Which one is "good", which one is "evil"?

[AnimeOtaku102]

 

Of course, but if we are to believe that the siege really was as one-sided as it seems it was, then the Reachmen at the time clearly did not take advantage of Markarth's setup. Hypothetically, if they had the food to last them several months, and a steady supply of arrows, they could have theoretically held out against the Nords indefinitely. Even without the plentiful food and ammo, they still had the ability to at least keep the attackers from breaching as quickly as it appears they did. (From what I can tell, it seems as if the walls were breached not long into the siege itself) That they didn't speaks volumes about their strategic abilities.

True enough, but again there's a difference between siege warfare and guerrilla warfare, and the Forsworn have had seven years to reflect upon their mistakes; had they been successful in holding Markarth an argument can be made about potential complacency developing over the years, but they didn't and had motivation to do better. This doesn't mean they'll succeed, but I don't think their past loss in one type of warfare is indicative of their current abilities in another type of warfare.

 

It does, but its really just a red herring. Ulfric was called to perform a service and was promised freedom from the terms of the WGC regarding Talos worship. He performed that service (Retaking Markarth. But it could have been anything really) and he was thrown to the wolves that are the Thalmor for trying to claim his reward.

Hm, yes, I see I did make a mistake by mentioning the Markarth Incident instead of just focusing on the part that's relevant to this discussion, sorry about that.

 

Now I can't speculate if the Forsworn would have gone feral or not regardless of how the uprising was ended, but Ulfric's brutality (which I believe is true, nothing contradicts the accounts and the resulting continuation of civil unrest is in line with the Thalmor agenda, who Ulfric was an agent for at the time) definitely made relations worse (basing this on the fact that brutality against a group has never improved relationships... well, maybe except a group of masochists), thus the current attitude of the Forsworn is the direct result of Ulfric's actions. By the same logic, if Ulfric wasn't a Thalmor agent and was kind to the Reachmen, he would still be responsible for the resulting state of the Forsworn (whatever it might have been) by nature of being the one who ended the uprising; thus the only way he could not be responsible is if he wasn't involved at all.

[Lachdonin]

The Markarth incedent is terribly established. We have 3 differing timelines which indicate that Ulfric was given 'Free worship' before attacking, after ending the uprising but before letting the Imperials into the city, and even before he set out TO retake the city. Even then, we are still uncertian if it was the dipossed Jarl of Markarth who promised, the Empire, or someone else entirely. If the former case, the Jarls do not have the power to make those promises. If the second, it would counteract the indications that the Empire was considering letting the Foresworn keep the city. And, if the latter, it could well have been Thalmor agents who spread the whole rumout.

 

The problem with the Markarth Incedent in general is that we don't have a determinable sequence of events, or any ability to attribute promises or deeds to particular individuals. Because of that, we can't establish WHEn Ulfric was promised free worship of Talos, and if the person doing the promising actually had the authority to do so. As such, the whole thing shouldn't even be considered in an Imperial-Stormcloak discussion, because it contains far too much incertianty.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Lachdonin

[RighthandofSithis]

 

Of course, but if we are to believe that the siege really was as one-sided as it seems it was, then the Reachmen at the time clearly did not take advantage of Markarth's setup. Hypothetically, if they had the food to last them several months, and a steady supply of arrows, they could have theoretically held out against the Nords indefinitely. Even without the plentiful food and ammo, they still had the ability to at least keep the attackers from breaching as quickly as it appears they did. (From what I can tell, it seems as if the walls were breached not long into the siege itself) That they didn't speaks volumes about their strategic abilities.

True enough, but again there's a difference between siege warfare and guerrilla warfare, and the Forsworn have had seven years to reflect upon their mistakes; had they been successful in holding Markarth an argument can be made about potential complacency developing over the years, but they didn't and had motivation to do better. This doesn't mean they'll succeed, but I don't think their past loss in one type of warfare is indicative of their current abilities in another type of warfare.

 

It does, but its really just a red herring. Ulfric was called to perform a service and was promised freedom from the terms of the WGC regarding Talos worship. He performed that service (Retaking Markarth. But it could have been anything really) and he was thrown to the wolves that are the Thalmor for trying to claim his reward.

Hm, yes, I see I did make a mistake by mentioning the Markarth Incident instead of just focusing on the part that's relevant to this discussion, sorry about that.

