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

[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.