Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[Lachdonin]

.

 

In addition to say Tullius's first order was humanitarian is plainly false. You're forgetting about that little part where Tullius arranged for the player, Ulfric, and his men to be summarily executed. That he decided to abadon his prisoners to the dragon in favor of evacuating civilians is more or less commendable, but that's his duty as a legionnaire.

 

As for saying Ulfric has no interest in helping others, you're forgetting a few things such as how he libertated Markarth from the barbaric Forsworn. We also have Brunwulf mentioning how when Nords are harmed by bandits, Ulfric won't hesitate to send soldiers out in defense. Lastly, and this is true of all Jarls, Ulfric won't name anyone Thane who hasn't contributed to the welfare of the city. So, no, he isn't as selfish as you claim he is.

The outright fallacies there are... I mean... Wow.

 

First, the execution. Executing known enemies of the Empire, any Empire, is perfectly acceptable behaviour in the context of the world (which brings me back to my last point). It is also unlikely that it was the intent, and was something precipitated by the Thalmor trying to take custody of Ulfric, though their presence in Helgen and their motivations therein remain unclear.

 

Second, the execution is not a threatening situation, or a military action. It is exactly what it seems, an execution. But the instant that a threat appears, Tullius's first concern is civilian safety, to the point where he practically lets the prisoners run off.

 

Third, the 'barbaric Foresworn' took Markarth in a bloodless coup. There is nothing, anywhere, to indicate it was a bloody uprising. They then entreated the Empire for instatement as a member, like Orsinium, indicating that for the first time in 3000 years the Reachmen wanted to play friendly. Ulfric swoops in, leads a bloody siege, kills almost every Reachman man, woman and child in the city, and the DRIVES the Reachken back into their barbaric past. Madenach makes i very clear that they were fools for giving up their Ipd Gods. and thinking the Nords would treat them with dignity. Ulfric is very clearly the villain in the story of Markarth.

 

Fourth, and you've highlighted this rather well, Ulfric does care... About HIS city. Tullius shows concern for the inhabitants of not only another province, but a random ass town in the middle of nowhere.

 

Finally... The vocal attitudes of Stormcloak supporters are not just here. Around here, perople tend to be rather thoughtful and mature. However, in other places, most notably Youtube, Reddit and similar, the overwhelming majority of outspoken people are pro-Stormcloak.

 

The fact that they often relate the situation in Skyrim to American independence from the overbearing and oppressive British is part of the reason I much prefer tallking Tamriel politics here, and on Bethesda's forums... People elsewhere don't even seem to know their own history...

[Kraeten]

 

First, the execution. Executing known enemies of the Empire, any Empire, is perfectly acceptable behaviour in the context of the world.

 

Except it's made clear by Ralof's conversation with his sister that such a summary execution was unusual in the context of Skyrim, which carries more weight than any of our parallels in history. Moving on, the nature of the Forsworn uprising is largely speculative. What isn't speculative is the Forsworn had no right to carry out such a coup. As for the aftermath, according to Arrianus Arius, an imperial scholar, it was Ulfric who ordered the execution of the rebels and rebel sympathizers. According to the prisoners of Cidna mine however, direct witnesses of the rebellion's aftermath, it was the Jarl who had them executed. Interestingly, they make no mention of Ulfric whatsoever.

 

"But my little Aethra didn't want to see her papa leave her. She pleaded to the Jarl to take her instead. And after they made me watch as her head rolled off the block, they threw me in here anyway, to dig up their silver."

 

Curious that the scholar would paint Ulfric as such a vindictive leader in Markarth's case, when we can see during Skyrim's civil war Ulfric never acted so ruthlessly. Surely if Ulfric was really the character of the scholar's imaginings, he would have put the Battleborns to death upon taking Whiterun? When looking at the big picture, its plain there's precious little truth to Arrianus's telling of events at all.

 

What we can say for certain, is Ulfric quelled a rebellion...a rebellion led by men who would revere malevolent hag-ravens. Again, this demonstrates that his concernes aren't limited to Windhelm. Moving back to Tullius, its his job to care about an Imperial settlement such as Helgen. His efforts to protect the townspeople weren't charity, no matter how you try to present it as otherwise. I will however state that both Ulfric and Tullius had their respective obligations to fulfill during the fall of Helgen. Its your attempts to smear Ulfric's character during the fall I take umbrage with.

 

By no means is Ulfric a perfect character, don't mistake me, but the proof of his flaws are found elsewhere in the game. Personally I find Tullius to be an arse-hole, despite being more or less well intentioned. It's the empire he's fighting for that I sorely dislike.

 

Regarding the overall debate across the web, I see Ulfric likened to Adolf by Imperial sympathizers just as much as I see him likened to Washington by the Stormcloak equivalent. It's a polarizing debate and mostly filled with hyperbole. And this is coming from someone who thinks America would likely have been better off if Washington had lost.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Kraeten

[GoldenAngelHeart]

My opinions on the matter are solely based on what I see and experience in the game. Because that is what it is..a game, to me anyways. Maybe I'm just too naive to think of it any other way.