 

Now I can't speculate if the Forsworn would have gone feral or not regardless of how the uprising was ended, but Ulfric's brutality (which I believe is true, nothing contradicts the accounts and the resulting continuation of civil unrest is in line with the Thalmor agenda, who Ulfric was an agent for at the time) definitely made relations worse (basing this on the fact that brutality against a group has never improved relationships... well, maybe except a group of masochists), thus the current attitude of the Forsworn is the direct result of Ulfric's actions. By the same logic, if Ulfric wasn't a Thalmor agent and was kind to the Reachmen, he would still be responsible for the resulting state of the Forsworn (whatever it might have been) by nature of being the one who ended the uprising; thus the only way he could not be responsible is if he wasn't involved at all.

 

Galmar does at the peace treaty. He also goes forward to accuse the Imperials of committing another massacre at an undefined place.

 

So on one hand, we have an imperial scholar, who has written an 'extensive' (by in game standards) work on the subject and is biased toward the Empire, and a Stormcloak commander, who seems to have been a first hand account and is biased toward the Stormcloaks.

 

The truth is probably something in the middle. The city was breached and sacked, which was probably along the standards of medieval warfare (many slaughtered, the city pillaged and looted), but it wasn't a complete massacre of every man, woman and child (otherwise, how would all of those natives who have worked in the city for 30 years still live?).

 

And again the issue of was Ulfric an active agent for the Thalmor? Nothing suggests that he was actively supporting them, only that his actions where in line with Thalmor interests.

[CasperTheLich]

i've read somewhere (might have been the documents recovered from the thalmor embassy, i can't recall atm) that at the time of the markarth incident ulfric was a willing & active thalmor operative/agent, and it was he who alerted the thalmor about the terms of the agreement, though since i can't recall the source it should be taken with a grain of salt, but i'm fairly sure it was in game though.

[RighthandofSithis]

i've read somewhere (might have been the documents recovered from the thalmor embassy, i can't recall atm) that at the time of the markarth incident ulfric was a willing & active thalmor operative/agent, and it was he who alerted the thalmor about the terms of the agreement, though since i can't recall the source it should be taken with a grain of salt, but i'm fairly sure it was in game though.

 

Thats the Thalmor Dossier on him.

 

It was he was and still is an Asset, and is uncooperative. An asset does not mean he is an agent, it simply means what he is doing fall in line with the Thalmor plans.

 

The term 'Uncooperative', may mean that his actions only once fell in line with the Thalmor's plans, but now his actions don;t at all (aside from keeping the war going, everything else hinders them).

 

Edit: When they say 'Contact was made' what do they mean? Direct Contact? Indirect Contact? Its to vague to make any conclusions.

Edited December 14, 2012 by RighthandofSithis

[AnimeOtaku102]

 

Galmar does at the peace treaty. He also goes forward to accuse the Imperials of committing another massacre at an undefined place.

Ah, I missed that part. Thanks for the correction.

 

And again the issue of was Ulfric an active agent for the Thalmor? Nothing suggests that he was actively supporting them, only that his actions where in line with Thalmor interests.

Well, this is inferred by how they labeled Ulfric in the dossier:

 

"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."

 

Maybe it's just the vagueness of the English language to blame, but the impression I get from that bit suggests the initial contact made was, in fact, direct contact, otherwise why mention "direct contact" if the initial contact wasn't direct in the first place? Or why mention direct contact again at the start of the next paragraph if they had been using other means of contact to communicate with Ulfric? Furthermore Ulfric is only labeled "dormant" because he becomes unwilling to be contacted directly after the Markarth Incident. If Ulfric wasn't being contacted directly before, why wasn't he always considered a dormant asset?

 

So maybe calling him an "agent" is too strong, but I believe it's fact that Ulfric a) was in direct communications with the Thalmor in the events leading up to the conclusion of the Markarth Incident and b) the results were in line with what the Thalmor wanted to happen. It's not a huge leap in logic to assume that Ulfric acted in accordance to the Thalmor's wishes, though the specifics of how this happened (blackmail, mutual agreement, magical manipulation) would be unknown.

 

On a speculative note, the wording of the quoted line suggests to me that something about the Markarth Incident soured Ulfric's relation with the Thalmor: my speculation is either he was offended by something he was ordered to do (possibly whatever the accusations of brutality by the Forsworn and Imperial scholar are based on) or his arrest gave him the political ammunition he needed to sow the seeds for his rebellion (thus he no longer needed to use the Thalmor); either way that suggests some level of cooperation on Ulfric's part.

