Stormcloaks Or Empire (One Of The Three Certainties Of Life)

[ArlEammon]

There are only three certainties in life. Death. Taxes. And the Empire vs Stormcloaks debate from Skyrim.

Who do you support? Or who do you prefer over the other? Why?
I just go between the Stormcloaks and Empire. Personally at the moment I find the Stormcloaks as only slightly worse than the Empire, but their more direct and honest about how bad they are.

So, for the Stormcloaks, they are ancient peoples that do not have our modern sensibilities on race relations, to put it mildly. For the Empire, even though they aren't as bad as it seems in regards to religious freedoms, they still disregard the local beliefs of the people, taking their freedom to worship who they choose.

As far as Empire, these people, in my estimation, have a a pragmatically good cause. Ulfric killed High King Torygg. Maybe by the customs of the Nords, maybe not, I don't know if the situation is all that cut and dry. He used The Voice to "Shatter him apart." The Empire needed to keep the rebellion short, so they didn't have to divert precious resources, and reinforcements from other parts of the Empire, in their struggle against the fascist, mass murdering Aldmeri Dominion.

Now, again, for the Stormcloaks. . . They have first impressions on their side. The Imperial Captain nearly had The Last Dragonborn butchered before Alduin showed up. Not only that, when the Dragonborn arrives at Whiterun, we find two members of the Imperial sympathizers, the Battleborns ganging up on a poor old woman, mocking her, as a mother who is only trying to have hope that her son was not killed or maybe worse by the Thalmor/Empire. That's a very low thing to do.

All in all, I don't find the Stormcloaks as bad as many seem to think they are, despite me not liking them all that much either. On the other hand, sometimes it seems like, joining the Empire is sort of like joining the Mafia. Not a ringing endorsement for either side, especially since I really prefer the Empire in comparison despite first impressions. Part of the reason for this is the scumminess of Ulfric Stormcloak.

[Cikomyr2]

My vote is "Bethesda are just bad writers who dont really think deeply about what they put in the world".

We can go into a lot of details about who does what, who says what. Ultimately the entire world of Skyrim was put together by people who never really had much of a cohesive thought in what they were doing beyond "lets do quests for an action-adventure game".

[Keltest]

My vote is "Bethesda are just bad writers who dont really think deeply about what they put in the world".

We can go into a lot of details about who does what, who says what. Ultimately the entire world of Skyrim was put together by people who never really had much of a cohesive thought in what they were doing beyond "lets do quests for an action-adventure game".

I disagree. Theres a lot of depth to the argument, how much is one person, even the leader of an organization is responsible for the actions of its members, both good and bad, and how much an organization can be tainted by one person.

Ultimately, I side with the Empire almost every time. Ralof is kind of charismatic, but Ulfric is short sighted, racist and has been previously manipulated HARD by his enemies to basically give them what they want. On practical grounds alone he loses, let alone moral ones.

[Cikomyr2]

I disagree. Theres a lot of depth to the argument, how much is one person, even the leader of an organization is responsible for the actions of its members, both good and bad, and how much an organization can be tainted by one person.

Ultimately, I side with the Empire almost every time. Ralof is kind of charismatic, but Ulfric is short sighted, racist and has been previously manipulated HARD by his enemies to basically give them what they want. On practical grounds alone he loses, let alone moral ones.

Ulfric cooperation with the Thalmor ended since the Markath incident, which was 20 years before the start of the game.

This has been how long since Ulfric has carried his colour. The man basically has been a nonexistent entity for the past 20 years. He has no heir, he doesnt govern his city. He never actually has a relationship with the practice of the Voice culturally among the Nord, despite him being one of the only 5 living people in Skyrim trained in the art.

He killed the previous High King with it, and everyone knows its because he knew he was physically weaker to Torygg. But there's no further point made by him or his faction about how this Nord Magic is part of their heritage.

The game is just pure superficial fluff of cool concepts and ideas developped in parallel that we never actually see amount to anything more than a suggestion of something, just so you keep adventuring grind your stealth archer alchemist/enchanter.

[Rater202]

I will always fall on the side of "I wish there was a '**** both sides' route" because while I tend to default to the Empire I find that both sides simultaneously make good points but are also bad for Skyrim in the long run.

Like, as the Last Dragonborn who is acknowledged as such by the Greybeards and/or blades, who retrieved the Jagged Crown, who has the potential to be acknowledged as a Thane and thus both a minor noble and a hero in every hold with one being mandatory, I think the player has a more legitimate claim to the title of Hgh King than either Elisif or Ulfric and also, um...

...It's also spelled out that all Dov have the instinctive urge to conquer, to dominate an destroy, but the Dragonborn, who is a Dov soul in a mortal body, has no more ability to act on that urge than a typical sandbox protagonist does and yeah, Paarthurnax has that whole space about resisting your evil nature.. But you know, resisting to urge to conquer is like resisting the urge to study dark magic: It means jack and **** if you never have the opportunity to do otherwise.

And that's before adding in faction side quests and other optional content which just strengthens your claim and/or ability to act on it.

[Rynjin]

So setting aside the moral argument of "constricting freedom of religion" vs "borderline comical racism", the Empire is in the right simply because a state cannot survive letting armed challenges to its authority go unchecked.

Picking up the moral argument, the Empire explicitly followed the letter of the law in a treaty designed to give them enough time to amass forces against the existential threat of the Thalmor, and had the good sense not to ENFORCE the damn thing, but teh Stormcloaks are too dimwitted to realize that and have ripped the Empire apart into tiny bite size piece the Thalmor can clean up with ease. Good job, jackasses.

The Stormcloaks have zero leg to stand on no matter how you slice it. They are not a sympathetic faction on their own merits, and show such a severe lack of political savvy that it marks them as incompetent to rule a country.

[Rater202]

I am pretty sure that the Empire is letting the Thalmor go beyond their treaty-granted authority without challenge in Skyrim.
If you talk to a Thalmor patrol random encounter they'll openly try to kill you if you try to dodge their questions.

Or if you admit to being a Talos worshiper, which suggests that the people they're arresting... aren't Talos worshipers, but other people being arrested for Talos worship as a pretext.

Additionally, by Skyrim's laws Ulfric is the rightful High King, moot pending, so even if he's a **** he's got a point.

He's not gonna be good for Skyrim long term, but then again I don't see the Empire doing well long term, either. You can say they're building strength all you want but the Thalmor basically stole half the Empire and successfully rewrote history and it's very strongly implied that the loss of the Septim Line has...

...There's some Lore that suggests that Sithiswill only accept the Black Sacrement if executing the contract will bring about a net good for the world. In that context, killing the current Emperor being the result of the sacrement is... It has implications.

I fully expect that ES6 is going to dodge answering who won the Civil War by having something bad have happened sometime after the events of the game tha could have been prevented if the Dragonborn did things that they can't actually do in the game.

[Errorname]

I think it's a surprisingly well constructed conflict for modern Bethesda, even if the actual quests are pretty trash.

It's also clearly already a war that is lost, no matter who wins. The Thalmor already got everything they wanted


Picking up the moral argument, the Empire explicitly followed the letter of the law in a treaty designed to give them enough time to amass forces against the existential threat of the Thalmor, and had the good sense not to ENFORCE the damn thing

The White-Gold Concordat is a bad treaty specifically designed to create a peace where the Thalmor could rebuild their strength while preventing the Empire from doing the same and the Empire were fools to take the deal.

They conceded a lot, not just worship of a major god (basically designed to stoke religious conflict) and giving the Thalmor free reign to enforce that ban within the Empire's borders but also hanging an entire province out to dry and allowing their enemy to eliminate all their best covert agents

In theory I want to side with the rebels, because ultimately I think everyone in the setting needs to be operating on the assumption that the Empire isn't gonna be around in a decade or so, but the Stormcloaks and all their nonsense ultimately aren't much more viable as an option.

[Keltest]

I think it's a surprisingly well constructed conflict for modern Bethesda, even if the actual quests are pretty trash.

It's also clearly already a war that is lost, no matter who wins. The Thalmor already got everything they wanted



The White-Gold Concordat is a bad treaty specifically designed to create a peace where the Thalmor could rebuild their strength while preventing the Empire from doing the same and the Empire were fools to take the deal.

They conceded a lot, not just worship of a major god (basically designed to stoke religious conflict) and giving the Thalmor free reign to enforce that ban within the Empire's borders but also hanging an entire province out to dry and allowing their enemy to eliminate all their best covert agents

In theory I want to side with the rebels, because ultimately I think everyone in the setting needs to be operating on the assumption that the Empire isn't gonna be around in a decade or so, but the Stormcloaks and all their nonsense ultimately aren't much more viable as an option.

Assuming youre talking about Hammerfell, theres a lot of cloak and dagger support going their way from the Empire, which is part of the reason theyre able to do what theyre doing. The situation is more complicated than you described, as the Concordant was agreed to by the Empire specifically because it was allowing them time to rebuild and recover too.

The Thalmor also dont/didnt have free reign to enforce the Talos ban within the Empire until Ulfric made a point of very publicly violating that ban. Before that, it was enforced by the Empire, who didnt care to do so beyond lip service.

[Errorname]

The situation is more complicated than you described, as the Concordant was agreed to by the Empire specifically because it was allowing them time to rebuild and recover too.

That's certainly what the Empire wants to do, but as a consequence of the terms they agreed to they can't. The White-Gold Concordat is hilariously lopsided in the Thalmor's favour. Allowing your enemy to censor your religion, hanging all your best operatives out to dry, letting your enemy continue to wage war against one of your own territories? There's not much silver lining there.

Again, it is a peace deal that is designed to give the Thalmor time to recover while denying the Empire the opportunity to do the same, and it is clearly very effective at that.


The Thalmor also dont/didnt have free reign to enforce the Talos ban within the Empire until Ulfric made a point of very publicly violating that ban. Before that, it was enforced by the Empire, who didnt care to do so beyond lip service.

They almost certainly had free reign to operate within the Empire in order to pursue their campaign against the Blades, and it's not like the empire getting bullied into giving the Thalmor free reign to religiously persecute citizens of the Empire after people refused to comply with the concession imposed by a hated enemy is much better than giving it away to begin with.

[Keltest]

That's certainly what the Empire wants to do, but as a consequence of the terms they agreed to they can't. The White-Gold Concordat is hilariously lopsided in the Thalmor's favour. Allowing your enemy to censor your religion, hanging all your best operatives out to dry, letting your enemy continue to wage war against one of your own territories? There's not much silver lining there.

Again, it is a peace deal that is designed to give the Thalmor time to recover while denying the Empire the opportunity to do the same, and it is clearly very effective at that. The Thalmor werent allowed to enforce it, their best operatives were already dead (it was literally how the Thalmor declared war) and they didnt "let" the enemy continue to wage war, that territory declared that they did not accept the concordant and started winning the war on their home front.




They almost certainly had free reign to operate within the Empire in order to pursue their campaign against the Blades, and it's not like the empire getting bullied into giving the Thalmor free reign to religiously persecute citizens of the Empire after people refused to comply with the concession imposed by a hated enemy is much better than giving it away to begin with.

Again, the Thalmor did not have free reign to do that until Ulfric made it blatantly obvious that the Empire was not abiding by the terms of the Concordant. There was no religious persecution going on until after Ulfric, specifically, made a big deal about how it wasnt going on on his watch.

[Cikomyr2]

The Septim Empire is already dead by the time Skyrim comes a knocking.

It just hasnt stopped going through the motions yet. But as a military-political power, it is rife with corruption and innefficiencies to the point the whole is lesser than the sum of its parts.

Its like the Western Roman Empire after the sack of Rome.

Its Emperor is the assassination target from one of his top advisor. The Empire Trading company is just acting in shady businesses to enrich people at the capital. It has abolished the Mage Guild so there's no more centralized teaching of magic. It signed away a province in defeat that kept successfully fighting off the Altmer without the Empire support.

It wants to reassert its control of Skyrim, but not for the Nords' sake. They just want to make sure a new generation of Nord warriors to be drafted and sent to the grinder in far of land in the next war.

Their appointed High Queen of Skyrim is a puppet to her advisor. She has no ability to rule her fief, is being obeyed at the goodwill of her three main advisors (Tulius the Imperial, her Vampire Wizard and Firebeard her lover).

The situation of the Empire is the same as the roman empire of the 5th century. It is old, corrupt, weak and experience internal upheaval as often as external challenges. That's not to skip over the fact that they've let the Thalmor operate within their border with absolute impunity. Basically in the guise of them "enforcing the treaty" they are allowing the Elven KGB operate in the open in their own land, while they've abandoned their own counterintelligence organisation.

The Empire is already dead, and unless there's a massive paradigm change (like a Dragonborn seizing the throne and starting a 4th Empire/Dynasty), it will not recover.

Tamriel is better off with new ruling institutions in its place. Cyrodillians should care about their own land rather than force their rulership obsession on their neighbors.

[Errorname]

Again, the Thalmor did not have free reign to do that until Ulfric made it blatantly obvious that the Empire was not abiding by the terms of the Concordant. There was no religious persecution going on until after Ulfric, specifically, made a big deal about how it wasnt going on on his watch.

The Markarth Uprising was something the Concordat was designed to create. Ulfric is not blameless, the Thalmor were playing him like a fiddle, but the Thalmor pushing to be allowed to suppress Talos worship within the Empire's borders was something they were always going to try and do, and that the Empire let them says nothing good about it's long term viability.

[Keltest]

The Markarth Uprising was something the Concordat was designed to create. Ulfric is not blameless, the Thalmor were playing him like a fiddle, but the Thalmor pushing to be allowed to suppress Talos worship within the Empire's borders was something they were always going to try and do, and that the Empire let them says nothing good about it's long term viability.

As I said, the Empire did not "let" them, they were forced to do so because of Ulfric. The failure was not agreeing to the Concordant, the failure was some internal members (Ulfric) were apparently idiots who failed to realize what the point of agreeing to it in the first place was, and failed to act accordingly.

[Errorname]

As I said, the Empire did not "let" them, they were forced to do so because of Ulfric. The failure was not agreeing to the Concordant, the failure was some internal members (Ulfric) were apparently idiots who failed to realize what the point of agreeing to it in the first place was, and failed to act accordingly.

Expecting people to just accept that their religious practices would be suppressed in order to appease a hated enemy is a fool's bet. What Ulfric did made things worse, no doubt, but ultimately the Empire letting the Thalmor send their hit squads deep into imperial territory to religiously persecute imperial citizens is a failure of the Empire more than anyone else.

[Cikomyr2]

As I said, the Empire did not "let" them, they were forced to do so because of Ulfric. The failure was not agreeing to the Concordant, the failure was some internal members (Ulfric) were apparently idiots who failed to realize what the point of agreeing to it in the first place was, and failed to act accordingly.

But if it hadnt been Ulfric it had been someone else. Ulfric wasnt some High King, direct vassal of the Empire. He wasnt even Jarl of Windhelm at the time. He was just one of many citizen of the Empire, and if the only thing it took is one uprising demanding the right of Talos Worship, you can consider this an inevitability.

What you say is that the Empire was banking on their entire citizenry accepting to abandon worship of Talos without reaction, just for "a few decades", in order to perpetuate the governing structure that failed to defend them and abandonned Hammerfell.

As i say, the Empire is already dead. It parasites its vassal provinces to reinforce its center, but waste most of that strenght to internal politics and patronage by weak emperors who haven't had a legitimate mandate since the Oblivion Crisis killed the last of the Septim bloodline.

[Keltest]

But if it hadnt been Ulfric it had been someone else. Ulfric wasnt some High King, direct vassal of the Empire. He wasnt even Jarl of Windhelm at the time. He was just one of many citizen of the Empire, and if the only thing it took is one uprising demanding the right of Talos Worship, you can consider this an inevitability.

What you say is that the Empire was banking on their entire citizenry accepting to abandon worship of Talos without reaction, just for "a few decades", in order to perpetuate the governing structure that failed to defend them and abandonned Hammerfell.

As i say, the Empire is already dead. It parasites its vassal provinces to reinforce its center, but waste most of that strenght to internal politics and patronage by weak emperors who haven't had a legitimate mandate since the Oblivion Crisis killed the last of the Septim bloodline.

Ok, except they weren't banking on that because they hadn't actually de-facto banned Talos worship. People were perfectly able to do it in the Empire until Ulfric went and caused a fuss, as long as they didn't boast about how they were flouting the ban. Its explicit in game that Ulfric's attempt to re-instate Talos worship actually made it harder for most people.

[Errorname]

Ok, except they weren't banking on that because they hadn't actually de-facto banned Talos worship. People were perfectly able to do it in the Empire until Ulfric went and caused a fuss, as long as they didn't boast about how they were flouting the ban. Its explicit in game that Ulfric's attempt to re-instate Talos worship actually made it harder for most people.

The thing I would dispute is not that the Markarth Uprising didn't make the Talos ban worse, it clearly did, but rather that if it hadn't happened things would have been just fine. The Thalmor manipulated Ulfric into doing what he did, and if it hadn't worked with him they'd have tried somewhere else. There's certainly no shortage of Nords in Skyrim who love Talos and have poor judgement. The Thalmor being able to enforce the ban is a natural consequence of accepting the Concordat and the Empire's inability to actually stand up to the Dominion.

[Keltest]

The thing I would dispute is not that the Markarth Uprising didn't make the Talos ban worse, it clearly did, but rather that if it hadn't happened things would have been just fine. The Thalmor manipulated Ulfric into doing what he did, and if it hadn't worked with him they'd have tried somewhere else. There's certainly no shortage of Nords in Skyrim who love Talos and have poor judgement. The Thalmor being able to enforce the ban is a natural consequence of accepting the Concordat and the Empire's inability to actually stand up to the Dominion.

I disagree. The Empire enforces the ban in their land. The Concordant doesnt allow the Thalmor to just police the Empire willy nilly. As we see in a few quests, the Thalmor are still subordinate to the Empire in name and are officially acting as witnesses and assistants to make sure that the Empire is following the treaty. The problem wasnt that they caught wind that the Empire wasnt enforcing the ban, the problem was that the Empire had to officially stop enforcing the ban, which they werent allowed to do. Anything else, like the Thalmor patrols just overtly attacking people, are still illegal even in Imperial territories, which is why you dont get a bounty for defending yourself from them.

[Cikomyr2]

I disagree. The Empire enforces the ban in their land. The Concordant doesnt allow the Thalmor to just police the Empire willy nilly. As we see in a few quests, the Thalmor are still subordinate to the Empire in name and are officially acting as witnesses and assistants to make sure that the Empire is following the treaty. The problem wasnt that they caught wind that the Empire wasnt enforcing the ban, the problem was that the Empire had to officially stop enforcing the ban, which they werent allowed to do. Anything else, like the Thalmor patrols just overtly attacking people, are still illegal even in Imperial territories, which is why you dont get a bounty for defending yourself from them.

Then the Empire is incompetent in protecting its citizens from unilateral Thalmor justice. There's no way to spin this otherwise. The Empire is impotent, weak, fractured and corrupt.

And you completely leave unaddressed the fact that the Markath Incident was probably prompted by the Thalmor. Documents in the game highlights how Ulfric became uncooperative after the incident, which implies whatever illusion Ulfric held regarding the Thalmor was broken at that time, so (hypothesis -->) perhaps they prompted him in retaking Markath from the Forsworn with promise they'd make an exception for Talos worship there, and he foolishly believed them. Instead they used it as a rationale for enforcing the treaty in a way that would further turn imperial corruption and innefficiencies on itself.

It is very likely that the Incident was initiated by the Thalmor, so nothing to say if they had failed in co-opting Ulfric they would have sought to create another Talos-related crisis. It was just a question of time because the Thalmor had an active agenda in pushing for this to happen to keep weakening the Empire.

Because the Empire is weak, corrupt and impotent.

[Keltest]

Then the Empire is incompetent in protecting its citizens from unilateral Thalmor justice. There's no way to spin this otherwise. The Empire is impotent, weak, fractured and corrupt.

And you completely leave unaddressed the fact that the Markath Incident was probably prompted by the Thalmor. Documents in the game highlights how Ulfric became uncooperative after the incident, which implies whatever illusion Ulfric held regarding the Thalmor was broken at that time, so (hypothesis -->) perhaps they prompted him in retaking Markath from the Forsworn with promise they'd make an exception for Talos worship there, and he foolishly believed them. Instead they used it as a rationale for enforcing the treaty in a way that would further turn imperial corruption and innefficiencies on itself.

It is very likely that the Incident was initiated by the Thalmor, so nothing to say if they had failed in co-opting Ulfric they would have sought to create another Talos-related crisis. It was just a question of time because the Thalmor had an active agenda in pushing for this to happen to keep weakening the Empire.

Because the Empire is weak, corrupt and impotent.

Theres basically no support for that hypothesis. Ulfric was only ever an unwilling asset to be manipulated, not one who actively worked with the Thalmor. He started hostile to them and got more so over time, its just that he's really, really stupid and politically inept.

Which goes back to the civil war and attached problems being Ulfric's fault, specifically.

[Errorname]

Documents in the game highlights how Ulfric became uncooperative after the incident, which implies whatever illusion Ulfric held regarding the Thalmor was broken at that time, so (hypothesis -->) perhaps they prompted him in retaking Markath from the Forsworn with promise they'd make an exception for Talos worship there, and he foolishly believed them

I have a hard time imagining a man who was tortured by the Thalmor being too keen to take them at their word. I would assume they were acting through a catspaw that he did trust in order to manipulate him, and that trust was broken after the incident.


There's basically no support for that hypothesis.

That he was working for the Thalmor knowingly, sure. That the Markarth Incident was engineered by the Thalmor is confirmed by the Thalmor's own documents, and that the Empire is weak, corrupt and impotent is obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

[Cikomyr2]

I have a hard time imagining a man who was tortured by the Thalmor being too keen to take them at their word. I would assume they were acting through a catspaw that he did trust in order to manipulate him, and that trust was broken after the incident.



That he was working for the Thalmor knowingly, sure. That the Markarth Incident was engineered by the Thalmor is not hypothesis is confirmed by the Thalmor's own documents, and that the Empire is weak, corrupt and impotent is obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

Lets make sure nobody misremembers the document in question.



Status: Asset (uncooperative), Dormant, Emissary Level Approval

Description: Jarl of Windhelm, leader of the Stormcloak rebellion, Imperial Legion veteran

Background:
Ulfric first came to our attention during the First War against the Empire, when he was taken as a prisoner of war during the campaign for the White-Gold Tower. Under interrogation, we learned of his potential value (son of the Jarl of Windhelm) and he was assigned as an asset to the interrogator, who is now First Emissary Elenwen. He was made to believe information obtained during his interrogation was crucial in the capture of the Imperial City (the city had in fact fallen before he had broken), and then allowed to escape. After the war, contact was established and he has proven his worth as an asset. The so-called Markarth Incident was particularly valuable from the point of view of our strategic goals in Skyrim, although it resulted in Ulfric becoming generally uncooperative to direct contact.

The document sequentially transitions between talking about Ulfric's value as an asset and the "particularly valuable" Markath Incident, ***resulting*** in Ulfric breaking away from the Thalmor influence/intelligence network.

It definetly is not a smoking gun explanation of the events that happened in Markath. But this isnt a Markath Incident dossier. I believe the evidence leads us to understand the Thalmor had fingers in the Markath Pie.

This was twenty years before the game tho. We dont know how much Ulfric gets to think about his past association with the Thalmor, or the undercover Thalmor agent he stopped talking to. (There's no indication Ulfric knew he was a Thalmor agent either, manipulated by a Thalmor mole that could get close to him.)

[Keltest]

Lets make sure nobody misremembers the document in question.



Status: Asset (uncooperative), Dormant, Emissary Level Approval

Description: Jarl of Windhelm, leader of the Stormcloak rebellion, Imperial Legion veteran

Background:
Ulfric first came to our attention during the First War against the Empire, when he was taken as a prisoner of war during the campaign for the White-Gold Tower. Under interrogation, we learned of his potential value (son of the Jarl of Windhelm) and he was assigned as an asset to the interrogator, who is now First Emissary Elenwen. He was made to believe information obtained during his interrogation was crucial in the capture of the Imperial City (the city had in fact fallen before he had broken), and then allowed to escape. After the war, contact was established and he has proven his worth as an asset. The so-called Markarth Incident was particularly valuable from the point of view of our strategic goals in Skyrim, although it resulted in Ulfric becoming generally uncooperative to direct contact.

The document sequentially transitions between talking about Ulfric's value as an asset and the "particularly valuable" Markath Incident, ***resulting*** in Ulfric breaking away from the Thalmor influence/intelligence network.

It definetly is not a smoking gun explanation of the events that happened in Markath. But this isnt a Markath Incident dossier. I believe the evidence leads us to understand the Thalmor had fingers in the Markath Pie.

This was twenty years before the game tho. We dont know how much Ulfric gets to think about his past association with the Thalmor, or the undercover Thalmor agent he stopped talking to. (There's no indication Ulfric knew he was a Thalmor agent either, manipulated by a Thalmor mole that could get close to him.)

The Markarth Incident is useful because it gave them the ability to operate in Skyrim more directly, but theres no indication anywhere in game that they instigated it. The Thalmor are not the only group antagonistic to the Empire in Tamriel, and a big part of their MO is taking advantage of other, unrelated threats to advance their agenda in an area. Its how they came to power, after all.

Of note, the Markarth Incident is where he forms his army and starts acting on his own agenda more directly, as well as surrounding himself with other advisors and the like rather than acting as a lone individual.