I do love these forums, however. I enjoy reading what everyone else has gotten out of their play-throughs and that gives me a new perspective on how to look at things while I am playing as well as a better understanding on why particular characters in the game are the way the are. I will sit and watch hours of LP's as well, to get other's opinions and how they perceive the game as well as the characters in it.

 

If anyone should be compared to Adolf, it would not be Ulfric. It would be Elenwyn and her Thalmor cronies, though I hesitate to compare any of the Skyrim characters with anyone the real world. I don't like doing that.

 

To me, from what I have gotten from my plays so far, is this: Ulfric and most nords, not all, don't like anyone that is not of their kind because of the Thalmor. The part that I can't seem to understand or get is if you are playing any other race other than a nord, why then are you allowed to just stroll on in to Windhelm and join his cause? Maybe Ulfric and Galmar aren't as racist as most claim, albeit they are also trying to raise their numbers and just don't care what your race is as long as you fight for him with honor. It's my opinion that if Ulfric expects to be a leader to his people then he would try to at least quell the racism among his people. Especially if he, himself, accepts whatever race the Dragonborn is. Do I believe Ulfric is racist? Nope.

I question why a Kajiit is allowed into any city, let alone made a thane if they are supposed to be untrustworthy and banned from entering them. But that is a whole other thread, I think.

 

I digress, so back to point. Tulius and his fellows feel that they have no choice but to follow through with the pact made with the Thalmor. He seems frustrated that his hands are tied on the whole matter. I still feel it's a bit unforgivable that the Dragonborn is sent to the chopping block. I think what should have happened when it was discovered that your name was not on the list is that they should have just pulled you aside with a couple of guards for questioning after they dealt with Ulfric and his followers. But no, that Captain had to be a.... and park you right in the middle of the Stormcloaks to be executed.

 

The Thalmor are just a loathsome, uppity bunch. I enjoy killing them when I see them walking along the roads. I will go out of my way to initiate a conversation so I can instigate a fight.

 

Again, this is basically my opinion that I have formed from my own experience of playing the game and what I have seen through my play-throughs.

 

So I am neither a Stormcloak supporter nor am I in support of the Legion. The Thalmor, however, get murdered every chance my Dragonborn gets. It's worth the bounty. Every. Single. Time.

[notmyhome]

One fanfiction I read had the Dragonborn ask Tullius why he didn't step in to save her from execution. His reason was he didn't want to untermine the captain's authority, which is quite a believeable reason.

[GoldenAngelHeart]

One fanfiction I read had the Dragonborn ask Tullius why he didn't step in to save her from execution. His reason was he didn't want to untermine the captain's authority, which is quite a believeable reason.

 

That would be the point where my Dragonborn would just roll her eyes and tell him out right what a cheap cop-out answer that was. He's the General, he's supposed to undermine a Captain's authority especially if he doesn't agree with it. He outranks her but clearly he would prefer to allow an ''innocent'' to be executed rather than offend the Captain's delicate sensitivities.

[notmyhome]

Of course it's more an apology than an answer. But that's how Army works (not that I'd have any personal experience with that).

[LeddBate]

There has been a lot of food for thought here and I thank everyone for contributing. Mostly, I hope these comments will help new players who want more info about the forces (political, personal and military) driving the civil war in Skyrim so that they can have more fun making decisions they think their character would actually make in such situations.

 

All good stuff. Please keep commenting if you wish.

[Lachdonin]

 

Except it's made clear by Ralof's conversation with his sister that such a summary execution was unusual in the context of Skyrim, which carries more weight than any of our parallels in history.

 

These are not parallels in history, at least not ours. These are parallels in Tamriel's history. In Hammerfell, Morrowind, and even Cyrodiil, summary executions of enemies are normal. What is unusually for this treatment in Skyrim due to the fact that Skyrim has always been a willing participant of the 3rd Empire. They haven't had to be subjected to the executions, because they've always behaved enough to stay out of trouble.

 

 

 

Moving on, the nature of the Forsworn uprising is largely speculative. What isn't speculative is the Forsworn had no right to carry out such a coup.

 

We know it was largely bloodless. We also know that the Reachmen had occupied the city for a long stretch during the 1st and 2nd Eras, and it has served as their capital. We see the later part of this reign in ESO. Sometime between the Alliance War and the Tiber Wars, the Nords capture the city and take it as their own. This gives the Reachmen just as much claim to it as the Nords. In fact, considering the majority of the population at the time of the rebellion seemed to be Reachmen, who were largely oppressed, it gives them more claim.

