but my dearest brothers and sisters will live forever in my dreams, just as their souls live forever by the Dread Father's side.")--DagmarH 03:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup Notes

In regards to the content, I primarily just rearranged and referenced, though I did cut out some details that I thought were out-of-place/unnecessary for a lore article, like mentions of Arquen and various minutia from Cicero's Journal.

I moved the Organization section above the History section because a lot of the Brotherhood's history isn't easily understood without first having an explanation of their structure, rules, people, etc. I know that's unusual compared to some other lore pages, but give it a chance, see if it grows on you.

Adding the History sub-headings was necessary to help break up the wall of text, but the headings themselves could be better. Most of them are just placeholders until you folks come up with something better.

The pictures I placed about the article should mesh well. On my screen, at least, they don't throw headers or paragraphs unreasonably askew, and I judged them in both their minimum and maximum sizes. But by all means, tinker and tweak to your liking. However, let me just nip one thing in the bud, as it has come up in the past: I hate it when a sub-heading appears off to the left of the text underneath it due to an image. That's one reason why the image of the Black Hand member is placed above "The Purification" sub-heading instead of below it, so that sub-heading will remain in line with the text. If for some reason this is intolerable to anyone out there, I'd ask that you move the image to the gallery instead of below the sub-heading, as that simply looks sloppy. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 04:29, 1 October 2012 (GMT)

What evidence is there that the Thalmor or the Great War Destroyed the Brotherhood?

There is no evidence anywhere that the Thalmor or the Great War directly caused the destruction of the Brotherhood. Astrid states that the chaos caused by the Great War contributed to their fall, but that does not mean that the Thalmor or the Empire intended to destroy the Brotherhood during or after the war.

This same logic applies to Hammerfell. Cicero's journal doesn't mention anywhere that the Thalmor or the Empire targeted the Brotherhood in the War. In fact, it doesn't mention what caused the downfall in Hammerfell at all.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to log in Right-Hand-Of-Sithis (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2012 (GMT)

Yes? The page doesn't mention the Thalmor at all, and it doesn't claim the Great War directly caused the Brotherhood's destruction. It only states what you've said- the chaos and conflict of the Great War contributed to their fall. Am I overlooking something? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 00:44, 29 December 2012 (GMT)