[Cikomyr2]

The Markarth Incident is useful because it gave them the ability to operate in Skyrim more directly, but theres no indication anywhere in game that they instigated it. The Thalmor are not the only group antagonistic to the Empire in Tamriel, and a big part of their MO is taking advantage of other, unrelated threats to advance their agenda in an area. Its how they came to power, after all.

If we didnt knew that the main instigator of the Markath Incident was a Thalmor agent at the time, i would agree with you. Automatically assuming the Thalmor was behind it would be Delphine-like paranoia.

But i believe this document is the single best source of inside information we have about the Incident. We can never ask Ulfric about it (goddamn you Bethesda). The more likely conclusion is that Ulfric was prompted/directed/encouraged by Thalmor contact, that may or may not have provided ressource, assurances, intelligence to facilitate Ulfric's operation to retake the dwarvenhold.

[Keltest]

If we didnt knew that the main instigator of the Markath Incident was a Thalmor agent at the time, i would agree with you. Automatically assuming the Thalmor was behind it would be Delphine-like paranoia.

But i believe this document is the single best source of inside information we have about the Incident. We can never ask Ulfric about it (goddamn you Bethesda). The more likely conclusion is that Ulfric was prompted/directed/encouraged by Thalmor contact, that may or may not have provided ressource, assurances, intelligence to facilitate Ulfric's operation to retake the dwarvenhold.

Do you mean Madanach? Because I really want to see a citation on him being a Thalmor agent.

[GloatingSwine]

There weren't any Thalmor agents involved in the Markarth incident, it was Jarl Hrolfdir who instigated a purge of the Reachmen and the Imperials who blamed it on Ulfric. Which is where the hand of the Thalmor would come in because the Imperials are spineless puppets.

Hail Sithis

[Rynjin]

So the thing is, yeah, the Empire is in a weakened state. But that makes it all the more important for them to not allow themselves to get weaker.

And allowing a province to erupt in armed rebellion is a death knell fro a state. They'd lose the entire empire. A state cannot allow that to happen; it is antithetical to how they work.

The funny thing is, if Skyrim had turned their anger toward the true enemy, they could have forced the Empire to give them their freedom without fighting the Imperials. That's essentially what happened with Hammerfell, after all. It's left a little vague as to whether Hammerfell breaking free was truly a break or it was pre-arranged with the Emperor and the leader of the province, but in either case it was a success.

If Ulfric or a similar figure had surreptitiously approached the throne to propose that they were going to wipe out Thalmor presence in Skyrim...they likely may have found the throne receptive to this idea. But they didn't. Instead, they chose open rebellion and, frankly, a return to barbarism in the process.

[GloatingSwine]

So the thing is, yeah, the Empire is in a weakened state. But that makes it all the more important for them to not allow themselves to get weaker.


There isn't really an "Empire" to speak of though.

Black Marsh has seceded, Morrowind is in ruins, Valenwood and Elsweyr are taken by the Aldmeri Dominion and what there is of the Empire is essentially forced to accept Aldmeri supremacy. (Remember as well that Talos is explicitly an ascended human, which is why the elves banned worship of him)

Time for Pelinal Whitestrake to come back, methinks...

[Cikomyr2]

Do you mean Madanach? Because I really want to see a citation on him being a Thalmor agent.

Oh not at all. I dont think the Forsworns were under Thalmor control, there's no evidence pointing at a relation.

Actually, i think its more likely Hrolfdir baited Ulfric at the Thalmor's suggestion, and then turned on his ally to make the whole scandal. But its completely circumstantial reasoning without an ounce of evidence to back it up.

[Keltest]

Oh not at all. I dont think the Forsworns were under Thalmor control, there's no evidence pointing at a relation.

Actually, i think its more likely Hrolfdir baited Ulfric at the Thalmor's suggestion, and then turned on his ally to make the whole scandal. But its completely circumstantial reasoning without an ounce of evidence to back it up.

According to at least one of the Forsworn in Markarth, the Stormcloaks savaged the civilian reachmen populace. Whether or not they were directly responsible for the systemic hunting down of the Forsworn after they gained control of the city, they definitely did a number on them in the process of reclaiming it.

But also, im not sure that it matters, because Ulfric also definitely was the one who pushed for the ending of the Talos ban in Markarth, and the one who forced the Empire to publicly say so, and thats the part of the Markarth Incident that the Thalmor were helped by.

[Errorname]

Actually, i think its more likely Hrolfdir baited Ulfric at the Thalmor's suggestion, and then turned on his ally to make the whole scandal. But its completely circumstantial reasoning without an ounce of evidence to back it up.

Basically all the information we have is that the Thalmor considered Ulfric an asset, and that he only became 'uncooperative' after the Markarth Incident. Circumstantial is sort of the best we've got.

[Cikomyr2]

Basically all the information we have is that the Thalmor considered Ulfric an asset, and that he only became 'uncooperative' after the Markarth Incident. Circumstantial is sort of the best we've got.

Yes. I just wanted to acknowledge that Ulfric being a Thalmor "asset" doesnt necessarily mean he actually knew he was a Thalmor asset. Maybe someone in his entourage was a Thalmor plant, or someone he met in the Thalmor prison that reached out to him but was actually a plant.

Like, imagine if the guy who called Ulfric to his aid in exchange of the promise of making Talos worship legal in Markath was a Thalmor agent who figured a smart plan to please his Thalmor handlers, while at the same time securing the forces necessary to reconquering his fief. (The man also conveniently died shortly after kicking the Stormcloak out and handed them to the Thalmor, on a "diplomacy" mission to the Forsworns).

[Keltest]

Yes. I just wanted to acknowledge that Ulfric being a Thalmor "asset" doesnt necessarily mean he actually knew he was a Thalmor asset. Maybe someone in his entourage was a Thalmor plant, or someone he met in the Thalmor prison that reached out to him but was actually a plant.

Like, imagine if the guy who called Ulfric to his aid in exchange of the promise of making Talos worship legal in Markath was a Thalmor agent who figured a smart plan to please his Thalmor handlers, while at the same time securing the forces necessary to reconquering his fief. (The man also conveniently died shortly after kicking the Stormcloak out and handed them to the Thalmor, on a "diplomacy" mission to the Forsworns).

I think he pretty likely does not know he's an asset. Pawns rarely do.

But also, the Jarl of Markarth being a Thalmor agent is improbable.

[bluntpencil]

Stormcloaks 100%, and for one reason, and one reason alone:

The Imperials tried to behead me because of a clerical error. That, in and of itself, is enough for me to go full on rebel, and slay anyone trying to maintain the Empire's brutally uncaring rule over the people of Tamriel.

Say what you will about Ulfric Stormcloak, he doesn't have people decapitated for no reason at all.

[Rynjin]

Right, Ulfric is a great guy to work for. Y'know, as long as you're the right type of people .

Meanwhile, the Empire was not going to execute you due to a clerical error. They were going to execute you because you were captured alongside the leader of an insurrectionist army in the territory.

If you're gonna be mad at them for a crime, be mad at them for the right one.

[Errorname]

Right, Ulfric is a great guy to work for. Y'know, as long as you're the right type of people .

I mean as I recall you don't really get treated much differently by Ulfric if you're not-a-nord in the actual game proper. Given the way a lot of the lore and dialogue is written you probably should be, but it mostly fails to materialize.


Meanwhile, the Empire was not going to execute you due to a clerical error. They were going to execute you because you were captured alongside the leader of an insurrectionist army in the territory.

Executing some schmucks who happened to be nearby when you captured some insurgents is still pretty bad

[Rater202]

Meanwhile, the Empire was not going to execute you due to a clerical error. They were going to execute you because you were captured alongside the leader of an insurrectionist army in the territory.

If you're gonna be mad at them for a crime, be mad at them for the right one.

Um, no.

The fact that you were arrested by mistake and aren't slated for execution is pointed out and a power-tripping bitch orders you executed anyway.
In what should have been full earshot of the general.

[Rynjin]

I mean as I recall you don't really get treated much differently by Ulfric if you're not-a-nord in the actual game proper. Given the way a lot of the lore and dialogue is written you probably should be, but it mostly fails to materialize.

That's because you're useful. A credit to your race, even.




Executing some schmucks who happened to be nearby when you captured some insurgents is still pretty bad

Absolutely, but that's not a clerical error, it was the intent. Be angry about the ruthlessness, not incompetence. @Rater202: you not being on the list didn't really matter; orders were to execute everyone. That's why the thief was on the block as well.

[Grim Portent]

In a sense the Empire in its current form is doomed, nothing can change that. Arguably nothing should change that. The Medes have done rather well all things considered, but the collapse is inevitable.

At this point the most important thing is keeping White-Gold out of the hands of the Aldmeri Dominion, and preferably the other towers as well. Skyrim being part of the Empire or not doesn't really matter for this, what matters is Cyrodiil not being a dysfunctional mess, and Cyrodiil has been a dysfunctional mess since the Oblivion Crisis. Too much backstabbing and division, too much general chaos. What the empire needs is to refocus on the core, get Cyrodiil stable and safe, secure the trade routes that the empire relies on, then it can focus on things like keeping the provinces in the empire.

I think in the long run the Empire would have been better off letting Skyrim go like it did with Hammerfell and Black Marsh. It's not worth holding on to bits of the Empire that are going to get you bogged down in a guerilla war even if you win the formal war. Let them go peacefully, sign some favourable treaties as part of it, flip off the Altmer by signing a defensive pact with the new government. You can always reconquer the continent in a few generations, you were going to need to take half of it back from the Dominion or independant rulers by force anyway, and that won't be a quick process. All you need to do is hold on to Cyrodiil, and eventually the pieces will fall into place, it's the single most valuable province on the continent, and well suited to founding empires.

[Rater202]

"the thief" was a horse thief, and despite his protests stealing horses was punishable by death in all sorts of cultures.

He's not being sentenced to death for being in the wrong lace at the wrong time, he's being sentenced to death for committing a crime punishable by death.

The dragonborn was explcitly noted to not have been on the list and then was specifically ordered executed anyway in a context that very much comes across less like "that sucks, but orders are orders" and more like that one specifc woman was on a power trip.

Seriously, her exact words were "Forget the list. S/he goes to the block" in an incredibly gruff tone.

That's not ruthless orders, that's power-tripping bitch who doesn't give a ****.

Hell: The fact that the horse thief was, in fact, on the list(Lokir) indicates that he was arrested on purpose rather than grabbed for being too close to the ambush.

[GloatingSwine]

"the thief" was a horse thief, and despite his protests stealing horses was punishable by death in all sorts of cultures.

He's not being sentenced to death for being in the wrong lace at the wrong time, he's being sentenced to death for committing a crime punishable by death.


You mean a crime punishable by a fine of 50 septims right?

[Rynjin]

I mean, by that logic, everything is gucci. Illegal border crossing between two regions at war has historically been a crime punishable by death as well.

[Rater202]

You mean a crime punishable by a fine of 50 septims right?
For the player, yes, but given that the Pc can murder literaly every non-ssential PC in the hold and also dozens of guards and still get out of prison with virtually no time having passed while NPC prisoners face life or death for comparatively less you ahve to infer a degree of gameplay and story degregation.

I mean, by that logic, everything is gucci. Illegal border crossing between two regions at war has historically been a crime punishable by death as well.

1: No indication that the Dragonborn entered Skyrim illegally.

2: Cyrodil is not at war with Skyrim, Skyrim itself is in a state of civil war between Imperial forces and an insurrection, so there are not, in fact, "two regions at war"

3: If it was for an illegal border crossing, they would have said that, not "forget the list. S/he's going to the block."

The cruel indifference to the Legion Commander upon being told that there was a mistake and the Dragonborn is not on the list of people slated for execution is the cause he. You're not slatted for death, you wre arrested by mistake, but this power-tripping bitch orders your death anyway.

[Rynjin]

1: No indication that the Dragonborn entered Skyrim illegally.

Except for the fact that they were arrested for illegally crossing the border. If they had been crossing legally, they...wouldn't have been arrested.


2: Cyrodil is not at war with Skyrim, Skyrim itself is in a state of civil war between Imperial forces and an insurrection, so there are not, in fact, "two regions at war"

Do you think Tullius is a local?


3: If it was for an illegal border crossing, they would have said that, not "forget the list. S/he's going to the block."

The cruel indifference to the Legion Commander upon being told that there was a mistake and the Dragonborn is not on the list of people slated for execution is the cause he. You're not slatted for death, you wre arrested by mistake, but this power-tripping bitch orders your death anyway.

You were arrested for illegal border crossing. They have no information about you other than that. Everyone on that cart is slated for death.

This is a "wrong place wrong time" crime just like Lokir. Everybody there is getting the axe because they can't risk any of Ulfric's supporters getting away. You're a political sacrifice, in other words. The list is irrelevant.

[Keltest]

Worth pointing out, you are almost certainly not on the list because you were unconscious until just before you arrived, and thus they could not learn your name or home. Not being on the list just means they didn't interrogate you.

[Rater202]

Except for the fact that they were arrested for illegally crossing the border. If they had been crossing legally, they...wouldn't have been arrested.

1: Citation for that being why they were arrested? Al context implied that it was a case of wrong place, wrong time.

2: The fact that someone was arrested is not proof that a crime was committed. Again, implications point to wrong place, wrong time.

3: For the third goddamn time, Dragonborn goes to the block because the commander said so, no other reason, and the order came in a "power-tripping bitch" tone of voice, not an "orders are orders" tone of voice.

@Keltest: If that was the case then there would be no reason to bring up that you're not on the list and presumably they would have written your physical description/'uninterrogated person.' As is there is no indication that any interrogation occurred, and the fact that Lokir has no idea what's going on and thinks he can get out of it by saying he's not ar ebel suggests otherwise.

[Errorname]

Except for the fact that they were arrested for illegally crossing the border. If they had been crossing legally, they...wouldn't have been arrested.

No real reason to think that. Crossing the border is why you were in the area, but they don't charge you with illegally crossing the border before trying to cut off your head.

Even if it was a crime, that's still a pretty disproportionate punishment.


Everybody there is getting the axe because they can't risk any of Ulfric's supporters getting away. You're a political sacrifice, in other words. The list is irrelevant.

This is not a pro-Empire argument.

[SerTabris]

I mean as I recall you don't really get treated much differently by Ulfric if you're not-a-nord in the actual game proper. Given the way a lot of the lore and dialogue is written you probably should be, but it mostly fails to materialize.

I feel like that's a sort of thing where at least a good part of it is a natural result of the design philosophy in Bethesda-style open-world games. (Even the ones they didn't write, looking at Caesar's behavior toward women Couriers in New Vegas.)

[Rynjin]

The "citation" is in the opening line of the game. You were caught crossing the border. Why would they "catch" you if you were crossing at a proper border crossing/checkpoint and had the right papers?

[Rater202]

The "citation" is in the opening line of the game. You were caught crossing the border. Why would they "catch" you if you were crossing at a proper border crossing/checkpoint and had the right papers?
Except that's not what's said.

Hey, you. You're finally awake. You were trying to cross the border, right? Walked right into that Imperial ambush, same as us, and that thief over there.If you're a nord, Hadvar will further reply that you chose a bad time to come home.

You were arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, not for crossing the border.

When it's pointed out that you were captured by mistake, the Imperial Captain in question orders you executed anyway.

That's not a good look for the Empire.

(It's especially egregious if you're not a Nord, since it's highly improbable that an Argonian or Dunmer is going to join the Stomrcloaks)

[Keltest]

Except that's not what's said.
If you're a nord, Hadvar will further reply that you chose a bad time to come home.

You were arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, not for crossing the border.

When it's pointed out that you were captured by mistake, the Imperial Captain in question orders you executed anyway.

That's not a good look for the Empire.

(It's especially egregious if you're not a Nord, since it's highly improbable that an Argonian or Dunmer is going to join the Stomrcloaks)

You weren't captured "by mistake" you were in a place that you shouldn't be along with the leader of the rebellion. They can't not assume youre a stormcloak, otherwise getting spies in would be as trivial as just not wearing the color blue.

As a coincidence, it is super unfortunate for you, but you also look incredibly guilty from the Empire's perspective.

[Rynjin]

So...you think that the Empire set up an ambush at a legitimate border crossing and just hoped Ulfric would be dumb enough to pass through?

Like yeah, I think Ulfric is an idiot too, but I'm pretty sure even he isn't braindead enough to walk up to the Customs office and go "Hi, I'm Ulfric Stormcloak, leader of the Stormcloaks and true High King of Skyrim and the Nords" and then get arrested by the incredulous border guards.

[Errorname]

I feel like that's a sort of thing where at least a good part of it is a natural result of the design philosophy in Bethesda-style open-world games. (Even the ones they didn't write, looking at Caesar's behavior toward women Couriers in New Vegas.)

I remember a lot more open discrimination to a female Courier than I saw for an Argonian Stormcloak, but it's a fair point.


The "citation" is in the opening line of the game. You were caught crossing the border. Why would they "catch" you if you were crossing at a proper border crossing/checkpoint and had the right papers?

You are assuming a lot of diligence for an empire that's about to cut off your head without even doing any paperwork

[veti]

Again, the Thalmor did not have free reign to do that until Ulfric made it blatantly obvious that the Empire was not abiding by the terms of the Concordant. There was no religious persecution going on until after Ulfric, specifically, made a big deal about how it wasnt going on on his watch.

Let's be clear, that's the history according to the (unabashedly partisan) verbal account of a village blacksmith. Talking about something that happened 20 years ago. More measured accounts say that Ulfric demanded freedom of worship from the Jarl before using his militia to put down the Reachmen.

To me, the curious part of that story is the fact that Ulfric - who'd been a Thalmor prisoner of war just a few months earlier - had this Nord militia all geared up and ready to fight. Where did they come from? Why were they not ravaged by the Great War, like every other fighting force in the Empire?


Their appointed High Queen of Skyrim is a puppet to her advisor. She has no ability to rule her fief, is being obeyed at the goodwill of her three main advisors (Tulius the Imperial, her Vampire Wizard and Firebeard her lover).

I agree with you for the most part, but (1) you missed Erikur, who seems at least as influential over Elisif as any of those three, and (2) there's zero indication of a romantic relationship between Elisif and Falk Firebeard. We know Falk is involved with Bryling.


Stormcloaks 100%, and for one reason, and one reason alone:

The Imperials tried to behead me because of a clerical error. That, in and of itself, is enough for me to go full on rebel, and slay anyone trying to maintain the Empire's brutally uncaring rule over the people of Tamriel.

Say what you will about Ulfric Stormcloak, he doesn't have people decapitated for no reason at all.

Two things you find in Solitude (and Helgen) that you won't find in any Stormcloak-controlled city: an executioner (and matching block), and a freaking torture chamber. If that doesn't amount to a massive red flag against supporting the Empire, I don't know what would.

There's every indication that corruption is taken for granted in imperial circles. Consider - practically all Erikur's dialogue, and Vittoria Vici's too. Maven as Jarl of Riften. Jarl Siddgeir. Cidhna Mine. The Synod. To say nothing of the entire Dark Brotherhood quest line. The Stormcloaks are nasty and brutish, but there's a level of integrity about them. (Most of the time, anyway. It's marginal, and of doubtful value given how stupid and/or selfish most of the people concerned are, but it's there.)

I'd also point out that when Ulfric loses the Civil War, he lays down his life in battle, but when the Empire loses, Ulfric offers Elisif terms - and she, despite all her theatrics and oaths about avenging Torygg, accepts them.

[Cikomyr2]

By the way, this is what i mean by the game is badly written. It never makes any connection for a cohesive world.

Someone is getting executed for being a Horse thief, which in real medieval times was a thing. But as someone else pointed out in game its a measle 50 septim bounty.

Someone else said you are to be executed for crossing the border, but we have absolutely NO hint that the borders are effectively shut down/heavily controlled past this opening dialogue. The bulk of the empire effort seems to be fighting the Stormcloaks, not monitoring the borders. There's no comment by merchants that trade has been stopped between Skyrim and other provinces. There's no lipcomment made about the Morrowind/Skyrim province being close either, since theres a Mage Guild questline about a courrier coming from Morrowind.

The world is just senseless because we are shown arguments that should make sense in a vacuum but is absolutely ignored by the rest of the world.

You know a major plot point that is never addressed? The Greybeards' future. Because theres FOUR of them and their ONE AND ONLY RECRUIT left them 20 years ago to go and play war. That means there's a good chance the Greybeards will fail to transmit their knowledge and wisdom of this unique Voice magic.

You cannot go talk to Ulfric to make him realize he basically broke the legacy of the Greybeard by leaving them, and that he should go back and resume his training.

There's no commentary by Ulfric about you being the Dragonborn, and how you basically upstage him instantly as the True Master of the Voice, which is one of the cultural myth he has built around himself as a defender of Nord Tradition.

All of that can make for such a rich, deep and intricated lore, but Bethesda never, ever goes beyond just the random line. And we are left arguing over what a random imperial officer says in the start of the game, because whatever motivation she had is in no way related to the actual gameplay in the world. Just like how Lin's concerns about "having enough fuel" in the start of Starfield absolutely links to no actual gameplay or lore reality.

Its just something someone said to expedite the story, but no actual though has been put into it.

[Errorname]

Someone else said you are to be executed for crossing the border, but we have absolutely NO hint that the borders are effectively shut down/heavily controlled past this opening dialogue

There is no hint that the borders are shut down in the opening dialogue. From context it's very clear that you were crossing the border and blundered into an ambush set for Ulfric's company. You have committed no actual wrongdoing, you were bycatch.


You know a major plot point that is never addressed? The Greybeards' future. Because theres FOUR of them and their ONE AND ONLY RECRUIT left them 20 years ago to go and play war. That means there's a good chance the Greybeards will fail to transmit their knowledge and wisdom of this unique Voice magic.

There's five of them, one of whom is an immortal dragon. If all four of the humans die before they recruit another apprentice, which is possible, Paarthurnax will still exist and will retain their knowledge.

While I definitely think "help the Greybeards recruit some new apprentices" would have made a fine quest, I don't think it's necessarily a flaw that it isn't in the game.

[Cikomyr2]

There's five of them, one of whom is an immortal dragon. If all four of the humans die before they recruit another apprentice, which is possible, Paarthurnax will still exist and will retain their knowledge.

While I definitely think "help the Greybeards recruit some new apprentices" would have made a fine quest, I don't think it's necessarily a flaw that it isn't in the game.

Paarthunax is not a Greybeard. He taught them the Way of the Voice, and is their leader, but he is not one of them.

And Paarthunax can no longer carry that burden because by the end of the main quest, he's either been killed or left to lead the Dragons in following his example in the Way of the Voice. In either case, he is unable to continue teaching the Voice to any new Greybeard prospect.

And in any case, i find it unlikely that whatever Human-centric traditions the Greybeards developped over the millenia about the recruitment and teaching to new recruits would have been Paarthunax's domain. He doesnt even deign to speak to a proven Dragonborn until it becomes necessary to stop Anduin. Why would he go out to call recruits?

The Greybeards as an institution are more than "those who mastered the Voice", even if the rest of what makes them the Greybeard is probably focused on teaching. (I.e. whatever cultural heritage they hold is in relation to the Tu'hum and its place in Nord culture).

[Keltest]

Paarthunax is not a Greybeard. He taught them the Way of the Voice, and is their leader, but he is not one of them.

And Paarthunax can no longer carry that burden because by the end of the main quest, he's either been killed or left to lead the Dragons in following his example in the Way of the Voice. In either case, he is unable to continue teaching the Voice to any new Greybeard prospect.

And in any case, i find it unlikely that whatever Human-centric traditions the Greybeards developped over the millenia about the recruitment and teaching to new recruits would have been Paarthunax's domain. He doesnt even deign to speak to a proven Dragonborn until it becomes necessary to stop Anduin. Why would he go out to call recruits?

The Greybeards as an institution are more than "those who mastered the Voice", even if the rest of what makes them the Greybeard is probably focused on teaching. (I.e. whatever cultural heritage they hold is in relation to the Tu'hum and its place in Nord culture).

Paarthurnax is absolutely a Greybeard. They flat out call him as such when you ask about their membership, among other things.

[Cikomyr2]

Paarthurnax is absolutely a Greybeard. They flat out call him as such when you ask about their membership, among other things.

Which is absolutely bonkers because he never had to learn the Tu'hum. He was created with its knowledge infused as part of his being.

Again, another absolutely beautiful thing in the lore: the Way of the Voice is basically a philosophy of existence for Dragons to grow an appreciation for the harmony of the world, tampering their impulse to dominate and replace it with contentment. The Dragons have the power already, its about seeking spiritual enlightenment.

Whereas for Humans, its basically access to the Power of the Dragons. Spiritual enlightenment is taught as part of the Way, but obviously the Greybeards hold resentment for those who abandoned the spiritual enlightenment side of the Voice and just go about using it to assert power over the world.

Its like if both specie approach the Way of the Voice from two completely different angles and aspiration and i cant remember last time i saw it in a work of fiction.

[veti]

Someone else said you are to be executed for crossing the border,

What makes this particular claim more puzzling, to me, is that Ralof says the ambush was sprung "just outside Darkwater Crossing".

I've been to Darkwater Crossing, and it is nowhere near the border.

Another thing that's never addressed is why Ulfric was trying to cross the border. You'd think, as the very-high-profile leader of one faction in a civil war, he'd want to stay in the country.


You know a major plot point that is never addressed? The Greybeards' future. Because theres FOUR of them and their ONE AND ONLY RECRUIT left them 20 years ago to go and play war.

Meh. We don't really know anything about the Greybeards or their Way. For all we know, they might have every expectation of living another 200 years. And also (as far as we know) there's no particular significance to the number of them, no reason why High Hrothgar couldn't operate with two or twelve Greybeards inside.