 

 

As for the aftermath, according to Arrianus Arius, an imperial scholar, it was Ulfric who ordered the execution of the rebels and rebel sympathizers. According to the prisoners of Cidna mine however, direct witnesses of the rebellion's aftermath, it was the Jarl who had them executed. Interestingly, they make no mention of Ulfric whatsoever.

 

"But my little Aethra didn't want to see her papa leave her. She pleaded to the Jarl to take her instead. And after they made me watch as her head rolled off the block, they threw me in here anyway, to dig up their silver."

 

Curious that the scholar would paint Ulfric as such a vindictive leader in Markarth's case, when we can see during Skyrim's civil war Ulfric never acted so ruthlessly. Surely if Ulfric was really the character of the scholar's imaginings, he would have put the Battleborns to death upon taking Whiterun? When looking at the big picture, its plain there's precious little truth to Arrianus's telling of events at all.

 

Jarl Igmund's father would have been the Jarl at the time, whereas Ulfric was only an heir. Igmund seems to indicate that they returned very shortly after Ulfric had retaken the city, before the Imperials did, and reinstated Talos without Imperial authority (but that's rather beside the point).

 

Had Igmund's father possessed an army, he would not have required Ulfric to take the city and would have done so himself. So we can assume that, when Igmund's father returned to Markarth, is was temporarily under the stewardship of Ulfric's army. Igmund's father was still the Jarl, however, so of course anyone seeking leniency would entreat him, not Ulfric. Even without the executions, however, we know Ulfric's attack was bloody, something which we are told the Reachmen uprising was not. Its actually something of a reverse parallel to the capturing of Jerusalem... When the Crusaders took the city, they killed every Muslim within its walls. When Saladin took the city, he allowed the Christians to leave peacefully...

 

 

 

What we can say for certain, is Ulfric quelled a rebellion...a rebellion led by men who would revere malevolent hag-ravens. Again, this demonstrates that his concernes aren't limited to Windhelm. Moving back to Tullius, its his job to care about an Imperial settlement such as Helgen. His efforts to protect the townspeople weren't charity, no matter how you try to present it as otherwise. I will however state that both Ulfric and Tullius had their respective obligations to fulfill during the fall of Helgen. Its your attempts to smear Ulfric's character during the fall I take umbrage with.

 

 

 

First, again, Madanach makes it clear that they had forsaken the Old Gods and traditions in an attempt to find solidarity and acceptance with the wider world. Condemning them for past practices (and those they were forced back into following the Markarth Incident) would be like condemning the Nords because they once worshiped the Dragons. There has also been a good deal of speculation about Hag-Ravens and Briar Hearts, and parallels to Kynes attempted resurrection of Lorkhan (the feminine bird-figure, the missing heart and its replacement with something inferior...) so there may be some more mythic significance to the relationship than it at first seems... i do agree, however, that the Reachmen, in their ancient/Foresworn state, are thoroughly despicable people.

 

Second, i didn't mean to argue that Tullius's actions were charity. Rather, that his behavior and actions are in keeping with a proper (and moral) military man. His first duty is to follow orders and end the rebellion, but that order is instantly relegated to secondary when civilian lives are in danger. This is in fact a far more modern perspective than anything else we see in Skyrim.

 

Third, you are right, i inadvertently painted Ulfric as more despicable than appropriate for the action at hand (escaping during Helgen, i still think he's a child-murderer at Markarth).

 

 

 

Regarding the overall debate across the web, I see Ulfric likened to Adolf by Imperial sympathizers

 

 

I've never really understood that... Hitler was a radically violent expansionist who believed in the superiority of his racial vision... Ulfric (or any Stormcloaks for that matter) never claim Nords are superior, only that Skyrim belongs to them. He also hasn't engaged in any degree of genocide, and he's highly introverted in his national policy... He's more like Franco than Adolf, and even that's a stretch. But, i suppose these comparisons are coming from the same people who think the Mer look like Klingons...

[theconquistidor]

For the forsworn thing again, if the imperials care so much about those poor little savages in the hills why don't they just surrender the hold willingly? You know, since they control it. No? Okay that seems fair, no double standard here. And I have hard time believing that the forsworn uprising was anything but bloodless considering their decorations and tendency to worship bird-women.

[fraquar]

I'm pretty sure that the Imperials have no idea that the PC is a known enemy of the Empire - nor did they care:

 

a) This is a day and age where the enemy combatant is in uniform - hence he's known. Soldiers in this day and age don't hide their allegiance, they wear that uniform proudly.

b) You have to at least KNOW who the known enemy is.......Umm, Captain, he's not on the list.... Forget the list, he goes to the block!!!!

c) A known enemy of the Empire would have been hauled back to Imperial capital and made an example of, not hastily and secretively executed with virtually no witnesses.

d) If the PC is a known enemy of the Empire slated for execution, why would anyone even entertain allegiance with the Empire from that point forward?

Edited August 8, 2014 by fraquar