 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it? I honestly can't see any other way to interpret it and I don't feel Bethesda writes subtle enough stories for such circumstantial evidence to simply be red herrings.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Anime_Otaku102

[Arcadiast]

sorry for putting it so blatantly but good and evil is for kids!

 

Once your cerebral cortex (I dont even know what that is just like the sound of it :) ) reaches a certain point of "maturity", it should understand that good and evil are:

 

- tools used by politics to justify means that are otherwise hard or even impossible to communicate to the masses (we are killing people over there because we want what they have vs. they are EVIL they want to destroy our "GOODnes")

 

- we are ALWAYS good (if we rape, plunder, kill ...its OK because we rape, plunder and kill evil people) they are ALWAYS evil (if they give us Bread, help us up, show us mercy its BAD because its a EVIL scheme)

 

- absolutely irrelevant to Nature. Nature does not give a Mudcrabs behind if a Lion is killing a gazelle or dies because it took a injury while trying to kill its prey. No force, other than what humans cause, know good or evil or distinguish between them like we do. Good and Evil are human inventions! not universal facts.

 

So back to your original question, who is good who is evil...lets see

 

Stormcloaks

 

good: They want independency and religious freedom

bad: They are racist, separationist disrupting a possible peace under united banners

 

Imperials

 

good: They try to unify the continent and bring law and order and peace to the people.

bad: They have no respect for the local population and their way of life, they tried to kill the Dragonborn :)

 

There are much more points like these but I dont wanna make this text longer than it already is.

 

Bottomline: The side you, the Player, the Dragonborn, decide to join is the GOOD side (unless you WANT to be EVIL of course...then its the other way around) and of course they will win (unlimited continues, savegames etc. do give an edge :) )

Edited December 14, 2012 by Arcadiast

[CasperTheLich]

@righthandofsithis

english, especially spy terminology is wonderfully vague isn't it. i used the term agent as in the "on behalf of" sense of the term, and not necessarily fully employed, though i used operative/agent to express my lack of knowledge about his direct position in the thalmor's intelligence services; asset, "contract" - “contact” or "probationary" operative, fully fledged operative, etc.

 

---edit

otherwise it doesn't make much sense to say operative/agent does it?

Edited December 14, 2012 by Invisible Man

[BrettM]

Even then, we are still uncertian if it was the dipossed Jarl of Markarth who promised, the Empire, or someone else entirely. If the former case, the Jarls do not have the power to make those promises. If the second, it would counteract the indications that the Empire was considering letting the Foresworn keep the city. And, if the latter, it could well have been Thalmor agents who spread the whole rumout.

In the second case, where the Empire made the promise, there is no real conflict with their considerations of letting the Forsworn keep the Reach.

 

This all took place shortly after the Great War, when the Empire simply did not have the resources to enforce their will outside of Cyrodiil, so they had to bow to the inevitable. This is why they let a rebellious Hammerfell go. They did not want to do so, any more than they are willing to let a rebellious Skyrim go years later, but they had not yet recovered enough to do anything about it.

 

The Empire knew it had no way to retake the Reach by force, so they began negotiations that would hopefully leave them with some control over a Forsworn-ruled area, or at least access to the resources there. Then they became aware of Ulfric and his militia, giving them another option. They might well have been happy to make promises to Ulfric if he could supply the force the Empire could not and give them a more desirable outcome: a Reach that remained part of a Skyrim province that was still fully loyal to the Empire. The fact that the Empire was negotiating with the Forsworn does not necessarily mean that they were committed to negotiation as the best option, only that it was the only option at the time the negotiations began.

 

Whether or not the Empire made any promises to Ulfric beforehand, I think they were clearly happy that he took the Reach back.

[Lachdonin]

Whether or not the Empire made any promises to Ulfric beforehand, I think they were clearly happy that he took the Reach back.

 

Not nessessarily. There are plenty of indications that the Empire is not to fond of how Markarth is run. The smeltery Overseer comments indicate that the Legion is constantly on his back to treat the Reach-men labourers as 'People" and Margrette's presence there indicates the Empire is directly concerned about corruption in the city. They may have been happy to have the Reach back under control when Ulfric did his thing, but it's clearly left a bad taste in their mouth, particularly because the incedent called attention to the injustices there-in.

 

When you consider the fact that civil forces from Hammerfell and Highrock sacked Orsinium in the early 4th era, and the Legion actually protected and evacuated Orc refugees, it's far more likely, given the temperment of the Empire in general, that they would have prefered the peaceful solution rather than sacking the city and re-installing a corrupt regime.