[Errorname]

Another thing that's never addressed is why Ulfric was trying to cross the border.

I think he was going from Riften back to Windhelm?

[SirKazum]

I think he was going from Riften back to Windhelm?

Huh? What does that have to do with Helgen / the Falkreath border? It's a straight line north from Riften to Windhelm...

[Grim Portent]

People seem to be interpreting things as Ulfric being caught in an ambush at the border, I don't think this is the case. The ambush is meant to have happened at Darkwater Crossing according to Ralof, located in Eastmarch well north of the border. It's also a long way to Helgen from there, and not adjacent to any Imperial held territory (Whiterun had not yet declared a side,) so the logistics of the ambush and the prisoner caravan make no sense.


Lokir got caught up in the raid somehow despite not being a Stormcloak, presumably because he's not resident in Darkwater and the Imperials just arrested everyone they couldn't account for as being there for legitimate civilian reasons.

How the Dragonborn got caught up in things is really unclear. You're meant to have been crossing the border into Skyrim and walked into the ambush and been grabbed by mistake... while in southern Eastmarch, ages from the border with Cyrodiil. You could be coming in from Morrowind instead of Cyrodiil, but that border is still a good distance away, and unless you were climbing the mountains the only ways into Skyrim along that border are at the coastline by Windhelm and down past Riften. I guess it is technically possible you were entering Skyrim as the convoy was passing along the road on the southern border and they just decided to knock you out and arrest you because you might be trying to free Ulfric, but really it just doesn't make sense.

[Errorname]

Since Darkwater Crossing isn't established on the map until Skyrim, I think it's possible that it was originally meant to be closer to the border than it was?

[Grim Portent]

Probably, as I understand it Skyrim's development wasn't exactly smooth. Stuff being put somewhere in an early draft or storyboard and then not being there in the actual game seems quite plausible to me.

[Cikomyr2]

Probably, as I understand it Skyrim's development wasn't exactly smooth. Stuff being put somewhere in an early draft or storyboard and then not being there in the actual game seems quite plausible to me.

That's the understatement of the century.

The Companions clearly were the result of a rush last minute job and terrible pacing. Also still wondering why their werewolf status isnt an open secret, since guards can literally tell you you smell of wet fur if you became a werewolf.

Jorrvaskr must stink of dog/wolf. They should have had at least some wardogs all around the place to obscure this obvious tell.

We never learn who the Silver hands are. Why they arent just Vigilante of Stendar, instead of a bandit faction with silver swords.

[SirKazum]

Probably, as I understand it Skyrim's development wasn't exactly smooth. Stuff being put somewhere in an early draft or storyboard and then not being there in the actual game seems quite plausible to me.

From a Doylist point of view it sounds like the two dialogues, the one in the opening scene referencing crossing the border and the one later on that references Darkwater Crossing, were written by different people who had limited knowledge of what the other side was doing then. The part about crossing the border makes more sense with the physical location the opening scene takes place in, which the writer probably knew, but the other writer either had no idea about the circumstances of the Imperial ambush, or had no idea where Darkwater Crossing was supposed to be and somehow thought it was in that area of the border. Because yeah, trying to put the two together makes zero sense.

Ignoring the whole border business and focusing just on the Darkwater Crossing ambush makes some sense with Ulfric's movements, since it's on the way from Riften to Windhelm (and doesn't require answering the question of what the hell was the leader of an insurgent faction doing outside of Skyrim), but as you said above, it makes no sense at all with the logistics of moving the convoy all the way to Helgen. And, if you throw out the "trying to cross the border" thing, as flimsy as that is, it leaves us with no explanation of why the Dragonborn was captured...

[Errorname]

Ignoring the whole border business and focusing just on the Darkwater Crossing ambush makes some sense with Ulfric's movements, since it's on the way from Riften to Windhelm (and doesn't require answering the question of what the hell was the leader of an insurgent faction doing outside of Skyrim), but as you said above, it makes no sense at all with the logistics of moving the convoy all the way to Helgen. And, if you throw out the "trying to cross the border" thing, as flimsy as that is, it leaves us with no explanation of why the Dragonborn was captured...

It's easy to imagine that if Imperials captured Ulfric in the Rift they'd want to move along the southern mountain pass into Falkreath hold, because the other way would take them deeper into Stormcloak territory. That at least, I buy. It just doesn't mesh with the caught trying to cross the border part.

[Grim Portent]

The whole thing would kind of make sense if the Rift was part of the Imperial loyalists rather than the Stormcloaks, in which case the Empire launching an ambush at Darkwater Crossing would actually make sense, it's a prominent location in southern Eastmarch that Ulfric would conceivably visit as part of the war or his duties as Jarl, and the Dragonborn could get caught up crossing the into Eastmarch rather than into Skyrim itself.

Say for example that Lokir and the Dragonborn are both staying at an inn in Darkwater on their respective journeys (I don't think there is an inn in Darkwater, but bear with me), Ulfric and his men arrive, make small talk, check in with the locals. Liege lord doing his customary duties type of thing. Lokir tries to steal a horse and gets caught by the Stormcloaks, then the Empire ambushes while everyone's distracted and take everyone who isn't a resident of Darkwater captive, Lokir gets dragged along because the Empire soldiers making the arrests just grab everyone in or near a stormcloak uniform.. Dragonborn gets knocked out in the chaos, with no one to speak up for them they get bundled up with the Stormcloaks and don't wake up until the approach to Helgen, after which point everyone else has been interrogated and identified, hence not being on the list. In order to avoid Stormcloaks making raids on the roads approaching Riften the prisoner convoy instead loops around the mountain to Helgen, the next nearest significant fortified town.


I do sometimes think Riften feels more like it should be an Imperial town, largely because of Maven and implicit trade connections to the Empire, but that would leave the Stormcloaks with Hjaalmarch, which is a minor hold not a major one, which then makes the Civil War imbalanced with the holds as they wound up being implemented, and I think it's rather apparent they wanted them to be basically even until the deciding event of Whiterun to reflect the idea of a stalemate. Just a pet theory of mine, but the opening might have made sense with a different distribution of starting holds.

[Cikomyr2]

I mean, having the Civil War be unbalanced is not a bad idea.

On one side you could have many holds openly declaring for the Empire but they are plenty of grumbling by the locals, and they arent exactly super eager to send soldiers to fight.

The Stormcloaks have fewer holds, and are badly outnumbered, but they have much less problem ruling their lands.

Either case, you can have cool sequence of diplomatic missions about quelling dissent for the Empire side or triggering an uprising for the Stormcloaks. Why does both sides have to mirror each others?

[Grim Portent]

Having it be a mirror match is a quick way to reinforce the idea of a stalemate, and is easier to balance the ceasefire summit around.

I think there were other ideas, stuff that gave both sides more of a solid identity, but because they couldn't get the core mechanics of the Civil War to work they wound up just throwing together something simple but functional as the deadline approached.

[Cikomyr2]

Having it be a mirror match is a quick way to reinforce the idea of a stalemate, and is easier to balance the ceasefire summit around.

I think there were other ideas, stuff that gave both sides more of a solid identity, but because they couldn't get the core mechanics of the Civil War to work they wound up just throwing together something simple but functional as the deadline approached.

One day I'll transform Skyrim in a tabletop RPG setting and it'll be intricate, with actual interlinked plot points.

With blackjacks. And hookers.

[Errorname]

One day I'll transform Skyrim in a tabletop RPG setting and it'll be intricate, with actual interlinked plot points.

I have come to believe that if you are worldbuilding for an RPG setting, a Civil War is your best goddamn friend. It's easy to write, has an immediately comprehensible core that can support as much depth and complexity as you would want and it justifies where all these goddamn bandits are coming from.

[Cikomyr2]

I have come to believe that if you are worldbuilding for an RPG setting, a Civil War is your best goddamn friend. It's easy to write, has an immediately comprehensible core that can support as much depth and complexity as you would want and it justifies where all these goddamn bandits are coming from.

And even with Skyrim, you can stick to the more simple of plot that your PCs want to follow. Even if its "I know this Daedric artifact is here" I'll go "sure, explain to my why your character know that, and if you want to travel there and try to do the quest, I'm game" :smallbiggrin:

Just beware seeking out the Daedra.

[SirKazum]

Having it be a mirror match is a quick way to reinforce the idea of a stalemate, and is easier to balance the ceasefire summit around.

And to be a bit more cynical, it also allows devs to reuse the exact same campaign for both sides, changing just the sprites of the people involved and a few lines of dialogue...

[Errorname]

And to be a bit more cynical, it also allows devs to reuse the exact same campaign for both sides, changing just the sprites of the people involved and a few lines of dialogue...

So the Civil War campaign is sloppy as all hell but it is absolutely not the same campaign being reused for both sides. Same core mechanics but you are doing different quests for every side, it's just that all those quests are very simple and formulaic.

[Jurai]

I pick Empire. The Stormcloaks are A: Aided by the Thalmor, B: Racist against non-Nords of EVERY stripe, and C: Betrayed the Forsworn. Also, the Empire has better looking armors.

[veti]

I pick Empire. The Stormcloaks are A: Aided by the Thalmor, B: Racist against non-Nords of EVERY stripe, and C: Betrayed the Forsworn. Also, the Empire has better looking armors.

The Stormcloaks are the only soldiers who will actually fight against the Thalmor. Imperials will side with them, if they see the fight break out.

Ralof says: "What the rebels like to forget is that the Empire is what's keeping the Dominion out of Skyrim". Yeah, right. Bang up job they're making of that.

Also, you can't accuse Stormcloaks of "betraying" the Forsworn, because they never had any agreement to begin with. It was the Empire who betrayed the Stormcloaks, on that occasion.

Ignoring the whole border business and focusing just on the Darkwater Crossing ambush makes some sense with Ulfric's movements, since it's on the way from Riften to Windhelm
Only if you take a needlessly roundabout route. The most obvious and direct road between the cities - goes nowhere near Darkwater Crossing.

Thought: there is a fort, whose name escapes me right now, a little to the west of Darkwater, populated by dead Stormcloaks and live necromancers. Maybe it was the Imperials who killed the garrison, as part of preparing their ambush for Ulfric, and the mages moved in when they moved out.

[Errorname]

I pick Empire. The Stormcloaks are aided by the Thalmor

The Stormcloaks do suck, and they are unwittingly playing right into the Thalmor's hands, but the Empire are also getting completely punked by the Thalmor. Maybe more embarrassingly. Ulfric is trying to fight them but he's too stupid to realize he's giving them exactly what they want, but the Empire thinks that in order to accomplish their long term goal of defeating the Thalmor they need to give the Thalmor everything they want in the short term and enough internal access to the Empire to completely undermine it from within.


Also, the Empire has better looking armors.

Well now, that's subjective.


Only if you take a needlessly roundabout route. The most obvious and direct road between the cities - goes nowhere near Darkwater Crossing.

I mean, it's the slightly longer route, but if Ulfric wanted to hit a spot along the way, such as the Shrine of Talos or the should be Stormcloak controlled Fort Amol, or if he perhaps wanted to avoid a spot on the more direct route because his spies suspected an ambush, it's not that much of a detour.

People don't always take the most obvious and direct route.


Thought: there is a fort, whose name escapes me right now, a little to the west of Darkwater, populated by dead Stormcloaks and live necromancers. Maybe it was the Imperials who killed the garrison, as part of preparing their ambush for Ulfric, and the mages moved in when they moved out.

If you run through on an Imperial Civil War playthrough you clear it out ahead of the Battle of Windhelm and the Stormcloaks have retaken it, so it's presumably a Stormcloak controlled fort that got temporarily taken over by brigands before being reclaimed.

[Cikomyr2]

While there is an element of ethnonationalism to the Stormcloaks, i dont remember having seen examples of Stormcloaks actually implementing racist policies or racist demeanor. They seem to be focused on having sovereignty over their territory (the people of Skyrim should make choices for themselves, not merely obey Cyrodill).

The main scene that convince people that the Stormcloaks are racists is the opening scene when you enter Windhelm. But people usually dont realize that:

1- the two people haranging the Dunmer are not Stormcloak soldiers themselves. They are a beggar and a drunk.
2- the main grievance they throw at the Dunmer is that "they dont join the Stormcloak". For an alleged Nord supremacist faction they are would be happy to have Dunmer join them
3- the situation of the Grey Quarter is a Windhelm problem, not a "Stormcloak" problem. The city accepted a large, large quantities of Dunmer refugees when their nation where in a time of crisis, two hundred years ago and they have stayed since.

So when the Dunmer replies that the civil war which is about Skyrim's self-determination, "is not their fight", i think they are making a statement that they owe nothing to the people who welcomed them to their home and they feel no attachment to the land that welcomed them.

(*Also lets not forget that Morrowind Dumners are xenophobic, arrogant, manipulators and Daedra worshippers. And slavers. It's their culture, but they arent the nicest people in the block.).

Finally, if the justification for the Dumner situation in Windhelm was purely racist, then why does Windhelm have the largest Altmer diaspora in all of Skyrim. There are more Altmer NPCs in Windhelm than anywhere else in the entire game world, but sure let's assume their entire faction/city is just Nord Supremacist.

Also remember that the Argonian ban in Windhelm is because there is so much bad blood between Argonians and Dunmer, because the Dunmer enslaved the Argonians for millenia. Even if the city gets under Imperial rule, the ban doesn't get lifted FOR THE ARGONIAN OWN PROTECTION.

Not to say there aren't some terribly racist sentiments against Dunmers existing in Windhelm. But for me, its characteristic to any large society that has an insular community living within them. You see it in the real world; its like how people started hating on Italians or Jews or Irish when they had their own neighborhoods.

Also, im 50% convinced one of the Dunmer in Windhelm is actually an imperial agent trying to stirr up trouble and inflame racial tensions to weaken Ulfric.

All of this just indicates to me that Ulfric.. is not a good administrator of his hold. Hes big on fighting, and ideals, but when it comes to the day to day boring administrative stuff he doesnt know what he's doing, because he spent his entire life either as a monk-in-training, a warrior of his warband (in service to the Empire or not) or in a Thalmor prison (which he was detained twice, for YEARS each time). He was only released the 2nd time because his father died and he was the heir of Windhelm.

(We can always have speculation as to why the heir of Windhelm was sent to the Greybeards, or why Ulfric's father never saw fit to appoint another heir).

[Keltest]

While there is an element of ethnonationalism to the Stormcloaks, i dont remember having seen examples of Stormcloaks actually implementing racist policies or racist demeanor. They seem to be focused on having sovereignty over their territory (the people of Skyrim should make choices for themselves, not merely obey Cyrodill).

Hang out more in Windhelm then. The Dunmer are forced into a ghetto (which racists wander around at night and harass them for not helping the Stormcloaks) and Argonians arent even allowed past the docks. The Dunmer also have plenty of stories about how Ulfric refuses to help Dunmer refugee caravans being attacked by bandits (or "bandits").

This is the capital of the Stormcloaks. Ulfric lives and rules here. These are policies that he has, at least tacitly, endorsed as acceptable.

[Cikomyr2]

Hang out more in Windhelm then. The Dunmer are forced into a ghetto (which racists wander around at night and harass them for not helping the Stormcloaks) and Argonians arent even allowed past the docks. The Dunmer also have plenty of stories about how Ulfric refuses to help Dunmer refugee caravans being attacked by bandits (or "bandits").

This is the capital of the Stormcloaks. Ulfric lives and rules here. These are policies that he has, at least tacitly, endorsed as acceptable.

Wow its almost like i actually address these points in my post and you didnt even bother reading them.

[Keltest]

Wow its almost like i actually address these points in my post and you didnt even bother reading them.

Frankly, yes, I stopped after the first example of "Well it's not REALLY racism." You're making excuses.

Yes, it is racism, and yes, it's Ulfric's policy.

[Errorname]

I do think it's an interesting point that Windhelm's Altmer population is both large and do not share the Dunmer's complaints, but there's no real argument that the Argonians and Dunmer aren't discriminated against.

[Keltest]

I do think it's an interesting point that Windhelm's Altmer population is both large and do not share the Dunmer's complaints, but there's no real argument that the Argonians and Dunmer aren't discriminated against.

I assume we're talking relatively here, because from my recall theres only 3 Altmer in windhelm, one of whom is married to a Nord and one of whom is a thief who all but admits the Nords were hard on her for being an elf too, except she bribed them to get them to stop.

[Grim Portent]

Niranye doesn't exactly admit to bribery directly stopping the racism, but certainly implies she greased the wheels of some influential people who put a stop to any harassment of her. Less a case of paying Rolf to piss off, more a case of paying someone to tell Rolf to piss off on her behalf. Or earning favours by smuggling or something. Corruption either way.

She also implies the Nords are racist to anyone who isn't a Nord rather than to elves in particular, but the Imperials in town seem to have no issues while the Dunmer and Argonians do, and she herself is the only Altmer to address the matter.


Ulunil and Arivanya, the stablemaster and his wife, make no mention of racism. Not that they have much to say, but then who does in Skyrim?

Nurelion, the alchemist, also makes no mention of it.

It might be less of a case of being racist towards the Dunmer because they aren't Nords, and more because they arrived as refugees, and the racism directed at the Argonians being the fairly common anti-Beastfolk prejudice found throughout Tamriel.

There's also that one Dunmer who owns a farm outside the city, who seems to think the Dunmer are being discriminated against because they aren't doing anything to earn respect.

[Cikomyr2]

Frankly, yes, I stopped after the first example of "Well it's not REALLY racism." You're making excuses.

Yes, it is racism, and yes, it's Ulfric's policy.

What great discussion fodder, admitting to just not read what the other person is writing.

Yhea, the racist organisation is giving grief to minorities for NOT joining their organisation. That makes complete sense.

Also, there's literally no difference of experience between playing as an Elf wanting to have in the Stormcloak as any other non-Nord. And any character joining the Stormcloaks are given the exact same quest to prove themselves. And nobody bats an eye about a non-Nord willing to join the Stormcloaks with the exception of this question: "why would a foreigner want to join the Stormcloaks", and the answer you can give is "Skyrim is my home".

Its not about race, its about actually calling Skyrim your home, and the people of Skyrim wanting to be governed by the people of Skyrim. Race plays a role in so far that most non-nord will not find the harsh climate of Skyrim to their taste. But lots of people do.

Stormcloaks are, first and foremost, about "Skyrim stop being governed by far away people". There is plenty of racist, xenophobic Nords.. everywhere in Skyrim. Its hardly proper to the Stormcloaks.

What about Riften, the other major Stormcloak hold? Big pro-Stormcloak Jarl there, and yet she rules over a (corrupt) integrated multicultural city.

Its almost like the designers tried to give human failings to individual holds. Again, racism against Dunmer is definetly a thing, and it is a thing in Windhelm. But Windhelm has also done more to help the Dunmer than any other Holds of Skyrim combined. Where are the dunmer refugees in Solitude? In Markath? In Riften?

There are none, because they weren't welcome.

[Rynjin]

Yhea, the racist organisation is giving grief to minorities for NOT joining their organisation. That makes complete sense.

Also, there's literally no difference of experience between playing as an Elf wanting to have in the Stormcloak as any other non-Nord. And any charavter

People keep bringing up that last part as if it matters. Bethesda no longer has the balls to have NPCs discriminate based on race and choices. That's it. that's the only reason.

Windhelm is a dirty, mismanaged ****hole on its best day. The non-human races are largely oppressed or absent. Argonians and Khajiit can't even enter the city AT ALL, Dunmer are forced to live in a ghetto, Altmer get by primarily on the privilege of money, and Bosmer and Orcs are entirely absent from the city as I recall.

That's the paradigm the Stormcloaks want everywhere, because that's "Nord beliefs" in a nutshell. Their greatest cultural hero is known almost solely for his capacity at slaying elves, and their primary god is the god of HUMANS, which has created a culture that shuns the non-humans. Some of these cultural practices have their roots in legitimate reasons (Ysgramor slew elves because he was fighting elf tyranny) but maintaining them hundreds of years past the time they were relevant is sheer racism. The root cause no longer matters.


What about Riften, the other major Stormcloak hold? Big pro-Stormcloak Jarl there, and yet she rules over a (corrupt) integrated multicultural city.

The corruption being the rleevant part. Maven doesn't believe in Stormcloak ideals, she aligns with the Stormcloaks because she doesn't wanna pay taxes.


Its almost like the designers tried to give human failings to individual holds. Again, racism against Dunmer is definetly a thing, and it is a thing in Windhelm. But Windhelm has also done more to help the Dunmer than any other Holds of Skyrim combined. Where are the dunmer refugees in Solitude? In Markath? In Riften?

There are none, because they weren't welcome.

There are plenty of Dunmer NPCs in the other cities clustered near the border with Morrowind. You just don't notice them as much because they're integrated into the population. Go ahead and do a count of Riften's Dunmer NPCs, compare it to Windhelm's numbers. They're similar.

Solitude and Markarth are at the ass-end of nowhere comparatively, literally the opposite end of the country. Skyrim is big (in lore). Of course the refugees are primarily going to end up...close to where they ran from.

[Cikomyr2]

Windhelm is a dirty, mismanaged ****hole on its best day. The non-human races are largely oppressed or absent. Argonians and Khajiit can't even enter the city AT ALL, Dunmer are forced to live in a ghetto, Altmer get by primarily on the privilege of money, and Bosmer and Orcs are entirely absent from the city as I recall.

So Khajit are banned from all cities, period. Even Imperial ones, not sure why you bring them up.

Argonians are banned because they cause trouble with the Dunmer, because of the slavery history between the races. Please, again, note that Ulfric's imperial replacement does not change the policy

Dunmer live in a ghetto, that is 100% true. But they are effectively the descendant of the refugees that came in drove from Morrowind 200 years ago, and they settled en masse in Windhelm where no other place would take them. Yes, there is racial resentment, just like that sort of racial resentment about foreigner refugees happen.. everywhere in real life. You claim that the reason the Dunmer have lived in a ghetto for the past 200 years is because Ulfric Stormcloak made it so, in the 10 years he reigned over Windhelm?

Windhelm is a badly managed city, 100% agree with you. And i gave my argument as to why that is: Ulfric was never taught how to administrate his city, so he is basically focusing on what he knows (rhetoric and warfare).

Bosmer and Orcs.. i dont really remember them being that much present elsewhere in the cities.



That's the paradigm the Stormcloaks want everywhere, because that's "Nord beliefs" in a nutshell. Their greatest cultural hero is known almost solely for his capacity at slaying elves, and their primary god is the god of HUMANS, which has created a culture that shuns the non-humans. Some of these cultural practices have their roots in legitimate reasons (Ysgramor slew elves because he was fighting elf tyranny) but maintaining them hundreds of years past the time they were relevant is sheer racism. The root cause no longer matters.

Now this is an argument with some proper weight! Yes, agreed. A lot, lot of Nord culture emphasize their human roots, worship of pro-human heroes, etc..

But this is a massive indictment of Nord culture as a whole.

I do not think any worshipper of Shor is necessarily pro-human. They just acknowledge and respect their creator.

[Rynjin]

Bosmer and Orcs.. i dont really remember them being that much present elsewhere in the cities.

Bosmer seem relatively rare in general, yeah. Orcs are more common in the Imperial cities because the army employs so many as blacksmiths.


Now this is an argument with some proper weight! Yes, agreed. A lot, lot of Nord culture emphasize their human roots, worship of pro-human heroes, etc..

But this is a massive indictment of Nord culture as a whole.

I do not think any worshipper of Shor is necessarily pro-human. They just acknowledge and respect their creator.

In a way, yes, but the issue with the Stormcloaks is that they hold themselves up as bastions of that Nord culture. They want a return to the pre-Imperial days entirely, without the softening that came with integration.

[veti]

A couple of Dunmer in Windhelm remark that the Nords seem to hate "anyone who isn't a Nord". But none of the other non-Nords in the city seem to share this perception. The Altmer do OK, and the (significant population of) Imperials seem to have quite a high status (Viola, Calixto, Adonato, "the Aretino residence").

Argonians are kept out of the city, yes - but at the behest of the Dunmer, not the Nords. The hatred between Dunmer and Argonians goes far deeper than either group's feelings toward Nords.

UESP lists ten Dunmer people in Windhelm:

Voldsea Giryon - makes no complaints about her treatment, experiences no difficulty or harrassment walking about the city or drinking in Candlehearth Hall.
Aval Atheron - runs a stand in the main market, alongside all the other merchants. Isn't treated noticeably differently from anyone else.
Faryl Atheron - works on a farm, thinks the talk of persecution is overblown, despite firsthand experience of Rolf's harrassment.
Suvaris Atheron - complains (understandably) of harrassment, but works in a trusted position for one of the top Nord families. She also gets harrassed by both sides - Ambarys Rendar repeatedly gives her a hard time about her employer.
Belyn Hlaalu - owns (owns!) his own farm outside the city. Thinks the Dunmer should shut up and work.
Luaffyn - has nothing to say about anything.
Idesa Sadri - also works in a trusted position for a Nord family. Nothing to say about discrimination or politics.
Ambarys Rendar - the most vocal anti-Nord. Not just anti-discrimination, he's actively racist against Nords. When asked about murders in Windhelm, he replies "None of that matters to me. Until someone takes a Dunmer, I let Windhelm deal with its own problems."
Malthyr Elenil - unhappy about living in the Gray Quarter and "rough treatment" (unspecified) at the hands of "Ulfric and his lot".
Revyn Sadri - makes no complaints about racism or discrimination.

So that's two votes for "shut up and work", three for "Nords are bastards", and five abstentions. It's hardly an overwhelming cry for liberation.

Is there racism? Oh yes, absolutely. (Although there's no visible foundation to the claim repeated a couple of times that this extends to all non-Nords.) But while Dunmer seem to be obliged to live in the Gray Quarter (if inside the city), they have no problems moving about the city, running market stands alongside Nord vendors, even owning land and employing a Nord labourer. And although there are some very loud Nord racists (Rolf, Elda), most of the important Nord citizens (the Cruel-Seas, the Shatter-Shields, Captain Lonely-Gale) show them no lack of respect or courtesy. Guards will actively direct you to Revyn Sadri's shop.

Finally, there's the guards. A couple of people complain that you can't get them to take an interest in the Gray Quarter's problems - but then, you can't get them to take an interest in a freakin' serial killer who's murdering Nord women, either, so I think that's more about a general culture of apathy than discrimination. The guards see themselves as a military force, not police - they think their job starts and ends with crowd control.

[Errorname]

Ultimately I agree that the Dunmer racism is not as prevalent as you might expect in Windhelm, however what I lean to with that is not "the Stormcloaks aren't actually racist" but instead "Bethesda were not willing to commit"

[Cikomyr2]

Ultimately I agree that the Dunmer racism is not as prevalent as you might expect in Windhelm, however what I lean to with that is not "the Stormcloaks aren't actually racist" but instead "Bethesda were not willing to commit"

I technically do not disagree, but we are here to discuss the game we have, no the game we wished Skyrim was, with better writing and more confidence in their own world.

Like, we can pick and chose the evidence we want if we can all handwave away to "oh Bethesda were incompetent", either in the writing department, or in design department.

Since Bethesda was not willing to commit to racist stormcloaks, then they are not committed racist. There's hint of racism, and most problem can be traced back to Ulfric's incompetent rule of his fief and the inability to ease tension in his backyard while committing all his forces to a war rather than keep order.

Even if there isn't a single observed example outright xenophobic and racist Nord Stormcloak, I 100% accept that they exist. Because.. ya know, people be people. But is Nord Supremacy *the* rallying cry of the Stormcloak? It is, but I think it's more a case that the populist sentiment is extremely anti-elven since the Great War and it has seeped among many other populist messages.

By the way, does anyone believe the Septim Empire has any chance of surviving? Even if they win the civil war, the Emperor has most likely been assassinated, and there's no indication anywhere he has an heir apparent. The man was more than instrumental in the Empire's not-complete defeat at the hands of the Altmeri Dominion.

And I think, overall, his death is just the crown jewel of the pile of deficiencies the Empire is going through.

[Errorname]

I technically do not disagree, but we are here to discuss the game we have, no the game we wished Skyrim was, with better writing and more confidence in their own world.

I think what we're talking about here is a conflict between what the game is presenting and what it's trying to present, but I do think the intent is relatively clear from the game as written.


By the way, does anyone believe the Septim Empire has any chance of surviving? Even if they win the civil war, the Emperor has most likely been assassinated, and there's no indication anywhere he has an heir apparent. The man was more than instrumental in the Empire's not-complete defeat at the hands of the Altmeri Dominion.

Oh the Empire's completely doomed. They'd be lucky to last another decade.

[veti]

I think what we're talking about here is a conflict between what the game is presenting and what it's trying to present, but I do think the intent is relatively clear from the game as written.

I disagree. I think "massive racism" is your headcanon, you want to see evidence of it, and so the fact that there is no such evidence becomes a writing failure. But I think it makes more sense to adjust your opinion of the Stormcloaks to match the evidence that is there.

There's still plausible reasons to hate them, e.g. Ulfric's cult of personality and his undisputed failures as a ruler. But then we have to offset those against similar level failures on the Imperial side. You can reasonably defend either choice, neither is a particularly comfortable fit.

But using "Stormcloaks are massive racists" as a shortcut to a definitive once-for-all answer? - that just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Errorname]

I disagree. I think "massive racism" is your headcanon, you want to see evidence of it, and so the fact that there is no such evidence becomes a writing failure. But I think it makes more sense to adjust your opinion of the Stormcloaks to match the evidence that is there.

There is textual support to argue that the Stormcloaks are not as racist as they are often claimed to be, but also there are a lot of prominent instances where the game says that they are racist. So, no, I do not think "Stormcloaks are racist" is simply headcanon. You can argue that Stormcloak racism is overstated by their enemies, but even in the most charitable reading it is still very real and very much in place.

[Rynjin]

I disagree. I think "massive racism" is your headcanon

It's not headcanon when it's stated explicitly in the text. We can argue whether it's an informed attribute (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute) or not but it is stated that Nords hate elves and the Stormcloaks want "Skyrim for the Nords". They're one step removed from coming out and saying "Elves will not replace us".

If you need a bit more, look to this book (https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Scourge_of_the_Gray_Quarter) which refers to Dunmer as "substandard beings" and uses common anti-immigrant/refugee rhetoric, or this (https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Karan%27s_Journal) story where a girl makes it clear that her lover being a Dunmer is unacceptable in the eyes of high society.

[veti]

It's not headcanon when it's stated explicitly in the text. We can argue whether it's an informed attribute (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute) or not but it is stated that Nords hate elves and the Stormcloaks want "Skyrim for the Nords". They're one step removed from coming out and saying "Elves will not replace us".

If you need a bit more, look to this book (https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Scourge_of_the_Gray_Quarter) which refers to Dunmer as "substandard beings" and uses common anti-immigrant/refugee rhetoric, or this (https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Karan%27s_Journal) story where a girl makes it clear that her lover being a Dunmer is unacceptable in the eyes of high society.

What Karan writes is "Father would never allow me to marry a commoner, much less a poor Dunmer miner." It's far from clear that "Dunmer" is the deal-breaker of those three words.

Racism is endemic in all factions in Skyrim. I've already talked about Ambarys Rendar. The Thalmor are way bigger racists than any Nords, as a brief conversation (almost inevitably followed by a brief fight) with any of their patrols will remind you. The Forsworn hate the Nords, Dunmer hate the Argonians and vice-versa, the Imperials think they're better than everyone, nobody trusts Khajiit, and the stronghold Orcs won't even talk to you unless you do some dangerous-yet-menial errand to show that you're "their friend" first. Wherever more than about three people of the same race gather together, they will find some common cause against everyone else. The Nordic racism is prominent solely because there are so many Nords in the setting.

A major part of the background storytelling is devoted to the story of Ysgramor's extermination of the Snow Elves, the latter's degradation into the modern Falmer, their equally bitter conflict with the Dwemer, and current mindless hatred of basically everyone. The Argonian invasion of Morrowind, the Great War, the Markarth Incident - basically, almost all the lore that's been added since Oblivion is about either race wars or outright genocide.

Within that "endemic racism" framework, is there really any reason to suppose that the Stormcloaks are systemically "more racist" than everyone else? Are there racist Stormcloaks? - yes, of course, but there are non-racist ones too, and conversely there is racism on the Imperial side as well. But everywhere you go, racial minorities simply aren't particularly downtrodden. The only race that's really widely discriminated against are Khajiit, and the Stormcloaks don't treat them noticeably worse than Imperials do.

[Rynjin]

What Karan writes is "Father would never allow me to marry a commoner, much less a poor Dunmer miner." It's far from clear that "Dunmer" is the deal-breaker of those three words.

It's extremely clear. Commoner = bad. Dunmer = worse. That's just simple sentence construction. "never commoner...much less Dunmer". You can cut oput "poor" and "miner" because those are just different ways of saying "commoner". The Dunmer part is the issue.


Racism is endemic in all factions in Skyrim. I've already talked about Ambarys Rendar. The Thalmor are way bigger racists than any Nords, as a brief conversation (almost inevitably followed by a brief fight) with any of their patrols will remind you. The Forsworn hate the Nords, Dunmer hate the Argonians and vice-versa, the Imperials think they're better than everyone, nobody trusts Khajiit, and the stronghold Orcs won't even talk to you unless you do some dangerous-yet-menial errand to show that you're "their friend" first. Wherever more than about three people of the same race gather together, they will find some common cause against everyone else. The Nordic racism is prominent solely because there are so many Nords in the setting.

It's prominent compared to the factions in the rest of the series as well. The only faction more in-your-face racist have been the Dunmer, though we haven't had a game set in Summerset. At absolute worst the Nords take the bronze medal on this.

A lot of the stuff you mentioned is based around political or cultural reasons. The Forsworn don't "hate the Nords", they hate that people are living on their land. The Orcs aren't racist, they've been persecuted to the point that they have to be very careful about who they trust. The Imperials have a superiority complex about their culture, not unlike the French. Or real world Romans. It's not based around race, it's based around not being part of the Empire.




Within that "endemic racism" framework, is there really any reason to suppose that the Stormcloaks are systemically "more racist" than everyone else? Are there racist Stormcloaks? - yes, of course, but there are non-racist ones too, and conversely there is racism on the Imperial side as well. But everywhere you go, racial minorities simply aren't particularly downtrodden. The only race that's really widely discriminated against are Khajiit, and the Stormcloaks don't treat them noticeably worse than Imperials do.

The...Nords, and by extension the Stormcloaks (who represent the regressive part of Nord society) absolutely treat Khajiit worse than Imperials. you know, what with it being written into law that Khajiit cannot even enter cities, much less live within them. Also pretty sure they can't own property either.

And, again...Dunmer ghetto.

You have to ignore a lot of text, and even more subtext, to miss the fact that the Stormcloaks represent a Nord supremacist movement.

[Cikomyr2]

The...Nords, and by extension the Stormcloaks (who represent the regressive part of Nord society) absolutely treat Khajiit worse than Imperials. you know, what with it being written into law that Khajiit cannot even enter cities, much less live within them. Also pretty sure they can't own property either.

Look man. I like arguing here, but if you just insist on repeating this false fact again and again, and cannot bother to check up on the fact that all holds of Skyrim refuse entry to all Khajit caravaners, i think i am done discussing with you.

[Rynjin]

Look man. I like arguing here, but if you just insist on repeating this false fact again and again, and cannot bother to check up on the fact that all holds of Skyrim refuse entry to all Khajit caravaners, i think i am done discussing with you.

Yes. All holds of Skyrim. The Nord country. Populated by Nords. Who make Nord laws. To benefit Nords.

No other country has these laws. It's almost like Nords have an unusual hatred for Khajiit. And discriminate against them based on race.

[Errorname]

Yes. All holds of Skyrim. The Nord country. Populated by Nords. Who make Nord laws. To benefit Nords.

I mean, many of those holds are Imperial controlled, so it is fair to say that problems common to all holds can't really be said to be solely a Stormcloak problem. Neither side gets a passing grade in terms of how they treat the Khajit.

[Keltest]

I mean, many of those holds are Imperial controlled, so it is fair to say that problems common to all holds can't really be said to be solely a Stormcloak problem. Neither side gets a passing grade in terms of how they treat the Khajit.

I mean, its not like the Imperials actually make the local laws. Officially, theyre lending military support to Elisif, who they consider the legitimate ruler of Skyrim. Its actually something of a point that Tullius is disinterested in ruling or staying in Skyrim longer than he has to.

[veti]

It's prominent compared to the factions in the rest of the series as well. The only faction more in-your-face racist have been the Dunmer, though we haven't had a game set in Summerset. At absolute worst the Nords take the bronze medal on this.

The Dunmer were significantly more racist in Morrowind, and that was at least two major race wars ago at the height of Imperial peace and prosperity. The whole continent has been in largely-race-based turmoil since then. It would be surprising if tolerance and openness hadn't gone sharply downhill most everywhere.

But even after all that, here in Nord Skyrim we see elves still in trusted positions of public authority - stewards, housecarls, priests, teachers. Where were the equivalent humans in Morrowind? And there's no sign that Stormcloaks are any less tolerant than the Imperial faction.


A lot of the stuff you mentioned is based around political or cultural reasons. The Forsworn don't "hate the Nords", they hate that people are living on their land.

They say they hate Nords, I'm just taking them at their word. Madanach, in his dialogue, uses the word "Nords" throughout to designate his enemy.


The Orcs aren't racist, they've been persecuted to the point that they have to be very careful about who they trust.

If racism can be justified by showing there are historical reasons for it, we should be having an entirely different argument.


The Imperials have a superiority complex about their culture, not unlike the French. Or real world Romans. It's not based around race, it's based around not being part of the Empire.

But the Nords, so the Imperials insist, are a part of the Empire. Yet Proventus Avenicci dismisses the whole Dragonborn prophecy as "Nord nonsense", and Tullius doesn't even bother to disguise his disdain for the whole country.


The...Nords, and by extension the Stormcloaks (who represent the regressive part of Nord society)

No. No no no no no. Where do you get this "Stormcloaks represent the regressive part of Nord society" from? Sheer unadulterated Imperial propaganda, that's what that is. It has no basis in observable fact.


And, again...Dunmer ghetto.

There's no Dunmer ghetto in Stormcloak Riften. Two of its most prominent Nord citizens are married to Dunmer, which is two more than you'll find in any of the cosmopolitan Imperial cities. Baalgruf has a Dunmer housecarl, but neither Ulfric nor anyone else even considers that might reflect his choice of sides. The Archmage of Winterhold is a Dunmer, but of all the reasons Nords give for hating the college, race is never mentioned.

Yes, Windhelm has its problems with racial tension. But as the text you cited earlier makes clear, those problems are unique to Windhelm. They go back 200 years, long before "Stormcloaks" were a thing. And very clearly, they are rooted in economics, not ideology.

[Rynjin]

I mean, its not like the Imperials actually make the local laws. Officially, theyre lending military support to Elisif, who they consider the legitimate ruler of Skyrim. Its actually something of a point that Tullius is disinterested in ruling or staying in Skyrim longer than he has to.

Exactly.


And there's no sign that Stormcloaks are any less tolerant than the Imperial faction.

Except all the ones I and others have already mentioned.


They say they hate Nords, I'm just taking them at their word. Madanach, in his dialogue, uses the word "Nords" throughout to designate his enemy.

Those are indeed the people on their land.


If racism can be justified by showing there are historical reasons for it, we should be having an entirely different argument.

The orcs aren't racist at all, reasoned or otherwise. They're isolationist. They do not discriminate based on racial features, they discriminate based on in/out group. This is like saying the women only train cars in Japan are sexist.


But the Nords, so the Imperials insist, are a part of the Empire. Yet Proventus Avenicci dismisses the whole Dragonborn prophecy as "Nord nonsense", and Tullius doesn't even bother to disguise his disdain for the whole country.

Proventus is, indeed, a prejudiced individual. Tullius does not appear to be motivated by racial prejudice, just disdain for those he views as traitors. He's a soldier, through and through. Loyal to the Empire to a fault.


No. No no no no no. Where do you get this "Stormcloaks represent the regressive part of Nord society" from? Sheer unadulterated Imperial propaganda, that's what that is. It has no basis in observable fact.

Their entire platform is built on "returning to the old ways". That is, by definition, regressive.


There's no Dunmer ghetto in Stormcloak Riften.

I've already explained why that is.


Yes, Windhelm has its problems with racial tension. But as the text you cited earlier makes clear, those problems are unique to Windhelm. They go back 200 years, long before "Stormcloaks" were a thing. And very clearly, they are rooted in economics, not ideology.

And Windhelm is...what? Oh yes, the most staunchly traditionalist Nord city and the seat of Stormcloak power. And it seems really convenient that the problems are "economic" in nature yet seem to only affect a singular racial sub-group.

An issue with this discussion is that I cannot draw on the very clear real world parallels at play to illustrate my point, but the talking points you're using are...disturbing in how familiar they are.

[SirKazum]

An issue with this discussion is that I cannot draw on the very clear real world parallels at play to illustrate my point, but the talking points you're using are...disturbing in how familiar they are.

Let me just say, I'm amazed that this discussion hasn't veered into moderator-attracting real-world talk... yet. It has enormous potential for that.

[GloatingSwine]

No other country has these laws. It's almost like Nords have an unusual hatred for Khajiit. And discriminate against them based on race.

We haven't seen any of the rest of the provinces in the fourth era in a game, so we can't say whether those laws are unique or not.

But in other 4e stories we do know that, for example, non-Argonians need a license to enter Lilmoth.

The Elder Scrolls is a series in which casual racism is nonexistent because everyone is into ranked competitive racism instead.

[veti]

The orcs aren't racist at all, reasoned or otherwise. They're isolationist. They do not discriminate based on racial features, they discriminate based on in/out group.

And if you're an orc, you're in. How is that "not racist"?


Proventus is, indeed, a prejudiced individual. Tullius does not appear to be motivated by racial prejudice, just disdain for those he views as traitors.

Specifically - all Nords:


"You people and your damn Jarls."
"You Nords and your bloody sense of honor."
"Don't you Nords put any stock in your own traditions?"
"Well Ulfric, you can't escape from me this time. Any last requests before I send you to... to wherever you people go when you die."

If Ulfric habitually used phrases like "you people" or "you $RACE", you'd be all over it. But he doesn't. Why are you giving Tullius a pass?

Another of his quotes I particularly like: "Without us to keep order, the provinces would fall into barbarism and lawlessness." But you can see for yourself, Stormcloak holds aren't noticeably more barbaric or lawless than Imperial ones. There's no shortage of bandits/etc. in either.


Their entire platform is built on "returning to the old ways". That is, by definition, regressive.

No. Again with the Imperial propaganda. "The old ways" would mean loyalty to the Empire (Alvor: "Skyrim has always been part of the Empire. That doesn't mean I support everything the Empire's been doing lately, but Nords have never been fair-weather friends." Jora: "Talos, who in life was known as Tiber Septim, united Tamriel and founded the Empire.") Loyalty to the Empire, now there's a regressive idea if anything is.


I've already explained why that is.

I've scoured back up through the thread, and I can only imagine you're referring to this:


The corruption being the rleevant part. Maven doesn't believe in Stormcloak ideals, she aligns with the Stormcloaks because she doesn't wanna pay taxes.

... which I didn't address at the time, because frankly I can't see any point at which it touches upon recognisable reality, unless possibly the last five words. Maven doesn't align with the Stormcloaks, she's Imperial through and through, and at least some of Riften's people can see that even before she becomes the Imperial jarl. (Vulwulf Snow-Shod: "That's what happens when you're partners with a corrupt Imperial whore like Maven.") And since when does "corruption" lead to racial harmony and integration? Markarth is just as corrupt as Riften, and almost as bigoted as Windhelm.

In fact, it strikes me that Markarth and Riften might have been designed to be mirror images of each other. They're each the second cities of their respective factions, and the jarls of each seem stunningly oblivious to the fact that their political opponents are also manipulating their local organised crime factions.

But I digress. Your "explanation" of why Riften is racially harmonious is - because it's corrupt? You're going to have to break that down a bit more for me. Besides, now I've got this very distracting image in my mind of Maven Black-Briar as some kind of crusading civil-rights leader, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant...

I'll also address this part of your earlier post:


People keep bringing up that last part as if it matters. Bethesda no longer has the balls to have NPCs discriminate based on race and choices. That's it. that's the only reason.

Windhelm is a dirty, mismanaged ****hole on its best day. The non-human races are largely oppressed or absent. Argonians and Khajiit can't even enter the city AT ALL, Dunmer are forced to live in a ghetto, Altmer get by primarily on the privilege of money, and Bosmer and Orcs are entirely absent from the city as I recall.

That's the paradigm the Stormcloaks want everywhere

Except that it's not a policy they implement. Not anywhere. There is no change to the racial mix or treatment of any of the cities when the Stormcloaks take over. And Stormcloak Riften is arguably the most integrated city in the whole country. You can't just write that off as some kind of aberration, because it's their second city. Without Riften there is no "Stormcloak faction", just a single stronghold.


An issue with this discussion is that I cannot draw on the very clear real world parallels at play to illustrate my point, but the talking points you're using are...disturbing in how familiar they are.

If you can't put "real world parallels" out of your mind, that might explain why you're finding it so hard to see what's real in the world we're actually discussing. Maybe the "parallels" aren't as clear as you think.

[Errorname]

I do think it's telling that the Imperial aligned Jarls are in general the more reasonable ones. Maven and Siddgeir are both real pieces of work, but on average the Imperials get the agreeable and semi-competent ones like Balgruuf and Idgrod, where the Stormcloak Jarls tend to be vindictive fools like Skald and Korir, and thd best they get us Laila, who is merely a naïve fool

[Rynjin]

And if you're an orc, you're in. How is that "not racist"?

I already explained how. I don't like repeating myself.


Specifically - all Nords:
If Ulfric habitually used phrases like "you people" or "you $RACE", you'd be all over it. But he doesn't. Why are you giving Tullius a pass?

Mostly because I don't care about Tullius. He is at worst an individual that represents the current regime, and that is a regime we know does not as of currently implement anti-Nord laws (of their own volition). More importantly Tullius is a general, his political power isn't nonexistent but it is limited. Ulfric styles himself as a High King. He wants unlimited rule by might, making his own prejudices much more important as he has thge power to impose them.


Another of his quotes I particularly like: "Without us to keep order, the provinces would fall into barbarism and lawlessness." But you can see for yourself, Stormcloak holds aren't noticeably more barbaric or lawless than Imperial ones. There's no shortage of bandits/etc. in either.

Debatable. I don't feel like doing a bandit headcount to figure out which holds have more, and it would be a little unfair of me to point out that one of the "Stormcloak" cities is essentially owned in its entirety by the Thieves' Guild given the later parts of this discussion.


No. Again with the Imperial propaganda. "The old ways" would mean loyalty to the Empire (Alvor: "Skyrim has always been part of the Empire. That doesn't mean I support everything the Empire's been doing lately, but Nords have never been fair-weather friends." Jora: "Talos, who in life was known as Tiber Septim, united Tamriel and founded the Empire.") Loyalty to the Empire, now there's a regressive idea if anything is.

This makes pretty much zero sense and I have little idea how to go about addressing it. Skyrim has always been a part of the Empire, yes. it has also always had its own culture. One they feel the Empire has eroded. In some ways they are correct.

What the Nords believe, and Ulfric in particular believes, is in rule by might. If we want to go only by pure text, that's all Ulfric and the Stormcloaks stand for. This is Ulfric's only ideal:


Why did you kill the high king?"

"I killed Torygg to prove our wretched condition. How is the High King supposed to be the defender of Skyrim, if he can't even defend himself?"

"Some call you a murderer."

"I challenged him in the traditional way, and he accepted. There were many witnesses. No 'murder' was committed. True, he didn't stand a chance against me. But that was precisely the point! He was a puppet-king of the Empire , not a High King of Skyrim. His father before him perhaps, but not Torygg. He was too privileged and too foolish, more interested in entertaining his queen than ruling his country."

And it's where their general oppression of "the lesser races" stems from. They deserve to be oppressed because they're not strong enough to stand up to those big Nord muscles. And, you know, economic superiority over a group of refugees but that's Imperial talk and it's definitely because Nords are the best.



I've scoured back up through the thread, and I can only imagine you're referring to this:



... which I didn't address at the time, because frankly I can't see any point at which it touches upon recognisable reality, unless possibly the last five words. Maven doesn't align with the Stormcloaks, she's Imperial through and through, and at least some of Riften's people can see that even before she becomes the Imperial jarl. (Vulwulf Snow-Shod: "That's what happens when you're partners with a corrupt Imperial whore like Maven.") And since when does "corruption" lead to racial harmony and integration? Markarth is just as corrupt as Riften, and almost as bigoted as Windhelm.

In fact, it strikes me that Markarth and Riften might have been designed to be mirror images of each other. They're each the second cities of their respective factions, and the jarls of each seem stunningly oblivious to the fact that their political opponents are also manipulating their local organised crime factions.

But I digress. Your "explanation" of why Riften is racially harmonious is - because it's corrupt? You're going to have to break that down a bit more for me. Besides, now I've got this very distracting image in my mind of Maven Black-Briar as some kind of crusading civil-rights leader, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant...

Riften is a nominally Stormcloak-aligned city, "ruled" by a Stormcloak-aligned Jarl.

But the real power behind the throne is and always was Maven. Who allows the Stormcloak alignment because it's more convenient, as she wins either way. She can align the city with the Stormcloaks using her puppet Jarl and reap the economic benefits to herself...and be completely, legally in the clear whether the Stormcloaks win or lose.

Corruption in and of itself does not lead to racial harmony, but the orchestrator behind said corruption is not a racist, and has no particular ideologically reason to implement racist policies in her city. because all she cares about is money, and anybody can spend that.


Except that it's not a policy they implement. Not anywhere. There is no change to the racial mix or treatment of any of the cities when the Stormcloaks take over. And Stormcloak Riften is arguably the most integrated city in the whole country. You can't just write that off as some kind of aberration, because it's their second city. Without Riften there is no "Stormcloak faction", just a single stronghold.

It's not a policy they implement because A.) Bethesda is lazy and B.) oppression like that takes years to manifest in any case. Their first order of business on taking over a city isn't going to be to declare a pogrom on the non-humans, they have bigger fish to fry.

And yes, Riften is an aberration. Because it is only nominally a Stormcloak city, as you argue yourself. Maven is in charge of Riften, not the Jarl. And she doesn't care about the Stormcloaks. She just wants to benefit from the confusion.

So I'm glad we agree that the Stormcloaks are an absolute joke of a "faction".


If you can't put "real world parallels" out of your mind, that might explain why you're finding it so hard to see what's real in the world we're actually discussing. Maybe the "parallels" aren't as clear as you think.

Yes I am sure Bethesda created whole cloth everything in their universe and were in no way influenced or tainted by locales, cultures, and ideologies form the real world.

[Mr Blobby]

What makes this particular claim more puzzling, to me, is that Ralof says the ambush was sprung "just outside Darkwater Crossing".

I've been to Darkwater Crossing, and it is nowhere near the border.

Another thing that's never addressed is why Ulfric was trying to cross the border. You'd think, as the very-high-profile leader of one faction in a civil war, he'd want to stay in the country.

I think 'near the border' is more important than 'near Darkwater Crossing'. And as to the why... I suspect Ulfric was going to near the border [between Ivarstead and Pale Pass?] to secretly meet up with say, 'a discontented Legion commander', 'Cyrodiili dissidents' or 'overseas Nord sympathisers' - only that it was an Imperial trap; after all Ralof says it was a near-perfect ambush and both Tullius and Elenwen were waiting in Helgen with an axe-man already lined up. You and Lokir simply get swept up in it under a 'kill them all and let God sort it out' mentality from that Imperial Captain.

Why were 'you' there, at the wrong place at the wrong time? It is left fuzzy on purpose, so you can mentally pencil in whatever backstory you'd like. After all, this is basically the same for the start of both Oblivion and Morrowind.


...So I'm glad we agree that the Stormcloaks are an absolute joke of a "faction"...

I personally sign up to the 'while not all Stormcloaks are racists, all racists are Stormcloaks' theory. And a lot of Stormcloaks are xenophobic - when it comes down to it, perhaps the only folks they don't have a beef with is Redguards and that's mainly due to their relative non-presence. The 'worst' treatment is perhaps to the Orcs; a group who were in Skyrim at least as long as the Nords and culturally most similar [Ulfric's claim to be High King would seem 'legitimate' to a tribal Orc, for example], respecters of raw power, often-worshippers of a 'banned' deity, their mer-pariah status means Nords don't even twig they are elves and with the loss of Orsimum [again] would feel keenly what it means to 'lose your homeland'.

They're the most likely candidates for a Stormcloak alliance as a group, but there's zero effort to recruit/tempt them. Which is why they are a joke of a faction; their 'Nord for the Nords' xenophobia is so strong they cannot see themselves offering Orcs 'houseroom' because they want it all themselves. It's a faction consisting of the overweening ambition of one guy and a wider circle of the bigoted, the greedy, the resentful and the stupid.

[Cikomyr2]

I would claim that "all racists are Stormcloak" to be true for all NORD racists.

Imperial, Breton, Redguard, Dunmner, Altmer, Orcsmer, Bosners, Argonians, Khajit.. all of them that could hold racist sentiments would join the Imperials just to put down these uppity Nords.


Btw, has it ever been stated how long it has been between Ulfric's duel with High King Torygg and the opening? We know its during the same year, but the opening of the game is set in fall. So it could have been months.

Its just that ive been thinking: the one thing we know is different in Solitude since that fateful event is that General Tullius showed up to be the imperial governor of the province basically at the same time as we show up in Skyrim. So it could be understood he recently took command of Solitude's garrison.

Which means Roggvir's execution was probably done explicitly on his order. Probably as part of the big propaganda point Tulius wants to push on the Nords that High King Torygg was "murdered", therefore anyone who remotely aided him is guilty of treason.

If Roggvir's fate had been determined at the time of the murder, why wait until after Tulius shows up to execute him?

[Mr Blobby]

Well, yeah. A Dark Elf racist isn't gonna sign up for the Stormcloaks, are they?

Anyway, Roggvir's execution is tagged to happen when you first arrive at Solitude. Depending on what kind of game you're playing, that could be a long time [current playthough; Day 45 and I've just got to Falkreath]. I think the only thing which can be remotely 'assumed' is that the delay was perhaps mainly down to arguments to how complicit/culpable the man was.

[Grim Portent]

If I were to come up with a reason Roggvir would be sentenced to death so long after the fact, it's possible Elisif has been grieving too much to perform even a perfunctory trial and pass sentence until lately, and by sheer coincidence she recovered enough to do so shortly before our arrival, resulting in Roggvir's quantum execution always taking place when we show up in the city. In this case the magnitude of what Roggvir is being accused of would make it important for Elisif to be the one to pass sentence as opposed to Falk Firebeard doing so on her behalf.

Or there's been some kind of legal stuff behind the scenes to determine if his execution is even legal by Nord and/or Imperial law that got resolved shortly before we get there.

[Keltest]

If I were to come up with a reason Roggvir would be sentenced to death so long after the fact, it's possible Elisif has been grieving too much to perform even a perfunctory trial and pass sentence until lately, and by sheer coincidence she recovered enough to do so shortly before our arrival, resulting in Roggvir's quantum execution always taking place when we show up in the city. In this case the magnitude of what Roggvir is being accused of would make it important for Elisif to be the one to pass sentence as opposed to Falk Firebeard doing so on her behalf.

Or there's been some kind of legal stuff behind the scenes to determine if his execution is even legal by Nord and/or Imperial law that got resolved shortly before we get there.

I suspect it was probably delayed by debate over the legitimacy of Ulfric's challenging of Torygg. If he was genuinely the king, or at least acting within legal bounds for the terms of the duel, then obeying his commands, opening the gate and otherwise not stopping him isnt a crime.

[Mr Blobby]

Did Roggvir even know that Ulfric had killed the High King as he let him out? I don't believe you never get an IC answer to that; but it's important to establish guilt [if he didn't, he was 'simply doing his job' and thus innocent].

It's also quite plausable that he simply was not a priority; that to a certain extent he was thrown in prison and forgotten about. Hell, if he lasts for many a month, it's possible that the major folks had believed he'd been executed ages ago and 'they'd simply missed the memo' on it.

[Batcathat]

While I generally think the Imperial side is the better choice (mainly for pragmatic reasons, as I don't think either side comes off great from a moral standpoint), I think they mostly look very hypocritical in regards to the fight between Ulfric and the High King. I wonder if they would've considered it murder if Torygg had won?

[Cikomyr2]

Did Roggvir even know that Ulfric had killed the High King as he let him out? I don't believe you never get an IC answer to that; but it's important to establish guilt [if he didn't, he was 'simply doing his job' and thus innocent].

It's also quite plausable that he simply was not a priority; that to a certain extent he was thrown in prison and forgotten about. Hell, if he lasts for many a month, it's possible that the major folks had believed he'd been executed ages ago and 'they'd simply missed the memo' on it.

No. There is no way he would have known.

Retelling of the events by all parties had Ulfric beeline for the exit of the city while everyone was in shock at what happened. Nobody challenged him on the way out, so Roggvir did his duty by letting a Jarl leave the city since he was not ordered to hold him.

It had nothing to do with Roggvir's allegiance, or the legitimacy of the duel. He was doing his job.

I still think the whole thing could be seen as an authoritarian move by Tulius. Finding a scapegoat the people could denounce publicly.

Maybe even check who sympathized with him so he could ID the Stormcloak sympathizers.

[Keltest]

No. There is no way he would have known.

Retelling of the events by all parties had Ulfric beeline for the exit of the city while everyone was in shock at what happened. Nobody challenged him on the way out, so Roggvir did his duty by letting a Jarl leave the city since he was not ordered to hold him.

It had nothing to do with Roggvir's allegiance, or the legitimacy of the duel. He was doing his job.

I still think the whole thing could be seen as an authoritarian move by Tulius. Finding a scapegoat the people could denounce publicly.

Maybe even check who sympathized with him so he could ID the Stormcloak sympathizers.

At least some Imperial accounts indicate that Ulfric was in fact being pursued by the guards. I don't believe Ulfric comments on it either way.

[Cikomyr2]

At least some Imperial accounts indicate that Ulfric was in fact being pursued by the guards. I don't believe Ulfric comments on it either way.

Oh? Ill go look the quotes. Do you remember which character?

[Keltest]

Oh? Ill go look the quotes. Do you remember which character?

I... Think it was someone in the Solitude court? Or involving the execution?

[Grim Portent]

I kind of think Roggvir gets executed less for the actual act of letting Ulfric through the gate, I doubt there's much he could have done to stop him on short notice anyway, and more for publically denying that what Ulfric did is murder.

If Roggvir's reaction upon finding out what happened was to go 'oh no, what have I done?' and throw himself at his commander's mercy I imagine he would have gotten off with whatever menial penal duty the Solitude guard has. Latrine cleaning, potato peeling or scrubbing gull poop off a statue, a month of night watches, that sort of thing.

Instead his reaction was something like 'It was a duel? Well in that case I did nothing wrong, duels are legal according to our customs and so I shouldn't have detained Ulfric even if I could.' I can't imagine that made the authorities who all liked the deceased High King all that happy with him, and in turn led to trumped up charges.

[Cikomyr2]

I kind of think Roggvir gets executed less for the actual act of letting Ulfric through the gate, I doubt there's much he could have done to stop him on short notice anyway, and more for publically denying that what Ulfric did is murder.

If Roggvir's reaction upon finding out what happened was to go 'oh no, what have I done?' and throw himself at his commander's mercy I imagine he would have gotten off with whatever menial penal duty the Solitude guard has. Latrine cleaning, potato peeling or scrubbing gull poop off a statue, a month of night watches, that sort of thing.

Instead his reaction was something like 'It was a duel? Well in that case I did nothing wrong, duels are legal according to our customs and so I shouldn't have detained Ulfric even if I could.' I can't imagine that made the authorities who all liked the deceased High King all that happy with him, and in turn led to trumped up charges.

Well, i believe he gets executed mostly to enforce a legal lie. The notion that Torygg was "murdered".

If Torygg was murdered, then Roggvir facilitated his killer's escape. Even unwittingly, he was accessory to murder.

If the duel was legal, then Roggvir did his duty to the letter.

Since the Empire cannot accept the notion that the duel was legal, they have to cut off Roggvir's head.

[Rynjin]

I suspect it was probably delayed by debate over the legitimacy of Ulfric's challenging of Torygg. If he was genuinely the king, or at least acting within legal bounds for the terms of the duel, then obeying his commands, opening the gate and otherwise not stopping him isnt a crime.

Even by the Nords' own laws, Ulfric wasn't king yet just because he killed Torygg. He would still need to be confirmed by a council of other kings at the Moot before he could take his place as High King; which is why he still isn't as we start the game.


Did Roggvir even know that Ulfric had killed the High King as he let him out? I don't believe you never get an IC answer to that; but it's important to establish guilt [if he didn't, he was 'simply doing his job' and thus innocent].

He seemed to, as the only defense he offered at his execution was this:


"There was no murder! Ulfric challenged Torygg. He beat the High King in fair combat."..."Such is our way! Such is the ancient custom of Skyrim, and all Nords!"

I feel like if he didn't know and agree with what Ulfric did his first defense would be "I saw the Jarl of Windhelm fleeing for his life, and moved to help him as any citizen would! I didn't know he had committed a crime!"


While I generally think the Imperial side is the better choice (mainly for pragmatic reasons, as I don't think either side comes off great from a moral standpoint), I think they mostly look very hypocritical in regards to the fight between Ulfric and the High King. I wonder if they would've considered it murder if Torygg had won?

Ulfric is the one who issued the challenge, so Torygg was just defending himself. Mind you he'd probably be called a dumbass for even accepting an honor duel in the first place.

Which is the most frustratingly hypocritical part of Ulfric's point about Torygg in the first place. With one breath he belittles him for being "too weak" to be king of Skyrim, and with another praises him for having the courage to actually accept the duel and fight like a Nord.

I think it's a real missed opportunity for one of the endings to the Civil War not being that you get to just challenge him to a duel in his throneroom on first meeting him and then call him a weak bitch after he gets ripped apart.

[Cikomyr2]

I mean, we can definetly, DEFINETLY call out Ulfric for his selective following of "Nord Traditions".

He refuses to call a Moot because he's afraid the other Jarls would give the crown to Ellisif. Despite the High King being a position that can ***only*** be given by a Moot of the Jarls.

Also, ive recently read that apparently these duels were hardly "to the death". Usually the winner ended up High King and the loser in exile. But Ulfric decided to kill the young king to make a point.

Ultimately, i think a lot repose on Ulfric's bad decision making. I believe he is genuine in his faith and love of his people, but will throw away principles to pursue these goals in a way he sees fit, rather than acknowledge some rules can be more important than his judgement.

I.e. he wants to do what's right but man is he stupid the way he goes about it.

[Batcathat]

Mind you he'd probably be called a dumbass for even accepting an honor duel in the first place.

Yes, that is very much my opinion on him, yet another old-fashioned idiot who thinks that "honorable" is better than intelligent. Which is also why I have a hard time taking the people (whether in or out of universe) who complain about Ulfric winning "unfairly" seriously. If you're in a fight to the death, you'd be an idiot not to use every tool at your disposal.


Which is the most frustratingly hypocritical part of Ulfric's point about Torygg in the first place. With one breath he belittles him for being "too weak" to be king of Skyrim, and with another praises him for having the courage to actually accept the duel and fight like a Nord.

I don't actually think this is hypocritical. Torygg can be brave enough to accept the challenge, yet also not strong enough to win and/or rule the country.

Now, I don't think being a good fighter has much to do with being a good leader (and if I never again see another plot where someone can become the leader by fighting the current leader, it'll be too soon) but that's clearly in line with Nord culture.

[Rynjin]

The issue is that an honor duel is meant to be ritualized. It's not just "a fight to the death", it's a fight where people agree on terms.

If you and I agree to duel at noon, with sabers, and you pull out your Glock and kill me...yeah I'm dead, but that doesn't mean you "won the duel", it means you broke the terms of said duel and now it's just murder.

Typically this is what seconds would be there to help enforce, but I guess Nord dueling isn't that sophisticated.

[ArlEammon]

The issue is that an honor duel is meant to be ritualized. It's not just "a fight to the death", it's a fight where people agree on terms.

If you and I agree to duel at noon, with sabers, and you pull out your Glock and kill me...yeah I'm dead, but that doesn't mean you "won the duel", it means you broke the terms of said duel and now it's just murder.

Typically this is what seconds would be there to help enforce, but I guess Nord dueling isn't that sophisticated.

Maybe Ulfric's use of the Thu'um was just a loop hole.

[Batcathat]

The issue is that an honor duel is meant to be ritualized. It's not just "a fight to the death", it's a fight where people agree on terms.

If you and I agree to duel at noon, with sabers, and you pull out your Glock and kill me...yeah I'm dead, but that doesn't mean you "won the duel", it means you broke the terms of said duel and now it's just murder.

Typically this is what seconds would be there to help enforce, but I guess Nord dueling isn't that sophisticated.

Indeed. And if the duel in question had a rule banning what Ulfric did, I could see it being called murder or at least some sort of crime. But unless I've missed something, even the people bashing Ulfric for it never seem to say it's against the rules. He might be dishonorable, he might be the duel equivalent of a dog playing basketball, but I don't think he actually broke any terms.

[Cikomyr2]

The issue is that an honor duel is meant to be ritualized. It's not just "a fight to the death", it's a fight where people agree on terms.

If you and I agree to duel at noon, with sabers, and you pull out your Glock and kill me...yeah I'm dead, but that doesn't mean you "won the duel", it means you broke the terms of said duel and now it's just murder.

Typically this is what seconds would be there to help enforce, but I guess Nord dueling isn't that sophisticated.

And sometimes, a duel is "both fighter go at it to the best of their capabilities".

The use of Tu'um was unorthodox not because it broke some ancient tradition of "no magic", but because it was rarely used since so few people nowaday knows how to master the Tu'um. What was once a proud tradition and god-given power of the Nord people has dwindled down to the point where you can count the Nords able to master it on the finger of your hand.

The Tu'um has been part of Nord culture ever since Kyne and Paarthunax taught them how to use it.

[ArlEammon]

And sometimes, a duel is "both fighter go at it to the best of their capabilities".

The use of Tu'um was unorthodox not because it broke some ancient tradition of "no magic", but because it was rarely used since so few people nowaday knows how to master the Tu'um. What was once a proud tradition and god-given power of the Nord people has dwindled down to the point where you can count the Nords able to master it on the finger of your hand.

The Tu'um has been part of Nord culture ever since Kyne and Paarthunax taught them how to use it.

This is why that, rather than it being morally correct, even according to Nords, I see this as being potentially "Un-Nord" in spirit. The Chinese invented gun powder. When they dueled each other I don't think that one duelist shooting at the other with a machine gun makes sense, even though it originates in Chinese culture, unless the other side also has a fire arm.

[GloatingSwine]

Ulfric is the one who issued the challenge, so Torygg was just defending himself. Mind you he'd probably be called a dumbass for even accepting an honor duel in the first place.


If you live in a culture where duels of honour are fought and you decline a challenge you also concede whatever the challenge is about. If Torygg had declined the duel he would have revealed himself to be weak and unfit to rule.

Evidently Nords don't allow for a champion in such duels.

We don't know what the code duello is for the Nords and what is or is not allowed. (Though we do know the one for the Altmer in the 2nd era.)

[Mr Blobby]

Well, that would explain why Tullius starts by saying 'No man would kill his King with The Voice...' However, my bet is there being rules for dueling, but not that many. More the sorts to stop you having to fend off a duel while sitting on the latrine armed only with a glorified dinner knife. However, it may be that the 'loophole abuse' was more Ulfric noticing that it was still technically legal but hadn't been done in centuries.


Yes, that is very much my opinion on him, yet another old-fashioned idiot who thinks that "honorable" is better than intelligent. Which is also why I have a hard time taking the people (whether in or out of universe) who complain about Ulfric winning "unfairly" seriously. If you're in a fight to the death, you'd be an idiot not to use every tool at your disposal.

Except traditional Nord culture does have some no-nos. Magic, for example is held to be something those snotty Bretons and 'weak' elves favour and they're not likely to look well on shooting down your opponent with a poisoned bow either. Which suggests 'the Thu'um as loophole abuse' as it's both 'traditional' but also something few can stand against successfully [which also makes you wonder if it is 'another loophole' to fight a duel in wolf-man form].

[Rynjin]

If you live in a culture where duels of honour are fought and you decline a challenge you also concede whatever the challenge is about. If Torygg had declined the duel he would have revealed himself to be weak and unfit to rule.

Right, which is where my comment about hypocrisy comes in. Ulfric's entire issue with Torygg is that he's "not Nord enough".

But if he was truly that corrupted by Imperial ideals he would have declined the duel and relied on the political backing of the Empire to ensure he stays in his seat. By accepting the duel at all, he essentially proves Ulfric wrong.

Torygg is still a Nord, with a Nord's pride and respect for Nord culture. Which leaves any other disagreements he and Ulfric have as purely political.

That takes a lot of wind out of the sails of Ulfric's movement in terms of being purely in the right from a "Nord perspective". And so he chooses to paint Torygg as a weak coward instead of what he actually was: a brave man with different political views and less personal combat prowess than Ulfric.


And sometimes, a duel is "both fighter go at it to the best of their capabilities".

The use of Tu'um was unorthodox not because it broke some ancient tradition of "no magic", but because it was rarely used since so few people nowaday knows how to master the Tu'um. What was once a proud tradition and god-given power of the Nord people has dwindled down to the point where you can count the Nords able to master it on the finger of your hand.

The Tu'um has been part of Nord culture ever since Kyne and Paarthunax taught them how to use it.

This is I think another thing that puts Ulfric on the wrong foot. The Thu'um is absolutely part of Nord culture, and is part of their cultural power.

But that cultural power also comes with cultural responsibility. Not just to the Way of the Voice, which teaches that the Thu'um must not be used for personal or political gain, but to the even deeper aspect of the culture that the Thu'um is meant to be used solely as a weapon against evils which cannot be fought by traditional means.

Using the Voice to slay Torygg is similar in concept to someone unsheathing the Holy Sword of Demon Slaying to murder a political rival. That is not a power meant to be used against those with mere mortal disagreements with each other, but should be reserved for fighting threats beyond the ken of most mortal men.

And I find it notable that Ulfric doesn't hesitate to unleash the Voice against a man powerless to stand against it, but raises not a finger to use it against the return of the ancient foe it was designed to defeat.

That is my personal theory for why there's "no law against shouting your opponent to death!": because the ancient Nords who laid down these laws, after the atrocities the earliest Nords committed with them, would have been appalled at the very idea of using the Thu'um for something so petty.

[Batcathat]

Except traditional Nord culture does have some no-nos. Magic, for example is held to be something those snotty Bretons and 'weak' elves favour and they're not likely to look well on shooting down your opponent with a poisoned bow either. Which suggests 'the Thu'um as loophole abuse' as it's both 'traditional' but also something few can stand against successfully [which also makes you wonder if it is 'another loophole' to fight a duel in wolf-man form].

Yes, maybe magic would be against the rules or maybe it would just be met with disapproval. We don't know their exact rules, but considering the fact that even Ulfric's enemies doesn't seem to suggest that he actually broke the rules, it seems unlikely that he did.


Right, which is where my comment about hypocrisy comes in. Ulfric's entire issue with Torygg is that he's "not Nord enough".

But if he was truly that corrupted by Imperial ideals he would have declined the duel and relied on the political backing of the Empire to ensure he stays in his seat. By accepting the duel at all, he essentially proves Ulfric wrong.

So if he had declined the duel, that would've proven Ulfric correct? I don't think it's an either or situation. Clearly it's possible to be devoted to both the Empire and Nord culture, just look at Rikke. Exactly where Ulfric draws the line of "not Nord enough" is obviously subjective, but I don't think it's hypocritical.

[GloatingSwine]

Right, which is where my comment about hypocrisy comes in. Ulfric's entire issue with Torygg is that he's "not Nord enough".

But if he was truly that corrupted by Imperial ideals he would have declined the duel and relied on the political backing of the Empire to ensure he stays in his seat. By accepting the duel at all, he essentially proves Ulfric wrong.


That only goes so far. It's not what Torygg thinks or believes, it's what everyone else thinks of him. The Empire isn't strong enough to keep him as the High King if the people and Jarls of Skyrim think otherwise. The Empire can barely keep its own territory intact, let alone impose its will on other provinces.


Well, that would explain why Tullius starts by saying 'No man would kill his King with The Voice...' However, my bet is there being rules for dueling, but not that many.

Tullius is also an Imperial though.

I suspect that use of the Voice is completely acceptable in Nord duelling because, unlike magic, it's of the body not Aetherius.

[Rynjin]

That only goes so far. It's not what Torygg thinks or believes, it's what everyone else thinks of him. The Empire isn't strong enough to keep him as the High King if the people and Jarls of Skyrim think otherwise. The Empire can barely keep its own territory intact, let alone impose its will on other provinces.

Perhaps, but I find it interesting that that implies that no matter WHAT the outcome of this duel was, a civil war would have started anyway. I wonder if Ulfric had thought through these avenues of possibility before inciting it?

[Batcathat]

Perhaps, but I find it interesting that that implies that no matter WHAT the outcome of this duel was, a civil war would have started anyway. I wonder if Ulfric had thought through these avenues of possibility before inciting it?

Yeah, I kind of assume the war was more or less unavoidable at that point. Maybe it could've been avoided if Ulfric had lost the duel in a manner his followers would consider fair, but even in that case I'm guessing there would at least be some unrest, considering the issues Ulfric championed won't go away just because he does.

Personally, I think Torygg's best move would've been to imprison this clearly rebellious jarl and then move as quickly as possible to neutralize his followers. It would probably still have been war, but the imperial side would've started out in a much better position. The obvious drawback is that such a "dishonorable" move might've costed him some support, but I suspect the situation was already polarized enough by then that it wouldn't have made a ton of difference. (Of course, all of this is wildly speculative).

[Keltest]

Yes, maybe magic would be against the rules or maybe it would just be met with disapproval. We don't know their exact rules, but considering the fact that even Ulfric's enemies doesn't seem to suggest that he actually broke the rules, it seems unlikely that he did.

Thats absolutely not true, the entire pro-Empire line is that Ulfric's duel was not legitimate. All of his enemies think he broke the rules, thats why theyre his enemies.

[Errorname]

Perhaps, but I find it interesting that that implies that no matter WHAT the outcome of this duel was, a civil war would have started anyway.

Yeah, probably

Tension had been building from years, all the fuel for a civil war was laid, and no matter how that duel ends it's a spark

[Batcathat]

Thats absolutely not true, the entire pro-Empire line is that Ulfric's duel was not legitimate. All of his enemies think he broke the rules, thats why theyre his enemies.

Do you have any quotes on that? I might've missed something but while I remember them complaining a lot about how he won, I don't remember them actually saying he broke any rules. (Also, I'm pretty sure they would've been his enemies no matter how he won).

[Keltest]

Do you have any quotes on that? I might've missed something but while I remember them complaining a lot about how he won, I don't remember them actually saying he broke any rules. (Also, I'm pretty sure they would've been his enemies no matter how he won).

What do you think they mean when they say he murdered Torygg? The main opinion isnt that he broke any rules as such, its that the entire duel was illegitimate in the first place and has no legal standing. Ulfric seems to at least tacitly agree with this position, as he doesn't think the Moot will choose him as High King unless he places his own Jarls in power before hand, and otherwise seeks other symbols to boost his legitimacy.

[Batcathat]

What do you think they mean when they say he murdered Torygg? The main opinion isnt that he broke any rules as such, its that the entire duel was illegitimate in the first place and has no legal standing. Ulfric seems to at least tacitly agree with this position, as he doesn't think the Moot will choose him as High King unless he places his own Jarls in power before hand, and otherwise seeks other symbols to boost his legitimacy.

The fact that the High King accepted the duel suggest that it was legitimate, I think. So if the duel itself was legitimate (or at least that the High King was as guilty of fighting in an illegitimate duel as Ulfric), then the method must be the problem, but there seems to be no actual rules against the method in question.

[Keltest]

The fact that the High King accepted the duel suggest that it was legitimate, I think. So if the duel itself was legitimate (or at least that the High King was as guilty of fighting in an illegitimate duel as Ulfric), then the method must be the problem, but there seems to be no actual rules against the method in question.

Thats sort of like saying there arent any actual rules about how to shank someone with a knife in a gang fight.

[Batcathat]

Thats sort of like saying there arent any actual rules about how to shank someone with a knife in a gang fight.

No, I'm saying that if the High King agreed to the duel (which by all accounts he did), then it was a legitimate duel (or close enough to it, considering it had implicit approval of the highest authority around) held according to whatever rules apply and none of those rules seem to forbid using the Voice.

If Ulfric had just stormed into the room and killed Torygg? Yeah, that would've been murder, whether or not he used the Thu'um. But it appears he issued a challenge and Torygg accepted it, which certainly makes it seem a lot less murdery, in my opinion.

[Keltest]

No, I'm saying that if the High King agreed to the duel (which by all accounts he did), then it was a legitimate duel (or close enough to it, considering it had implicit approval of the highest authority around) held according to whatever rules apply and none of those rules seem to forbid using the Voice.

If Ulfric had just stormed into the room and killed Torygg? Yeah, that would've been murder, whether or not he used the Thu'um. But it appears he issued a challenge and Torygg accepted it, which certainly makes it seem a lot less murdery, in my opinion.

Legitimate in what way? Just because he agreed to it doesnt mean it has any legal authority, or indeed that he had any practical ability to say no (which Ulfric admits to forcing him into). For that matter, they sure didn't sit there and hash out terms.

[Batcathat]

Legitimate in what way? Just because he agreed to it doesnt mean it has any legal authority, or indeed that he had any practical ability to say no (which Ulfric admits to forcing him into). For that matter, they sure didn't sit there and hash out terms.

Of course he had the ability to say no. He simply had to decide to sacrifice his honor in order to possibly avert war instead of sacrificing his life for basically no reason (well, I suppose he'll get a nice seat in Sovngarde for his trouble). It was certainly a tricky situation, which was no doubt Ulfric's intention, but he had more than one option.

As for terms, the challenge was specifically according to old Nord traditions, which presumably came with certain rules. And if they didn't, well, then using the Thu'um certainly wasn't against them.

Whether or not it was actually legitimate is presumably a question for Skyrim's lawyers, but at the very least the highest legal authority in the land accepted the duel, which certainly gives the impression that it was legitimate.

[Rynjin]

Though, as mentioned upthread, denying the challenge would have likely also led to a war.

Genuinely I think the only "winning" play for Torygg and a unified Skyrim would be for Torygg to accept the challenge and win. As I see it once the gauntlet was thrown there are only a few possibilities.

-Ulfric wins, causing a schism between imperial loyalists and "true Nords".
-Torygg declines the challenge, causing a schism between imperial loyalists and "true Nords".
-Torygg wins, proving his strength and right to rule, thus averting the conflict for a while (though probably only until the next High King)
-Torygg has Ulfric assassinated, causing a schism between imperial loyalists and "true Nords"

Essentially Ulfric put Torygg into a situation where the only moral option is to take up his sword and try to prevent a war.

[Keltest]

Of course he had the ability to say no. He simply had to decide to sacrifice his honor in order to possibly avert war instead of sacrificing his life for basically no reason (well, I suppose he'll get a nice seat in Sovngarde for his trouble). It was certainly a tricky situation, which was no doubt Ulfric's intention, but he had more than one option.

As for terms, the challenge was specifically according to old Nord traditions, which presumably came with certain rules. And if they didn't, well, then using the Thu'um certainly wasn't against them.

Whether or not it was actually legitimate is presumably a question for Skyrim's lawyers, but at the very least the highest legal authority in the land accepted the duel, which certainly gives the impression that it was legitimate.

Given that fully half the country (to say nothing of the government they answer to) rejected its legitimacy, I think its safe to say that Torygg accepting did not legitimize it except in the eyes of the people who had already decided that Ulfric was right.

[Batcathat]

Though, as mentioned upthread, denying the challenge would have likely also led to a war.

Genuinely I think the only "winning" play for Torygg and a unified Skyrim would be for Torygg to accept the challenge and win. As I see it once the gauntlet was thrown there are only a few possibilities

Yes, that would probably be the ideal option, but a very unlikely one. As I've said, I agree that civil war was probably more or less unavoidable, but if Torygg had made a more pragmatic choice he might have been able to stop the Stormcloaks early or at least have been in a much better position to fight them.


Essentially Ulfric put Torygg into a situation where the only moral option is to take up his sword and try to prevent a war.

That's one take on it. Mine is that Torygg put his personal honor ahead of what was best for his country and died a largely meaningless death.


Given that fully half the country (to say nothing of the government they answer to) rejected its legitimacy, I think its safe to say that Torygg accepting did not legitimize it except in the eyes of the people who had already decided that Ulfric was right.

If your definition of "legitimate" in this case is for the result to be accepted by all of the loser's supporters, I can agree it was never going to be legitimate. Do you think Torygg's supporters would have been as upset about it if the outcome had been Ulfric dying?

[druid91]

I mean it's worth noting that it wasn't like Torygg and Ulfric were political opponents. Unless I'm misremembering Torygg idolized Ulfric.

It's one of the main arguments against Ulfric I think is worthwhile despite overall thinking the Stormcloaks are the better option, he could have not killed his king and instead asked him to support his policies. Instead he decided he wanted the crown for himself.

[Keltest]

If your definition of "legitimate" in this case is for the result to be accepted by all of the loser's supporters, I can agree it was never going to be legitimate. Do you think Torygg's supporters would have been as upset about it if the outcome had been Ulfric dying?

Of course not, but the comparison is silly. Ulfric basically came in and declared his intention to kill Torygg. Failing at that is hardly going to be seen the same as succeeding no matter the context.

[Batcathat]

Of course not, but the comparison is silly. Ulfric basically came in and declared his intention to kill Torygg. Failing at that is hardly going to be seen the same as succeeding no matter the context.

Sure, but if the duel was illegitimate and "winning" the duel was actually murder, then that would have been true if Torygg won as well (and I think claiming self-defense after you've accepted a challenge to a duel would be tricky) and somehow I doubt his supporters would focus on that interpretation. Rather, I suspect that it would've been a glorious story of the High King defeating the rebellious jarl in a very legitimate way.

[Keltest]

Sure, but if the duel was illegitimate and "winning" the duel was actually murder, then that would have been true if Torygg won as well (and I think claiming self-defense after you've accepted a challenge to a duel would be tricky) and somehow I doubt his supporters would focus on that interpretation. Rather, I suspect that it would've been a glorious story of the High King defeating the rebellious jarl in a very legitimate way.

Why would it be tricky, exactly? For starters, Torygg could just... not kill Ulfric if it was somehow illegal to kill your opponent in a duel, but Torygg was the challenged party. Ulfric's supporters can hardly complain about him getting killed in a duel to the death that he initiated.

[Batcathat]

Why would it be tricky, exactly? For starters, Torygg could just... not kill Ulfric if it was somehow illegal to kill your opponent in a duel, but Torygg was the challenged party. Ulfric's supporters can hardly complain about him getting killed in a duel to the death that he initiated.

Right, but in this scenario it's not a legitimate duel. That's my point. If Torygg's supporters are actually so upset about the duel being illegitimate (and not about the fact that they don't like who won it), then it would be equally illegitimate if Torygg won.

Anyhow, I doubt we'll ever know enough about the laws of the matter to tell for sure whether or not it was actually legitimate. I stand by the fact that Torygg (not only being the challenged party, but the High King of Skyrim) accepting the challenge makes the duel legitimate enough. He had options, he choose accepting it.

[Grim Portent]

Of course not, but the comparison is silly. Ulfric basically came in and declared his intention to kill Torygg. Failing at that is hardly going to be seen the same as succeeding no matter the context.

There's a big difference to stating an intent to kill someone and challenging them to a trial by combat. In the former case there is no recourse other than self defense when they actually get started on the attempted murder or having them arrested for making threats, in the latter you can just refuse the challenge and deal with the consequences.

Torygg could have refused to fight and Ulfric would have just walked away the de facto victor, but that would shame Torygg, and he valued his honour more than his life. The result would presumably have been a Moot to pick a new High King,* which could have been Torygg again, and maybe a challenge from one of the Thanes of Hjaalmarch looking to become the new Jarl of Solitude now that Torygg is disgraced. Not a great outcome if you value martial honour, family pride and so on, but if your primary goal is to not die then just saying 'yeah you win, now leave my throne room,' is a viable option.


Torygg also seems to have gone in to the duel knowing it would be to the death.


When Ulfric Stormcloak, with savage Shout, sent me here, my sole regret was fair Elisif, left forlorn and weeping. I faced him fearlessly - my fate inescapable, yet my honor is unstained - can Ulfric say the same?

*The other instance of Nords dueling for titles I am familiar with is Skald-King Jorunn and his brother Fildgor Orc-thane dueling for their dead sisters throne in the 2nd era. Fildgor lost and was exiled, but that was two people dueling for the succession of East Skyrim, not someone challenging the nominally elected High King for being weak, so the way things shake out is not necessarily transferrable from one situation to the other.

[Errorname]

It's much easier to spin Torygg getting challenged to a duel and killed as unjust and illegitimate because he did not pick that fight. Ulfric did. He laid down the challenge, he set the terms, if his guys don't like the outcome they shouldn't have played that game

Of course, a key thing here is that Ulfric would have never challenged a Torygg that stood any chance of beating him. That duel was only ever going Ulfric's way

[Cikomyr2]

Legitimate in what way? Just because he agreed to it doesnt mean it has any legal authority, or indeed that he had any practical ability to say no (which Ulfric admits to forcing him into). For that matter, they sure didn't sit there and hash out terms.

Whose laws? The Empire's?

"Sir, the laws of the Empire says the nordic tradition of duelling the High King is not accepted unless you file form 32-B in triplicates before hand".

The laws of the Empire is whatever the Emperor says is the law. And that is the very thing Ulfric is fighting against. He is against the worship of Talos is banned just because the Emperor said so. He is against being branded a criminal for following Nord Tradition just because the Empire said so.

[Keltest]

Whose laws? The Empire's?

"Sir, the laws of the Empire says the nordic tradition of duelling the High King is not accepted unless you file form 32-B in triplicates before hand".

The laws of the Empire is whatever the Emperor says is the law. And that is the very thing Ulfric is fighting against. He is against the worship of Talos is banned just because the Emperor said so. He is against being branded a criminal for following Nord Tradition just because the Empire said so.

Skyrim's, but also yes the Empire's. We already know Ulfric is a power hungry revolutionary, I'm not sure why you felt the need to reiterate that, unless you were trying to imply that he was an anarchist as well.

[Cikomyr2]

Skyrim's, but also yes the Empire's. We already know Ulfric is a power hungry revolutionary, I'm not sure why you felt the need to reiterate that, unless you were trying to imply that he was an anarchist as well.

More like felt the need to reiterate that the "Laws of the Empire" are not exactly couched in a long tradition of rule of law. Its imperialist tyranny, where the guy at the top say what is and the only push back you can do is labelled as treason or dissession.

[Keltest]

More like felt the need to reiterate that the "Laws of the Empire" are not exactly couched in a long tradition of rule of law. Its imperialist tyranny, where the guy at the top say what is and the only push back you can do is labelled as treason or dissession.

Thats starting to touch on forum verbotten topics, but suffice to say that the Septim empire does not work like that. Morrowind, for example, retained several rights when they became an imperial province that were illegal elsewhere, such as slavery.

[Cikomyr2]

Thats starting to touch on forum verbotten topics, but suffice to say that the Septim empire does not work like that. Morrowind, for example, retained several rights when they became an imperial province that were illegal elsewhere, such as slavery.

I am not sure how real world politics have to do with the centralized power of the Emperor in the Elder scroll series.

And Morrowind's status as a somewhat independant province of the Septim Empire was negotiated explicitly when it joined the Empire. All other province just were conquered by heart or arms, and no conditions were made in their subjugation.

[Keltest]

I am not sure how real world politics have to do with the centralized power of the Emperor in the Elder scroll series.

And Morrowind's status as a somewhat independant province of the Septim Empire was negotiated explicitly when it joined the Empire. All other province just were conquered by heart or arms, and no conditions were made in their subjugation.

Thats not the point. Skyrim, as a province, does answer to the Emperor, but it also self-governs. They have their own laws, they have their own king. They have rights and benefits as a member state of the Empire.

But also, again, Ulfric isnt an anarchist. His problem isnt that someone is in charge, his problem is that it isn't him.

[SirKazum]

Thats not the point. Skyrim, as a province, does answer to the Emperor, but it also self-governs. They have their own laws, they have their own king. They have rights and benefits as a member state of the Empire.

Sounds to me like you're missing the whole point of irredentism. The whole idea behind the Stormcloak Rebellion is that Skyrim needs to be independent, and therefore anything having to do with the Empire or its laws or authority is illegitimate and should be ignored. You can agree or disagree with that, but it's a political position that people may have, and which in fact informs the argument used by Ulfric's side in the dispute.

[Cikomyr2]

Thats not the point. Skyrim, as a province, does answer to the Emperor, but it also self-governs. They have their own laws, they have their own king. They have rights and benefits as a member state of the Empire.

But also, again, Ulfric isnt an anarchist. His problem isnt that someone is in charge, his problem is that it isn't him.

But.. thats blatantly false.

Skyrim doesnt govern itself. Skyrim's holds and jarls and high king only have power and authority when the Emperor accepts it.

Otherwise, the Jarl of Markath would have been fully in his right to allow open worship of Talos, since by right and tradition the Jarls of Skyrim are the supreme authorities on their territories.

But no. The emperor can just crush a dissenting Jarl with the full might of his empire, and if he lets disobedience go unchallenged its not because they are amenable to dissension but because the Empire is busy dealing with other challenges to the Emperor's absolute authority.

No province of the Septim Empire except Morrowind had any right to dissent against the Emperor's will. The empire is a centralized autocratic government where the whole is meant to serve the center, not the other way around.

[Keltest]

But.. thats blatantly false.

Skyrim doesnt govern itself. Skyrim's holds and jarls and high king only have power and authority when the Emperor accepts it.

Otherwise, the Jarl of Markath would have been fully in his right to allow open worship of Talos, since by right and tradition the Jarls of Skyrim are the supreme authorities on their territories.

But no. The emperor can just crush a dissenting Jarl with the full might of his empire, and if he lets disobedience go unchallenged its not because they are amenable to dissension but because the Empire is busy dealing with other challenges to the Emperor's absolute authority.

No province of the Septim Empire except Morrowind had any right to dissent against the Emperor's will. The empire is a centralized autocratic government where the whole is meant to serve the center, not the other way around.

Yes, you have described every government everywhere. It turns out no constituent parts can just unilaterally override the higher authority without consequence.

Putting it another way, Ulfric explicitly wants to become the same thing you are describing as bad to the province of Skyrim. He's trying to strongarm the Jarls into going along with his way of thinking by means of force, actively removing the ones who disagree with him.

He isnt revolting over philosophy, he just thinks that might makes right and is trying to press his might.

[druid91]

He isnt revolting over philosophy, he just thinks that might makes right and is trying to press his might.

People in this thread keep saying this, but there's basically no evidence of it. The closest you can get is that Ulfric started a war and he said Torygg was too weak to defend Skyrim.

But the question is why did he start the war? Why did he think Torygg was too weak? The answer is that trouble is on the Horizon. The Empire is dying, the Thalmor are coming sooner rather than later, and harsh remedies are needed now to have any hope of actually fighting them. To add on top of that, he's looking to redeem himself in his own eyes, because he thinks his weakness was responsible for the fall of the imperial city. To make it so that all the people who died in the great war didn't die for nothing. Because the terms of the White Gold Concordat are literally the same terms the Thalmor offered at the start of the war. It was an absolute surrender.

Is he also a flawed, incredibly narcissistic individual? Absolutely.

But the idea that he's just fighting the war because might makes right and he thinks he can is just bizarre and not supported by the game at all.

[Keltest]

People in this thread keep saying this, but there's basically no evidence of it. The closest you can get is that Ulfric started a war and he said Torygg was too weak to defend Skyrim.

But the question is why did he start the war? Why did he think Torygg was too weak? The answer is that trouble is on the Horizon. The Empire is dying, the Thalmor are coming sooner rather than later, and harsh remedies are needed now to have any hope of actually fighting them. To add on top of that, he's looking to redeem himself in his own eyes, because he thinks his weakness was responsible for the fall of the imperial city. To make it so that all the people who died in the great war didn't die for nothing. Because the terms of the White Gold Concordat are literally the same terms the Thalmor offered at the start of the war. It was an absolute surrender.

Is he also a flawed, incredibly narcissistic individual? Absolutely.

But the idea that he's just fighting the war because might makes right and he thinks he can is just bizarre and not supported by the game at all.
You mean besides the fact that he challenged his king to a duel to the death over the right to rule? And then followed it up by declaring war on all the Jarls who didn't support him? Heck, if you side with the stormcloaks and win, he flat out says he's only bothering with the Moot for appearances sake. More generally, he only is able to win by violently overthrowing fully half the jails and putting his own yes men in charge.

If that's not enough, Whiterun is neutral until Ulfric flat out declares war on them for not supporting him.

[druid91]

Using violence to achieve power doesn't mean "Might Makes Right."

He's not out here saying "I'm the strongest therefore I can do whatever I want."

He has specific goals he talks about, He has specific reasons he thinks violence is necessary.

[Keltest]

Using violence to achieve power doesn't mean "Might Makes Right."

He's not out here saying "I'm the strongest therefore I can do whatever I want."

He has specific goals he talks about, He has specific reasons he thinks violence is necessary.
That's literally, explicitly what he was saying when he was fighting torygg. That he should be king because he is stronger. He says as much if you ask him.

[ArlEammon]

That's literally, explicitly what he was saying when he was fighting torygg. That he should be king because he is stronger. He says as much if you ask him.

"Stronger" how? I forget. If he's stronger because he has the Thu'um, that's kind of a given. If you mean stronger as in, muscles, etc, then well that makes sense.

[Keltest]

"Stronger" how? I forget. If he's stronger because he has the Thu'um, that's kind of a given. If you mean stronger as in, muscles, etc, then well that makes sense.

Stronger of arm, deed, character. Take your pick. The Nords at least implicitly seem to believe they're all related.

[Batcathat]

"Stronger" how? I forget. If he's stronger because he has the Thu'um, that's kind of a given. If you mean stronger as in, muscles, etc, then well that makes sense.

Does it matter? Either combat ability isn't a good qualifier for who should lead or it is, in which case the specifics seem less important.

Personally, I think Ulfric and Torygg both seem way too invested in the image of what a good leader should be like, rather than actually being good leaders.

[druid91]

That's literally, explicitly what he was saying when he was fighting torygg. That he should be king because he is stronger. He says as much if you ask him.

No. If you ask him, he says, "I killed Torygg to prove our wretched condition. How is the High King supposed to be the defender of Skyrim, if he can't even defend himself?" When you continue the dialogue line this is what he says.

"I challenged him in the traditional way, and he accepted. There were many witnesses. No "murder" was committed. True, he didn't stand a chance against me. But that was precisely the point! He was a puppet-king of the Empire , not a High King of Skyrim. His father before him perhaps, but not Torygg. He was too privileged and too foolish, more interested in entertaining his queen than ruling his country."

At no point does he say something even close to

"I killed him because I could and for no other reason."

He's very explicit that the issue with his weakness is because he couldn't defend Skyrim from outside forces meaning Skyrim harm. Especially when you ask him why he's fighting.

"We're fighting because we're done bleeding for an Empire that won't bleed for us. Untold numbers of Nords died defending the Empire against the Dominion. And for what? Skyrim being sold to the Thalmor so the Emperor could keep his throne! We're fighting because our own Jarls, once strong, wise men, have become fearful and blind to their people's suffering. We're fighting because Skyrim needs heroes, and there's no one else but us."

[Keltest]

No. If you ask him, he says, "I killed Torygg to prove our wretched condition. How is the High King supposed to be the defender of Skyrim, if he can't even defend himself?" When you continue the dialogue line this is what he says.

"I challenged him in the traditional way, and he accepted. There were many witnesses. No "murder" was committed. True, he didn't stand a chance against me. But that was precisely the point! He was a puppet-king of the Empire , not a High King of Skyrim. His father before him perhaps, but not Torygg. He was too privileged and too foolish, more interested in entertaining his queen than ruling his country."

At no point does he say something even close to

"I killed him because I could and for no other reason."

He's very explicit that the issue with his weakness is because he couldn't defend Skyrim from outside forces meaning Skyrim harm. Especially when you ask him why he's fighting.

"We're fighting because we're done bleeding for an Empire that won't bleed for us. Untold numbers of Nords died defending the Empire against the Dominion. And for what? Skyrim being sold to the Thalmor so the Emperor could keep his throne! We're fighting because our own Jarls, once strong, wise men, have become fearful and blind to their people's suffering. We're fighting because Skyrim needs heroes, and there's no one else but us."

I never said he killed him arbitrarily, I said he killed him to be king. Which he admitted to. The point, as Ulfric eventually reaches, is that Torygg could not beat Ulfric, or even stand a chance, which means he shouldn't be king. He lacked might, so he lacked right.

[ArlEammon]

Stronger of arm, deed, character. Take your pick. The Nords at least implicitly seem to believe they're all related.


Does it matter? Either combat ability isn't a good qualifier for who should lead or it is, in which case the specifics seem less important.

Personally, I think Ulfric and Torygg both seem way too invested in the image of what a good leader should be like, rather than actually being good leaders.

I'm just confused as to whether the Nords are split on whether the Thu'um is magic or not. The Nords hate magic, but the Thu'um is sort of magic, you know? Maybe that's an unexplored nuance.

[Keltest]

I'm just confused as to whether the Nords are split on whether the Thu'um is magic or not. The Nords hate magic, but the Thu'um is sort of magic, you know? Maybe that's an unexplored nuance.

Why are you assuming they have to be logically consistent? It's magic, but they see it as a gift from the gods, so it gets an exception.

[ArlEammon]

Why are you assuming they have to be logically consistent? It's magic, but they see it as a gift from the gods, so it gets an exception.

Probably, but I don't know if all of Nord society is of the same mind as that.

[druid91]

I never said he killed him arbitrarily, I said he killed him to be king. Which he admitted to. The point, as Ulfric eventually reaches, is that Torygg could not beat Ulfric, or even stand a chance, which means he shouldn't be king. He lacked might, so he lacked right.

You're simplifying.

He also says this, if you ask him if he shouted Torygg to death.

"Not entirely true, though not entirely false either. Any Nord can learn the Way of the Voice by studying with the Greybeards, given enough ambition and dedication. My shouting Torygg to the ground proved he had neither. However, it was my sword piercing his heart that killed him."

Like he makes it clear that Torygg is an issue not just because he's weak. But because he was just in general unsuitable for the war to come. He was without ambition, dedication, or strength. He was uninterested in ruling his realm and happy to be a puppet of the empire.

How true that is isn't clear. But his reasoning is more complex than "Strong should rule the weak."

[Keltest]

Probably, but I don't know if all of Nord society is of the same mind as that.

I'm not aware of any nords voicing (heh) any other opinion. Lots of them hold opinion on the honorable uses of the Voice, due to the influence of Jurgen Windcaller and the greybeards, but at the general level I don't think anyone contests that it's magic or anything.

[Cikomyr2]

Yes, you have described every government everywhere. It turns out no constituent parts can just unilaterally override the higher authority without consequence.

Nonono. The "unilateral" carries a lot of weight in what you are writing.

In the Septim Empire, except for Morrowind, there is no way for a local authority to override the higher authority. Not merely "unilaterally". There is no way period. There is no entity that determined the limit of the central government compared to the local government. There is no equivalent to a supreme court (of any similar modern nation) that could claim "the Emperor's order is beyond his purview".

The Septim Empire as we have seen it only give power to local government as far as it facilitates their compliance with the expectations of the central state - that means taxes, levies, or whatever the Empire demands of them, in the form of the Emperor himself or his delegates.

The need to negotiate, compromise, etc.. between the Empire and its province, when it does happen, is not a reflection of constitutional rights (de jure) of the province to resists central rules but instead an admission of powerlessness (de facto) lack of authority of the central state that it doesnt have the might to just push around its vassals casually.

Ulfric believes that "if Skyrim is to exist in a society where the guy at the top makes all decisions, going as far as overriding traditions that were central to the Empire's legitimacy*, might as well make sure the Jarls of Skyrim are the ones to pick him and not the politics of Cyrodill".

*Said tradition was THE WORSHIP OF THE EMPIRE'S FOUNDER.

[Keltest]

Nonono. The "unilateral" carries a lot of weight in what you are writing.

In the Septim Empire, except for Morrowind, there is no way for a local authority to override the higher authority. Not merely "unilaterally". There is no way period. There is no entity that determined the limit of the central government compared to the local government. There is no equivalent to a supreme court (of any similar modern nation) that could claim "the Emperor's order is beyond his purview".

The Septim Empire as we have seen it only give power to local government as far as it facilitates their compliance with the expectations of the central state - that means taxes, levies, or whatever the Empire demands of them, in the form of the Emperor himself or his delegates.

The need to negotiate, compromise, etc.. between the Empire and its province, when it does happen, is not a reflection of constitutional rights (de jure) of the province to resists central rules but instead an admission of powerlessness (de facto) lack of authority of the central state that it doesnt have the might to just push around its vassals casually.

Ulfric believes that "if Skyrim is to exist in a society where the guy at the top makes all decisions, going as far as overriding traditions that were central to the Empire's legitimacy*, might as well make sure the Jarls of Skyrim are the ones to pick him and not the politics of Cyrodill".

*Said tradition was THE WORSHIP OF THE EMPIRE'S FOUNDER.
Ulfric is trying to become king though. He clearly has no problem with dictatorships when he's the one in charge. You're ascribing motives to him thst he doesn't actually have.

Extremely generously, if you take him as completely open and honest (which he is not), Ulfric has no problems with the idea of the Empire. He fought for it after all. What he feels is wrong is that the Empire is not meeting or able to meet its obligations to Skyrim. Now, that's if you take him at his literal word and don't just read it as a nominal party line for the public face.

[druid91]

Ulfric is trying to become king though. He clearly has no problem with dictatorships when he's the one in charge. You're ascribing motives to him thst he doesn't actually have.

Extremely generously, if you take him as completely open and honest (which he is not), Ulfric has no problems with the idea of the Empire. He fought for it after all. What he feels is wrong is that the Empire is not meeting or able to meet its obligations to Skyrim. Now, that's if you take him at his literal word and don't just read it as a nominal party line for the public face.

As far as I'm aware he never actually tells a direct provable lie throughout the entire game.

And he has that discussion alone with Galmar multiple times where he talks about why he thinks the empire is bad for Skyrim. Galmar is his right hand man who's been with him from the beginning. There's no need to lie to him so why would he?

[Keltest]

As far as I'm aware he never actually tells a direct provable lie throughout the entire game.

And he has that discussion alone with Galmar multiple times where he talks about why he thinks the empire is bad for Skyrim. Galmar is his right hand man who's been with him from the beginning. There's no need to lie to him so why would he?

Probably because if Ulfric flat out said it was a power grab to Galmar's face, Galmar's status as his right hand man has a good chance of changing. Ulfric may not want to admit it to himself either, he clearly enjoys being on the pedistal his followers put him on.

As far as provable lies go, you generally don't want to be telling them long term, especially in politics. It's easy to get called out on them then. It's no surprise that he doesn't say anything outright false. That doesn't mean he isn't being deceptive though. He wants the moot to make it seem like he was elected through acclaim rather than bloody conquest for example.

[druid91]

Probably because if Ulfric flat out said it was a power grab to Galmar's face, Galmar's status as his right hand man has a good chance of changing. Ulfric may not want to admit it to himself either, he clearly enjoys being on the pedistal his followers put him on.

As far as provable lies go, you generally don't want to be telling them long term, especially in politics. It's easy to get called out on them then. It's no surprise that he doesn't say anything outright false. That doesn't mean he isn't being deceptive though. He wants the moot to make it seem like he was elected through acclaim rather than bloody conquest for example.

I mean it kind of was if he wins. Elisif and the Imperial jarls are propped up by Imperial forces from within Cyrodil.

Ulfrics recruits are more or less solely from within Skyrim.

If Ulfrics wins, that implies sufficient support from the people of Skyrim that he not only outweighs that of the Imperial Jarls, but enough to overcome the additional weight of external legion forces.

In other words, he would have to have the support of well over half the nation to win.

[Keltest]

I mean it kind of was if he wins. Elisif and the Imperial jarls are propped up by Imperial forces from within Cyrodil.

Ulfrics recruits are more or less solely from within Skyrim.

If Ulfrics wins, that implies sufficient support from the people of Skyrim that he not only outweighs that of the Imperial Jarls, but enough to overcome the additional weight of external legion forces.

In other words, he would have to have the support of well over half the nation to win.

The flip side of that is that Nords make up a fairly significant portion of the imperial legions. Legate Rikke is a nord, for example. And Ulfric will flat out refuse to attack Solitude while the Emperor is there, because if the Emperor is hurt or killed then Cyrodiil will march its armies into Skyrim and crush the Stormcloaks, Implying that the current imperial forces are just the regular standing army for Skyrim.

[Rynjin]

You're simplifying.

He also says this, if you ask him if he shouted Torygg to death.

"Not entirely true, though not entirely false either. Any Nord can learn the Way of the Voice by studying with the Greybeards, given enough ambition and dedication. My shouting Torygg to the ground proved he had neither. However, it was my sword piercing his heart that killed him."

Like he makes it clear that Torygg is an issue not just because he's weak. But because he was just in general unsuitable for the war to come. He was without ambition, dedication, or strength. He was uninterested in ruling his realm and happy to be a puppet of the empire.

How true that is isn't clear. But his reasoning is more complex than "Strong should rule the weak."

And we're to...take Ulfric entirely at his word here?

Torygg may have been an Imperial loyalist...though even that is ambiguous, given how much he idolized Ulfric. We have no idea of his ambition or lack thereof, or what he was dedicated to simply because we are told practically nothing about Torygg.

I also find Ulfric's attitude laughable. "Any Nord can learn the Way of the Voice"? No, any Nord who lives a privileged enough lifestyle to simply spend an entire decade away from their responsibilities can do it. Ulfric is just posturing and trying to manufacture justifications, not actually positing a universal truth here.

While Ulfric spent ten years meditating, Torygg presumably spent the same time learning how to rule his province. Given how much of a ****hole Windhelm is, it'd be a lot better for Ulfric's people if he'd done the same.

[druid91]

And we're to...take Ulfric entirely at his word here?

Torygg may have been an Imperial loyalist...though even that is ambiguous, given how much he idolized Ulfric. We have no idea of his ambition or lack thereof, or what he was dedicated to simply because we are told practically nothing about Torygg.

I also find Ulfric's attitude laughable. "Any Nord can learn the Way of the Voice"? No, any Nord who lives a privileged enough lifestyle to simply spend an entire decade away from their responsibilities can do it. Ulfric is just posturing and trying to manufacture justifications, not actually positing a universal truth here.

While Ulfric spent ten years meditating, Torygg presumably spent the same time learning how to rule his province. Given how much of a ****hole Windhelm is, it'd be a lot better for Ulfric's people if he'd done the same.

As mentioned he at no occasion tells a lie you can catch him in. So given he tells the truth about everything you can confirm, there's little point in assuming he's lying about everything you can't.

As to the rest of the argument...

A.) Windhelm isn't that bad. I really don't understand the whole assertion that it's a ****hole at all. It's in somewhat disrepair but no more so than whiterun, and it's in significantly better shape than a few other hold capitals. Especially for the capital of a rebel army who is largely cut off from outside trade except with Morrowind.

B.) Dedication. Yes. That is a thing that is demonstrated by giving up other opportunities to dedicate time to a thing. Torygg was not demonstrably a better ruler in any way, though yes that is in part because we know little about him. And Solitude, while wealthier has its own, far more significant issues in the form of imperials cutting off peoples heads for questionable reasons and the Thalmor playing secret police while they subvert local politics.

[Divayth Fyr]

As mentioned he at no occasion tells a lie you can catch him in. So given he tells the truth about everything you can confirm, there's little point in assuming he's lying about everything you can't
Only half-truths. Like when he makes a point about not taking the throne before the Moot makes their decision when speaking to the crowd

"And it is for these reasons that I cannot accept the mantle of "High King." Not until the Moot declares that title should adorn my shoulders will I accept it."
only to tell us in private

"We'll wait for the Moot to name me High King. It'll be better for all that way. But, that doesn't mean I won't start acting like it.".
May not be a straight lie, but also doesn't strike me as being entirely honest. Even if getting the title is a foregone conclusion, since he removed any opposition.

And we have the dialogu that normally is impossible to witness, since Lonely-Gale doesn't enter the Palace, but it is there


Ulfric: "Captain, I've been receiving complaints about this Giordano woman.
Captain Lonely-Gale: "Yes, sir. I've been trying to quiet her, but she's insistent. She thinks she can find out who's been killing the women..."
Ulfric: "I don't care if she can find a living dwarf -- I can't have her stirring up trouble. We have enough problems as it is."
Captain Lonely-Gale: "Yes, sir. I'll try to contain her."
Ulfric: "See that you do. I will not let Windhelm descend into chaos over a few overactive imaginations."

Ulfric: "What's the current spirit among the dark elves?"
Captain Lonely-Gale: "As restless as ever, sir, but I don't see them taking any kind of incendiary action. Not soon, anyway."
Ulfric: "Well that much is good. Let's finish this first war before starting the next one, eh?"
Captain Lonely-Gale: "Um... yes, of course, sir."
Ulfric: "Carry on, Lonely-Gale. And loosen yourself a bit."
sounds like trying to ignore/cover up some actual issues plaguing his town...

[Rynjin]

As mentioned he at no occasion tells a lie you can catch him in. So given he tells the truth about everything you can confirm, there's little point in assuming he's lying about everything you can't.

As mentioned below, that's not true, and even if it were...Ulfric is the most biased possible source for this information. Even if he isn't lying, that doesn't mean he's correct. He could truly believe that and still be wrong.




A.) Windhelm isn't that bad. I really don't understand the whole assertion that it's a ****hole at all. It's in somewhat disrepair but no more so than whiterun, and it's in significantly better shape than a few other hold capitals. Especially for the capital of a rebel army who is largely cut off from outside trade except with Morrowind.

Windhelm didn'ty end up in its current condition overnight, and is certainly in more disrepair than Whiterun. Whiterun is a trade hub who has allowed their walls to fall into disrepair in an era of peace, which is understandable if not wise. The actual building inside the town are all well-kept and the people live comfortably. In Windhelm the dwellings are also in poor repair, but that's also largely beside the point of it having the most inept and uncaring guards in the region; an attitude that stems directly from Ulfric.


B.) Dedication. Yes. That is a thing that is demonstrated by giving up other opportunities to dedicate time to a thing. Torygg was not demonstrably a better ruler in any way, though yes that is in part because we know little about him. And Solitude, while wealthier has its own, far more significant issues in the form of imperials cutting off peoples heads for questionable reasons and the Thalmor playing secret police while they subvert local politics.

The mistake is that assuming someone "lacks dedication" because they dedicated their life to something different from you.

And executing someone for deliberately allowing a rebel assassin to walk free is not "dubious reasons". We have already established that if we are to assume Ulfric has any competence in politics AT ALL, he must have known that his challenge to Torygg would incite a war. Roggvir, specifically, can be blamed in large part for there being a war at all.

[Batcathat]

And executing someone for deliberately allowing a rebel assassin to walk free is not "dubious reasons". We have already established that if we are to assume Ulfric has any competence in politics AT ALL, he must have known that his challenge to Torygg would incite a war. Roggvir, specifically, can be blamed in large part for there being a war at all.

Presumably there were many other guards around when Ulfric showed up, issued his challenge and as the duel happened. If Ulfric was a rebel assassin a guard is duty bound to stop, surely they had plenty of opportunity to do so. Yet it seems like they didn't act until the king had lost the duel, which doesn't exactly scream "assassination" in my book.

[Rynjin]

Presumably there were many other guards around when Ulfric showed up, issued his challenge and as the duel happened. If Ulfric was a rebel assassin a guard is duty bound to stop, surely they had plenty of opportunity to do so. Yet it seems like they didn't act until the king had lost the duel, which doesn't exactly scream "assassination" in my book.

It was a politically motivated killing, which fits the vague definition of an assassin. That the guards were derelict in their duty to protect the High King is a separate matter.

[Keltest]

Presumably there were many other guards around when Ulfric showed up, issued his challenge and as the duel happened. If Ulfric was a rebel assassin a guard is duty bound to stop, surely they had plenty of opportunity to do so. Yet it seems like they didn't act until the king had lost the duel, which doesn't exactly scream "assassination" in my book.

It's not like shouting FUS RO DAH at someone and then stabbing them takes that long.

[Batcathat]

It was a politically motivated killing, which fits the vague definition of an assassin. That the guards were derelict in their duty to protect the High King is a separate matter.

Again, it's not like he jumped out and killed him out of nowhere. I think calling a formal duel (whether or not said duel is legal) that both participants agree to an "assassination" is questionable at best.


It's not like shouting FUS RO DAH at someone and then stabbing them takes that long.

Sure, but not even Ulfric's enemies suggests that he just showed up and attacked the king. He issued a challenge, the king accepted and they fought. While we don't know the exact time table, that should offer plenty of time for any guards present to try and stop Ulfric. But it seems everyone went along with things until the king lost, which is very odd behavior if Ulfric is some sort of lawless assassin trying to kill their king.

[druid91]

Only half-truths. Like when he makes a point about not taking the throne before the Moot makes their decision when speaking to the crowd

only to tell us in private
.
May not be a straight lie, but also doesn't strike me as being entirely honest. Even if getting the title is a foregone conclusion, since he removed any opposition.

And we have the dialogu that normally is impossible to witness, since Lonely-Gale doesn't enter the Palace, but it is there


sounds like trying to ignore/cover up some actual issues plaguing his town...

Certainly he will spin the way he says things to play to the crowd. But that's not dishonesty either. Just theatrics.

And to be fair, that dialogue effectively isn't in the game. Lonely Gale has a lot of glitches from how he's supposed to be a steward at some point before that got cut.


As mentioned below, that's not true, and even if it were...Ulfric is the most biased possible source for this information. Even if he isn't lying, that doesn't mean he's correct. He could truly believe that and still be wrong.



Windhelm didn'ty end up in its current condition overnight, and is certainly in more disrepair than Whiterun. Whiterun is a trade hub who has allowed their walls to fall into disrepair in an era of peace, which is understandable if not wise. The actual building inside the town are all well-kept and the people live comfortably. In Windhelm the dwellings are also in poor repair, but that's also largely beside the point of it having the most inept and uncaring guards in the region; an attitude that stems directly from Ulfric.



The mistake is that assuming someone "lacks dedication" because they dedicated their life to something different from you.

And executing someone for deliberately allowing a rebel assassin to walk free is not "dubious reasons". We have already established that if we are to assume Ulfric has any competence in politics AT ALL, he must have known that his challenge to Torygg would incite a war. Roggvir, specifically, can be blamed in large part for there being a war at all.

He could be wrong, but if he was why doesn't anyone actually defend Torygg's record as a king? Everyone who defends him focuses on how improper it was of Ulfric to duel him, how he was just a boy, nobody goes "Look at all these great things Torygg did for us!" And when you meet Torygg in Sovngarde his main concern isn't for his people, it's for Elisif. Which connects with Ulfric's statement about him being primarily concerned with pleasing his wife over leading his people. Was he an honorable doofus? Sure. But that doesn't make him a good high king.

They're not inept or uncaring, they're stretched thin due to the war. The idea that they're inept or uncaring comes from malcontents within the walls. Malcontents that haven't been beheaded or thrown into a torture chamber for being malcontents, unlike in Solitude.

This all hinges on a concept that Torygg did dedicate himself to something differently which isn't supported by the game at all. Other than maybe pleasing Elisif.

There was no assassination. There was a duel. That's the point. The idea he was an assassin is a cut and dry lie.

[Keltest]

Elisif flat out says that if Ulfric had just talked to Torygg about it, like at all, even just suggesting that they could do it, Torygg would have told the Empire to get stuffed. The fact is, his death was totally unnecessary, except to prove Ulfric's individual power. That's why all the imperials call it murder. Ulfric put Torygg in a position where his death was the only possible outcome.

[druid91]

Elisif flat out says that if Ulfric had just talked to Torygg about it, like at all, even just suggesting that they could do it, Torygg would have told the Empire to get stuffed. The fact is, his death was totally unnecessary, except to prove Ulfric's individual power.

And if you ask Sybille, she says Ulfric never knew how much Torygg respected him, and that Torygg would have supported the empire in the end even if he did respect Ulfric for what he had said at the moot confirming him High King.

[Rynjin]

Again, it's not like he jumped out and killed him out of nowhere. I think calling a formal duel (whether or not said duel is legal) that both participants agree to an "assassination" is questionable at best.

He kinda did. Remember that he was invited to court to parley with Torygg, who sympathized greatly with Ulfric. Torygg invited Ulfric there specifically to be convinced that independence was in the best interests of Skyrim.

When he got there, he simply challenged Torygg with little to no preamble.

He showed up to a peace conference with nothing but blood on his mind.


He could be wrong, but if he was why doesn't anyone actually defend Torygg's record as a king? Everyone who defends him focuses on how improper it was of Ulfric to duel him, how he was just a boy, nobody goes "Look at all these great things Torygg did for us!" And when you meet Torygg in Sovngarde his main concern isn't for his people, it's for Elisif. Which connects with Ulfric's statement about him being primarily concerned with pleasing his wife over leading his people. Was he an honorable doofus? Sure. But that doesn't make him a good high king.

I'll note that Torygg wasn't king for very long. There is every possibility he was killed before he ever had a chance to do anything.


They're not inept or uncaring, they're stretched thin due to the war. The idea that they're inept or uncaring comes from malcontents within the walls. Malcontents that haven't been beheaded or thrown into a torture chamber for being malcontents, unlike in Solitude.

The idea that they're inept and uncaring comes from...doing literally any of the quests that take place in Windhelm. Blood on the Ice is the biggest example, where all that would need to be done to find the killer is to follow the obvious TRAIL OF BLOOD leading away from the crime scene, but the guard is not interested in doing so.

Sure, they cite being "stretched thin" as the reason...but I'll say that I have little sympathy for that as an excuse when it's in the hold of the man who STARTED THE WAR for his own gain. If he's stretched so thin by the war that he cannot even police his own hold, then he cannot possibly be in a position to rule the whole of Skyrim.


This all hinges on a concept that Torygg did dedicate himself to something differently which isn't supported by the game at all. Other than maybe pleasing Elisif.

The assumption is that he was raised, as most nobles are, to rule from a young age. He may have been bad at it, he may have been good. We'll never know. That's what happens when you kill people while they're young.

[Keltest]

And if you ask Sybille, she says Ulfric never knew how much Torygg respected him, and that Torygg would have supported the empire in the end even if he did respect Ulfric for what he had said at the moot confirming him High King.

Well gosh, that sounds like Ulfric should have made a token effort at talking with the king and other Jarls before resorting to killing someone unprovoked, eh?

[Divayth Fyr]

Certainly he will spin the way he says things to play to the crowd. But that's not dishonesty either. Just theatrics.
I think I'm inclined to disagree here.


And when you meet Torygg in Sovngarde his main concern isn't for his people, it's for Elisif. Which connects with Ulfric's statement about him being primarily concerned with pleasing his wife over leading his people. Was he an honorable doofus? Sure. But that doesn't make him a good high king
Torygg seems to be talking about the moment of his death - thinking about your loved one doesn't seem too odd. He also claims Ulfric sent hom to Sovngarde with a Shout, not a blade (as Ulfric says)...

[druid91]

The idea that they're inept and uncaring comes from...doing literally any of the quests that take place in Windhelm. Blood on the Ice is the biggest example, where all that would need to be done to find the killer is to follow the obvious TRAIL OF BLOOD leading away from the crime scene, but the guard is not interested in doing so.

Sure, they cite being "stretched thin" as the reason...but I'll say that I have little sympathy for that as an excuse when it's in the hold of the man who STARTED THE WAR for his own gain. If he's stretched so thin by the war that he cannot even police his own hold, then he cannot possibly be in a position to rule the whole of Skyrim.

The assumption is that he was raised, as most nobles are, to rule from a young age. He may have been bad at it, he may have been good. We'll never know. That's what happens when you kill people while they're young.

He's literally fighting the armed forces of Cyrodil, the Aldmeri Dominion, and his rival Jarls. Of course he's stretched thin. He started the war because he believed he had to start the war and by all accounts he was more right than wrong. And he wasn't exactly great at it, given the situation in Skyrim when the game starts.


Well gosh, that sounds like Ulfric should have made a token effort at talking with the king and other Jarls before resorting to killing someone unprovoked, eh?

Not really. Torygg wouldn't have become a good high king all of a sudden. He'd have just been a bad king that might listen to Ulfric and weaken the cause. Especially given how fond Elisif is of Elenwen and Tullius, and how fond Torygg was of her in turn, it would have been a constant back and forth rather than the decisive action Ulfric wanted.


I think I'm inclined to disagree here.


Torygg seems to be talking about the moment of his death - thinking about your loved one doesn't seem too odd. He also claims Ulfric sent hom to Sovngarde with a Shout, not a blade (as Ulfric says)...

The shout ended the fight even if the blade killed him. And if you're thrown across a room by magical yelling I imagine that's what you remember more than the stabbing that finished you off after all your bones have been shattered.

[Cikomyr2]

Ulfric is trying to become king though. He clearly has no problem with dictatorships when he's the one in charge. You're ascribing motives to him thst he doesn't actually have.

He has no problem with dictatorship if its legitimized through "tradition". Or any other form of legitimacy. The current emperor just the great grandson of a clever general who savvily took an empty throne, not an actual descendant of the Ascended Tiber Septim, who became a God.

And this Mede Emperor is the one who ordered the outlawing of worship of that very founding Emperor. In Ulfric's eyes, he has lost any legitimacy he had in ruling over Skyrim.

Yes, Ulfric is not against the concept of an Empire. Hes against the concept of an empire that is against its own people. And forbidding worship of Talos as well as giving up the province of Hammerfell to the Dominion* was the Empire turning on its people. Or at least, HIS people.

Hence the need for Skyrim to be independant. So the dictatorial decisions that will determine what is and isn't legal in Skyrim will at least be made in Skyrim, and not by some pompous bureaucrat sitting in the White-Gold Tower that is probably too busy dealing with Cyrodill politics to actually know what the people of Skyrim are about.

*I know selling out Hammerfell was never cited as a motivation for Ulfric, but goddamn i believe there is no greater indictment of Titus Medes II for having decided to write off a province that not only was still fighting, but kept fighting off the Dominion's armies AFTER being abandoned by the Empire.

For me, it just proves the Empire is weaker than the sum of its parts. Its corrupt internal politics prevents if from organizing properly. The only thing it truly controls it the centralized army, which is more busy playing the internal game of politics and corruption than actually projecting power.

It is genuinely like the 5th century western roman empire. The central state is more of a parasite for its province, used to sucking off wealth and troops for its own purpose rather than develop the local economies. There is a reason certain roman enclaves cut off from Rome managed to last actually longer and wealthier than Italy did.

[Batcathat]

He kinda did. Remember that he was invited to court to parley with Torygg, who sympathized greatly with Ulfric. Torygg invited Ulfric there specifically to be convinced that independence was in the best interests of Skyrim.

When he got there, he simply challenged Torygg with little to no preamble.

He showed up to a peace conference with nothing but blood on his mind.

That's entirely possible, but (at least to me) there's still a very big difference between assassinating someone and challenging them to a fight. If Torygg had said "nah, I don't wanna throw my life away for nothing" and Ulfric still attacked and killed him? Then we can talk assassination, then we can talk prosecuting people for not stopping him. But that's not what happened.

Torygg accepted the challenge and since we don't hear anything about anyone attempting to forcefully stop Ulfric pre-duel or aid Torygg during it, it seems like everyone else did as well.

[Keltest]

That's entirely possible, but (at least to me) there's still a very big difference between assassinating someone and challenging them to a fight. If Torygg had said "nah, I don't wanna throw my life away for nothing" and Ulfric still attacked and killed him? Then we can talk assassination, then we can talk prosecuting people for not stopping him. But that's not what happened.

Torygg accepted the challenge and since we don't hear anything about anyone attempting to forcefully stop Ulfric pre-duel or aid Torygg during it, it seems like everyone else did as well.

If you want to quibble like that, people don't say he was assassinated, they say he was murdered. Ulfric walked up to him, announced his intention to kill him, and then did so. Really, if you take away the context of who the people are, its something you can do a dozen times in the Dark Brotherhood quests, up to allowing them to fight back if you feel like it. Torygg stood no chance against Ulfric, and Ulfric never intended to allow it to come to anything other than a fight. Torygg's acceptance speaks only of his personal character, not Ulfric's.

[Cikomyr2]

If you want to quibble like that, people don't say he was assassinated, they say he was murdered. Ulfric walked up to him, announced his intention to kill him, and then did so. Really, if you take away the context of who the people are, its something you can do a dozen times in the Dark Brotherhood quests, up to allowing them to fight back if you feel like it. Torygg stood no chance against Ulfric, and Ulfric never intended to allow it to come to anything other than a fight. Torygg's acceptance speaks only of his personal character, not Ulfric's.

As a Brotherhood assassin, if you manage to convince your target to throw down and actually fight, and you aren't seen as the aggressor, then you don't get a bounty because its not a crime.

Oh yhea, the entire was staged. But it's still not a crime.

You are applying more real world morality than the reality we actually see on display. It is not a crime to kill someone when both belligerent are throwing down.

[Keltest]

As a Brotherhood assassin, if you manage to convince your target to throw down and actually fight, and you aren't seen as the aggressor, then you don't get a bounty because its not a crime.

Oh yhea, the entire was staged. But it's still not a crime.

You are applying more real world morality than the reality we actually see on display. It is not a crime to kill someone when both belligerent are throwing down.

It... fully is though? Like, if I get attacked in Whiterun by, I dunno, a vampire or something, then I dont get a bounty if I kill them, but the guards will absolutely come to my help and attack the vampire too, because the vampire committed a crime by trying to kill me. Acting to defend myself doesnt make it not a crime to have attacked me.

[Batcathat]

If you want to quibble like that, people don't say he was assassinated, they say he was murdered. Ulfric walked up to him, announced his intention to kill him, and then did so. Really, if you take away the context of who the people are, its something you can do a dozen times in the Dark Brotherhood quests, up to allowing them to fight back if you feel like it. Torygg stood no chance against Ulfric, and Ulfric never intended to allow it to come to anything other than a fight. Torygg's acceptance speaks only of his personal character, not Ulfric's.

Yes, context matters. Such as the fact that Ulfric challenged Torygg to a fight and Torygg accepted. I don't deny that Ulfric's desired result was for Torygg to die, but that doesn't mean it's automatically murder. What if Ulfric's plan had been to provoke Torygg to such a degree that Torygg attacked him first? Would that also be murder, since Ulfric did it intending for Torygg to die?

And again, there are no signs that anyone attempted to stop what was happening until Ulfric won. Either this was an attack on the High King that no one attempted to stop and the king himself accepted (instead of, say, ordering his guards to defend him) or it was a duel that everyone involved accepted (most probably didn't like it, but they did nothing to stop it) until the wrong guy won and then suddenly it was murder.

EDIT: Why do I keep wanting to spell it "Torvygg"? Especially in a post where I used it roughly a billion times. :smallsigh:

[Keltest]

Yes, context matters. Such as the fact that Ulfric challenged Torvygg to a fight and Torvygg accepted. I don't deny that Ulfric's desired result was for Torvygg to die, but that doesn't mean it's automatically murder. What if Ulfric's plan had been to provoke Torvygg to such a degree that Torvygg attacked him first? Would that also be murder, since Ulfric did it intending for Torvygg to die?

And again, there are no signs that anyone attempted to stop what was happening until Ulfric won. Either this was an attack on the High King that no one attempted to stop and the king himself accepted (instead of, say, ordering his guards to defend him) or it was a duel that everyone involved accepted (most probably didn't like it, but they did nothing to stop it) until the wrong guy won and then suddenly it was murder.

Yes it would still be murder, because Ulfric knew that Torygg stood no chance against him. It would just also have been murder if Torygg had won somehow. Its not like this was a skill contest that got out of hand, Ulfric went in there with the specific intention of killing Torygg unprovoked. And Ulfric knew what he was doing was wrong too, because he fled the scene immediately after instead of calling for the Moot to elect a new High King (or, you know, literally anything else that wasnt fleeing justice).

As far as stopping it, we don't know what the circumstances were in court that day, but the Blue Palace does not have an abundance of warriors on hand the way, say, Dragonsreach has. Elisif certainly isnt going to stop Ulfric.

[Batcathat]

Yes it would still be murder, because Ulfric knew that Torygg stood no chance against him. It would just also have been murder if Torygg had won somehow. Its not like this was a skill contest that got out of hand, Ulfric went in there with the specific intention of killing Torygg unprovoked.

Okay, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about how to define "murder" then. Intent is part of it, yes, but it's not the only part. Again, Torygg accepted the challenge to fight to the death.


And Ulfric knew what he was doing was wrong too, because he fled the scene immediately after instead of calling for the Moot to elect a new High King (or, you know, literally anything else that wasnt fleeing justice).

Yes, the fact that they executed a guy for letting him escape totally suggests that they would have treated Ulfric fairly.


As far as stopping it, we don't know what the circumstances were in court that day, but the Blue Palace does not have an abundance of warriors on hand the way, say, Dragonsreach has. Elisif certainly isnt going to stop Ulfric.

While we can't know for sure without more information, I find it rather unlikely that the highest authorithy in Skyrim didn't have a single guard (or literally anyone else) around to help him. If Ulfric had to cut his way through innocent people to kill the king, I'm sure his opponents would have mentioned that.

There could be different explanations, of course, but I find the most likely one to be that everyone accepted the duel (after all, their king clearly did, so why disagree with him?) until they didn't like the outcome.

[Keltest]

Ulfric is a Jarl. If he was actually operating by accepted practices with the duel, then yes, he would have been treated fairly, except maybe by Elisif, who wouldn't have much sway with the other Jarls due to having been only just inherited the position. The entire argument against it being murder is that Skyrim has an accepted system of resolving things this way, but all the evidence suggests that even if that is technically true, Ulfric didn't actually follow the system correctly, and knew it.

[Cikomyr2]

Ulfric is a Jarl. If he was actually operating by accepted practices with the duel, then yes, he would have been treated fairly, except maybe by Elisif, who wouldn't have much sway with the other Jarls due to having been only just inherited the position. The entire argument against it being murder is that Skyrim has an accepted system of resolving things this way, but all the evidence suggests that even if that is technically true, Ulfric didn't actually follow the system correctly, and knew it.

That is 100% an argument i can get behind.

The fact that Ulfric did something iffy legally by tradition is kind of invalidated by Ulfric not following the tradition to the letter.

Kind of. Basically, i think the best resolution would be to acknowledge that Ulfric's actions were legal, but that also highlights how he is unfit to be High King of Skyrim by proof of his own action.

All hail Baalgruf, High king of Skyrim.

Seriously that would make a cool twist. You manage to convince Ulfric to instead propose to Baalgruf becoming the High King. Because Baalgruf is a great example of a leader who dances on the edge between acknowledging the traditions of the Nords but the modern realities of Tamriel.

[Batcathat]

Ulfric is a Jarl. If he was actually operating by accepted practices with the duel, then yes, he would have been treated fairly, except maybe by Elisif, who wouldn't have much sway with the other Jarls due to having been only just inherited the position. The entire argument against it being murder is that Skyrim has an accepted system of resolving things this way, but all the evidence suggests that even if that is technically true, Ulfric didn't actually follow the system correctly, and knew it.

What evidence is that again? That his opponents cry "murder!" after a duel the High King himself accepted, never pointing to any actual rules broken by Ulfric? Even Torygg himself only says that what Ulfric did was dishonorable, not that he actually did anything against the rules.

If you want to make the argument that what Ulfric did was dishonorable or immoral or something like that, that's fine by me. That's a subjective opinion. (Personally, I think it was an unusually clever and pragmatic move by Ulfric to exploit someone's stupidity honor like that to achieve his own goals). But calling it murder requires actual evidence of laws being broken, which I don't see here.

[Keltest]

What evidence is that again? That his opponents cry "murder!" after a duel the High King himself accepted, never pointing to any actual rules broken by Ulfric? Even Torygg himself only says that what Ulfric did was dishonorable, not that he actually did anything against the rules.

If you want to make the argument that what Ulfric did was dishonorable or immoral or something like that, that's fine by me. That's a subjective opinion. (Personally, I think it was an unusually clever and pragmatic move by Ulfric to exploit someone's stupidity honor like that to achieve his own goals). But calling it murder requires actual evidence of laws being broken, which I don't see here.

Well for starters, its explicitly stated that the High King is chosen by the Moot, which Ulfric refuses to allow because he knows his position is weak. Since the king is chosen by the Moot, that means it isn't chosen by honor duel, even if it used to be. Ulfric's defense is a call to tradition, but that tradition isn't actually followed anymore. Which means we go back to Ulfric walking up, declaring his intention to kill somebody unprovoked, and then doing it.

Even beyond that, what little we've seen of Nordic dueling tradition elsewhere indicates that killing your opponent is unusual, or at least not necessary to achieve victory, which means that Ulfric deliberately went in and killed Torygg in a duel that wasn't strictly to the death, using the Voice in a way that goes against Nordic tradition, just to make a point.

[Batcathat]

Well for starters, its explicitly stated that the High King is chosen by the Moot, which Ulfric refuses to allow because he knows his position is weak. Since the king is chosen by the Moot, that means it isn't chosen by honor duel, even if it used to be. Ulfric's defense is a call to tradition, but that tradition isn't actually followed anymore. Which means we go back to Ulfric walking up, declaring his intention to kill somebody unprovoked, and then doing it.

Sure, I'm not saying that killing Torygg makes Ulfric High King, whether or not it's a legitimate duel. I'm saying that challenging someone to a fight, them accepting and then winning the fight isn't murder (at least not in-universe and even in the real world, something like that would have been legal for most of human history in many cultures).


Even beyond that, what little we've seen of Nordic dueling tradition elsewhere indicates that killing your opponent is unusual, or at least not necessary to achieve victory, which means that Ulfric deliberately went in and killed Torygg in a duel that wasn't strictly to the death, using the Voice in a way that goes against Nordic tradition, just to make a point.

That is all true. None of it changes the facts enough to make a duel into a murder though. I'm not defending Ulfric's character, I'm saying there's a difference between a murder and a ritual fight to the death.

[druid91]

Well for starters, its explicitly stated that the High King is chosen by the Moot, which Ulfric refuses to allow because he knows his position is weak. Since the king is chosen by the Moot, that means it isn't chosen by honor duel, even if it used to be. Ulfric's defense is a call to tradition, but that tradition isn't actually followed anymore. Which means we go back to Ulfric walking up, declaring his intention to kill somebody unprovoked, and then doing it.

Even beyond that, what little we've seen of Nordic dueling tradition elsewhere indicates that killing your opponent is unusual, or at least not necessary to achieve victory, which means that Ulfric deliberately went in and killed Torygg in a duel that wasn't strictly to the death, using the Voice in a way that goes against Nordic tradition, just to make a point.

Just to make a point, Solitude is the same city where half the court is in the Thalmor's pockets, including Elisif herself. It's also where the Legion garrison is, and we know full well the Imperials are willing to cut off heads for political experience.

His chances of getting a fair trial are not great.

[Keltest]

Sure, I'm not saying that killing Torygg makes Ulfric High King, whether or not it's a legitimate duel. I'm saying that challenging someone to a fight, them accepting and then winning the fight isn't murder (at least not in-universe and even in the real world, something like that would have been legal for most of human history in many cultures).



That is all true. None of it changes the facts enough to make a duel into a murder though. I'm not defending Ulfric's character, I'm saying there's a difference between a murder and a ritual fight to the death.

Ok. Uh, I guess youre just wrong then? Because the legal authorities say it was murder, ritual or not. Ulfric's only defense is an appeal to a tradition thats been abandoned. Torygg accepting doesn't really change the legalities of it, if thats your specific quibble.


Just to make a point, Solitude is the same city where half the court is in the Thalmor's pockets, including Elisif herself. It's also where the Legion garrison is, and we know full well the Imperials are willing to cut off heads for political experience.

His chances of getting a fair trial are not great.

As I said, Ulfric is a Jarl. The other Jarls would under no circumstances allow him to be railroaded through a show trial and then executed. If nothing else, its an erosion of their own power and authority.

[Batcathat]

Ok. Uh, I guess youre just wrong then? Because the legal authorities say it was murder, ritual or not. Ulfric's only defense is an appeal to a tradition thats been abandoned. Torygg accepting doesn't really change the legalities of it, if thats your specific quibble.

Do they? Because there seem to be examples of duels in Tamriel (including by the player character) that are not considered murder. And again, if the people present didn't consider the duel "real" they could have attempted to stop Ulfric before he won.

Or are you just referring to Ulfric's enemies saying it was murder? If then... well, sure, if we base it completely on their opinion, it was murder. But evaluating a situation by taking everything one side says as the complete truth while assuming the other side is lying about most things doesn't seem very fair.

[druid91]

As I said, Ulfric is a Jarl. The other Jarls would under no circumstances allow him to be railroaded through a show trial and then executed. If nothing else, its an erosion of their own power and authority.

You assume the Jarls would have had a say and he wouldn't have been beheaded or bundled off to the Thalmor embassy within hours of being captured.

[Keltest]

Do they? Because there seem to be examples of duels in Tamriel (including by the player character) that are not considered murder. And again, if the people present didn't consider the duel "real" they could have attempted to stop Ulfric before he won.

Or are you just referring to Ulfric's enemies saying it was murder? If then... well, sure, if we base it completely on their opinion, it was murder. But evaluating a situation by taking everything one side says as the complete truth while assuming the other side is lying about most things doesn't seem very fair.

Which duels are you talking about? The Arena in Oblivion? Thats two trained warriors going after each other after both having deliberately signed up for it. The ones with the old orcs? I'd be willing to call that murder on your part, technically. There are a few in Morrowind which are, shall we say, of varying legality, but the legal ones are always agreed to by both participants and held in a formal location with specific stipulations, not just challenged to on the spot.


You assume the Jarls would have had a say and he wouldn't have been beheaded or bundled off to the Thalmor embassy within hours of being captured.

Do you have any proof that that would have happened to him? The Thalmor in particular don't have any standing to enforce Skyrim's laws, or indeed the Empire's. Theyre there specifically within the context of the White Gold Concordant, which has nothing to do with the internal matter of Skyrim's laws against killing. Also, the Thalmor don't actually want Ulfric captured at any point, they want him going around doing stuff. They would absolutely insist on Elisif holding him, then probably try and have him escape for extra chaos.

[Batcathat]

Which duels are you talking about? The Arena in Oblivion? Thats two trained warriors going after each other after both having deliberately signed up for it. The ones with the old orcs? I'd be willing to call that murder on your part, technically. There are a few in Morrowind which are, shall we say, of varying legality, but the legal ones are always agreed to by both participants and held in a formal location with specific stipulations, not just challenged to on the spot.

So the difference between murder and dueling is... the location? Again, Torygg agreed to the duel, which seems like the most important part. Or that enough time didn't pass between the challenge and the fight? I don't think we actually know the specific time line, so it seems like an uncertain distinction, at best. Nor do we know the exact stipulations, but as I said earlier the fact that Ulfric was specifically invoking an old tradition implies that there were some sort of established rules for it.

[Keltest]

So the difference between murder and dueling is... the location? Again, Torygg agreed to the duel, which seems like the most important part. Or that enough time didn't pass between the challenge and the fight? I don't think we actually know the specific time line, so it seems like an uncertain distinction, at best. Nor do we know the exact stipulations, but as I said earlier the fact that Ulfric was specifically invoking an old tradition implies that there were some sort of established rules for it.

The difference is the formalities, mostly. Ulfric ad-hoc declared his intention to fight Torygg and then did so, immediately, on the spot. But also, those duels are in other provinces with different laws. Ulfric's duel for the high kingship doesn't follow current Skyrim law, because the game tells us this.

[druid91]

Do you have any proof that that would have happened to him? The Thalmor in particular don't have any standing to enforce Skyrim's laws, or indeed the Empire's. Theyre there specifically within the context of the White Gold Concordant, which has nothing to do with the internal matter of Skyrim's laws against killing. Also, the Thalmor don't actually want Ulfric captured at any point, they want him going around doing stuff. They would absolutely insist on Elisif holding him, then probably try and have him escape for extra chaos.

They didn't exactly give him a trial at Helgen. They took him captive in an ambush then tried to execute him in front of a city.

[Keltest]

They didn't exactly give him a trial at Helgen. They took him captive in an ambush then tried to execute him in front of a city.

Sure, after he had openly started a civil war. The circumstances were rather different there.

But heck, if he was genuinely afraid of being taken prisoner, he could have just told Torygg "meet me in Whiterun in three days, or be branded a coward."

[druid91]

Sure, after he had openly started a civil war. The circumstances were rather different there.

But heck, if he was genuinely afraid of being taken prisoner, he could have just told Torygg "meet me in Whiterun in three days, or be branded a coward."

He openly started a civil war by killing Torygg.

[Keltest]

He openly started a civil war by killing Torygg.

Yeah. Funny that. Its like Ulfric is afraid of a fair trial or something.

[Resileaf]

Tullius wasn't sent to Skyrim to give Ulfric a trial anyway. He was sent to put an end to the civil war as quickly as possible, which executing Ulfric immediately upon capture would most certainly have done. And it's not like he had the luxury of giving Ulfric a lengthy prison stay with the Thalmor present who would have undoubtedly freed him if given the opportunity to do so.

[Cikomyr2]

Yeah. Funny that. Its like Ulfric is afraid of a fair trial or something.

But a trial would not be fair. Because people's opinion is not based on the fairness or propriety of the situation but instead by their submissiveness to the Emperor and his appointed Governor.

People who dont want to rebel against the Empire have to claim it was murder. Because otherwise you are a traitor and you will be removed, unless you manage to fight off the Imperial army.

[Keltest]

But a trial would not be fair. Because people's opinion is not based on the fairness or propriety of the situation but instead by their submissiveness to the Emperor and his appointed Governor.

People who dont want to rebel against the Empire have to claim it was murder. Because otherwise you are a traitor and you will be removed, unless you manage to fight off the Imperial army.

You have your order of events confused. The imperial army didnt get involved until after the civil war started and Torygg was killed. In the version where Ulfric is acting within Skyrim law, there is no civil war because Ulfric just calls the Moot and a new High King/Queen is elected, whether because Torygg is dead or just branded incapable by Ulfric.

[Batcathat]

You have your order of events confused. The imperial army didnt get involved until after the civil war started and Torygg was killed. In the version where Ulfric is acting within Skyrim law, there is no civil war because Ulfric just calls the Moot and a new High King/Queen is elected, whether because Torygg is dead or just branded incapable by Ulfric.

That seem about as likely as the Stormcloaks instantly turning into Empire loyalists if Torygg had won.

[Keltest]

That seem about as likely as the Stormcloaks instantly turning into Empire loyalists if Torygg had won.

Torygg winning would unironically probably have persuaded lots of people to his side, if only from the sheer unexpected strength.

But I didn't say they would elect Ulfric High King, just that they would pick a new one. Although Ulfric probably could have won that election, since Balgruuf agrees with him politically, but found his methods of making his point distasteful.

[druid91]

You have your order of events confused. The imperial army didnt get involved until after the civil war started and Torygg was killed. In the version where Ulfric is acting within Skyrim law, there is no civil war because Ulfric just calls the Moot and a new High King/Queen is elected, whether because Torygg is dead or just branded incapable by Ulfric.

Not necessarily. That's the point.

Ulfric is acting within Skyrims laws. He is not acting within the Empire's.

[Resileaf]

Not necessarily. That's the point.

Ulfric is acting within Skyrims laws. He is not acting within the Empire's.

He's acting within outdated Skyrim traditions that were never officially repealed but that no one would expect to be followed. He put Torygg in an impossible situation and forced the Empire to respond the way he wanted them to.

[Keltest]

Not necessarily. That's the point.

Ulfric is acting within Skyrims laws. He is not acting within the Empire's.

He... isnt though. Thats the point. He knows he isnt actually acting in accordance with skyrim laws or traditions, thats why he's seizing power by military force instead of just becoming High King, you know, legally.

[druid91]

He... isnt though. Thats the point. He knows he isnt actually acting in accordance with skyrim laws or traditions, thats why he's seizing power by military force instead of just becoming High King, you know, legally.

He is. He's seizing power by military force because the Empire is propping up a puppet queen and some Jarls support her.

He has to fight them anyway. Because the Empire and the Imperial Jarls aren't going to go along with a Moot that appoints Ulfric high king while he's openly pushing independence from the empire.

So holding a Moot while they're still in power is a lose lose situation. At best he is appointed high king if Balgruuf sides with him. And then he still has to fight the Imperial Jarls. Which puts a shadow over his entire high-kingship.

At worst, Balgruuf sides with Elisif, and he's in a worse position. Which is the more likely scenario.

There's nothing obligating them to hold a moot just because there is no high king, and Ulfric spent a long time trying to convince Balgruuf peacefully. Before eventually resorting to war.

[Keltest]

He is. He's seizing power by military force because the Empire is propping up a puppet queen and some Jarls support her.

He has to fight them anyway. Because the Empire and the Imperial Jarls aren't going to go along with a Moot that appoints Ulfric high king while he's openly pushing independence from the empire.

So holding a Moot while they're still in power is a lose lose situation. At best he is appointed high king if Balgruuf sides with him. And then he still has to fight the Imperial Jarls. Which puts a shadow over his entire high-kingship.

At worst, Balgruuf sides with Elisif, and he's in a worse position. Which is the more likely scenario.

There's nothing obligating them to hold a moot just because there is no high king, and Ulfric spent a long time trying to convince Balgruuf peacefully. Before eventually resorting to war.

"Ulfric has to become a criminal to become High King" is not the stirring defense of his actions that you seem to think it is. He could just... not become High King. If the Empire is strong enough to forcibly stop Skyrim from being independent, his claims of Imperial weakness are wrong anyway.

[druid91]

"Ulfric has to become a criminal to become High King" is not the stirring defense of his actions that you seem to think it is.

Kidnapping and beheading someone without a trial is typically a crime. It wasn't until after Tullius tried to kill him that Ulfric began the war in earnest. Even then he gave Balgruuf an Ultimatum rather than outright attacking.

[Resileaf]

Kidnapping and beheading someone without a trial is typically a crime. It wasn't until after Tullius tried to kill him that Ulfric began the war in earnest. Even then he gave Balgruuf an Ultimatum rather than outright attacking.

What are you talking about, the war was already going on when the game starts.

[ArlEammon]

Kidnapping and beheading someone without a trial is typically a crime. It wasn't until after Tullius tried to kill him that Ulfric began the war in earnest. Even then he gave Balgruuf an Ultimatum rather than outright attacking.

That's a good point. Ulfric is a pretty crap person over all, imho, but at least he has a few scruples.

[druid91]

What are you talking about, the war was already going on when the game starts.

In the sense that the legion and stormcloaks had been skirmishing, because the legion was trying to kill Ulfric? Yes. In the sense that Ulfric had invaded another Hold? No.

As far as I'm aware there were no major stormcloak attacks until the battle for Whiterun. Up until that point Ulfric was trying to sway the Jarls with diplomacy and contain the fighting between him and the legion.

[Resileaf]

In the sense that the legion and stormcloaks had been skirmishing, because the legion was trying to kill Ulfric? Yes. In the sense that Ulfric had invaded another Hold? No.

As far as I'm aware there were no major stormcloak attacks until the battle for Whiterun. Up until that point Ulfric was trying to sway the Jarls with diplomacy and contain the fighting between him and the legion.

So the civil war had started but it hadn't started at the same time so it's not fair that the Empire captured him in battle?

What?

[Keltest]

In the sense that the legion and stormcloaks had been skirmishing, because the legion was trying to kill Ulfric? Yes. In the sense that Ulfric had invaded another Hold? No.

As far as I'm aware there were no major stormcloak attacks until the battle for Whiterun. Up until that point Ulfric was trying to sway the Jarls with diplomacy and contain the fighting between him and the legion.

You are mistaken. If you do the Season Unending quest, Tullius and Ulfric both refer to several different battles between the Stormcloaks and the Legion

[druid91]

You are mistaken. If you do the Season Unending quest, Tullius and Ulfric both refer to several different battles between the Stormcloaks and the Legion

I don't recall that, and don't see that dialogue in the wiki. They talk about potential battles for the most part and there was cut content where they might berate the Dragonborn for not favoring them.

[Cikomyr2]

He... isnt though. Thats the point. He knows he isnt actually acting in accordance with skyrim laws or traditions, thats why he's seizing power by military force instead of just becoming High King, you know, legally.

The word "tradition" again has a lot of weight.

You are right that recent tradition has definetly not allowed duelling to replace the High King.

But, as it has been said many times in the game, the Moot and the whole "Jarls approve a High King" has been a rubber stamp of the Emperor's choice for centuries. That is the tradition currently followed in Skyrim, and Ulfric wants to change that.

To change that is to explicitly defy the Emperor. No matter what, you are branded a Traitor to the Empire. There is no "legal" way to defy the Emperor, because the Emperor's word of Law.

[Keltest]

I don't recall that, and don't see that dialogue in the wiki. They talk about potential battles for the most part and there was cut content where they might berate the Dragonborn for not favoring them.

If you favor one side during the negotiations, then the other side will demand compensation for an attack on their territory by their opposite number.


The word "tradition" again has a lot of weight.

You are right that recent tradition has definetly not allowed duelling to replace the High King.

But, as it has been said many times in the game, the Moot and the whole "Jarls approve a High King" has been a rubber stamp of the Emperor's choice for centuries. That is the tradition currently followed in Skyrim, and Ulfric wants to change that.

To change that is to explicitly defy the Emperor. No matter what, you are branded a Traitor to the Empire. There is no "legal" way to defy the Emperor, because the Emperor's word of Law.

The part you are passing over is that a very good portion of the Jarls (more than half!) don't want to defy the Emperor. The problem is not the Emperor or the Empire, the problem is that Skyrim is still very signficantly pro-empire, and Ulfric apparently cannot accept getting outvoted on this matter.

[druid91]

So the civil war had started but it hadn't started at the same time so it's not fair that the Empire captured him in battle?

What?

The civil war had started between Stormcloaks and the Empire.

Until Whiterun, that did not include the Jarls.

[Keltest]

The civil war had started between Stormcloaks and the Empire.

Until Whiterun, that did not include the Jarls.

No? Right at the beginning of the game, Balgruuf's advisor is concerned that garrisoning Riverwood would be seen as joining Ulfric's side and preparing to attack Falkreath. The Jarls are absolutely already involved, to say nothing of the fact that just under half of them have already openly joined the rebellion.

[druid91]

No? Right at the beginning of the game, Balgruuf's advisor is concerned that garrisoning Riverwood would be seen as joining Ulfric's side and preparing to attack Falkreath. The Jarls are absolutely already involved, to say nothing of the fact that just under half of them have already openly joined the rebellion.

Balgruuf is threading a very fine line of neutrality to try and maintain the peace in the hopes things will solve themselves.

He's the only neutral Jarl and the deciding vote of a potential Moot. People are watching him and his actions closely.

[Keltest]

Balgruuf is threading a very fine line of neutrality to try and maintain the peace in the hopes things will solve themselves.

He's the only neutral Jarl and the deciding vote of a potential Moot. People are watching him and his actions closely.

... Yes. He's the only neutral Jarl. As in all the other Jarls are openly on one side or the other.

[druid91]

... Yes. He's the only neutral Jarl. As in all the other Jarls are openly on one side or the other.

Which doesn't mean the Stormcloaks have invaded holds and deposed Jarls yet.