BrettM
-
Posts
446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BrettM
-
-
Like others, I have to question whether Torygg was really the High King involved with Ulfric's arrest. At one point Ulfric says it was "the High King" who allowed the Dunmer into Skyrim, and some people make the mistake of thinking that he means Torygg because they don't connect that statement with the fact that the Dunmer became refugees more than 150 years before the time of the game. A similar mistake could have been made by whoever wrote that UESP article. I know of no canonical source that explicitly states that Torygg was High King at the time of the Markarth Incident. Sybile Stentor's dialog seems to indicate that he was not, but stops short of making this a certainty. We do not know for an absolute fact whether the High King in question was Torygg or his father by any firm evidence I've seen, and the UESP article in question cites no references containing such evidence. I can't place any reliance on it under those circumstances, though I think it's going a bit far to brand the article fanboi fanfic. Simple sloppy scholarship is enough to explain the problem with it.
But I'm not sure it matters, unless one is trying to pin most or all of the blame for the Markarth Incident on Igmund and/or Torygg. I believe there is plenty of evidence that this is not the case. I think it is a logical certainty that the Empire was more than pleased with Ulfric's action in reclaiming the Reach, whether there is any evidence of their explicit involvement before the fact or not. Ulfric had their tacit consent, at least, beforehand and their collusion afterward.
To the extent that we can believe the biased author of The Bear of Markarth, it WAS the Empire -- not Igmund -- that agreed to allow Talos worship as the price of Ulfric doing the dirty work that they were too weak to do themselves at the end of the Great War.
So when a "grateful" Empire accepted Ulfric's victory and sent soldiers to re-establish the rule of law in the Reach, it was no surprise that he would demand to be allowed to worship Talos freely before the Legion could enter. With chaos running through the streets of Markarth and the reports of deaths rising every day, the Empire had no choice but to grant Ulfric and his men their worship.The author is unable to disguise the fact that the Empire made a deal with Ulfric. There is no mention of an agreement with Igmund. The best he can do is try to propagandize the situation, putting scare quotes around "grateful" and making it appear that the Empire was concerned with nothing more than defending the poor, suffering Reachmen against the war crimes of the lawless Ulfric. According to the author, Ulfric was somehow able to use the tender feelings of the Empire to blackmail them into agreement with his demands. The author is nothing but another apologist trying to suck up to the Thalmor and divert blame from the Empire. Awww, poor wittle Empire! How can they be blamed for risking war with the Thalmor to save the Reachmen? The Empire only agreed to a treaty violation because mean old Ulfric made them!
The Empire made no attempt to give the Reach back to Madenach after they repudiated Ulfric, demonstrating that they had been negotiating with Madenach out of weakness rather than a heartfelt desire to see the Reach free of Skyrim. Anyone who thinks that the Empire restored, or even tried to restore, "rule of law" to Markarth is not paying attention to their own experiences there. Arrianus Arius's spin control on these points just falls apart in the face of our own observations. Can we really trust an apologist like Arius to be fully truthful in reporting that the agreement with Ulfric was only after the fact? I think this is open to serious doubt.
When Ulfric restored the pre-war status quo in the Reach, the Empire was truly happy to accept it, and I have no doubt that they were equally happy to give Ulfric the reward he wanted, treaty or no. The Empire tried to pull a fast one on the Thalmor, and then they threw Ulfric -- and all of Skyrim -- under the Thalmor bus when they were caught, proclaiming that Ulfric made them do it. Trying to minimize the role of the Empire while emphasizing the actions of Igmund and Torygg seems like a serious distortion of the affair.
-
Regarding the "irony" of suppressing the religion of the Forsworn while fighting for freedom to worship Talos, I don't think the two cases are equivalent. There are certain exceptions to religious freedom that even we enlightened modern people will admit to...
So then stop giving the Empire sh*t for banning Talos. Mr Modern society. The two cases are approx equivalent, there is no difference whatsoever. I'm sorry but that is wrong. So, Stormcloaks can worship their God but fck the Forsworn. It is their land and their Gods, JUST THE SAME as the Nords in Skyrim. Have you seen some of these Nordic ruins? What went on in there? Hmmm... Well, I will help you out with this one. Embalming tools, uhh walking Corpses who apparently weren't allowed to die, then we have sacrificial alters, Dragon worship/sacrifice. Shall I go on? Seriously folks. This is exactly why I quit being a Stormcloak because the ideology sadly, appears to somewhat selective, from the top down. Freedom for Nords alone. Then the opposite of that side of the logic is NO-FREEDOM for everyone else, EVEN if they're human == Evil == Thalmor Logic (Freedom for Elves alone).
Do you really not see any difference between Talos worship and a Forsworn religion that sacrifices the innocent in their ceremonies?
What do the ancient Nord ruins have to do with Talos or Ulfric? The Nords fought for hundreds of years to destroy the Dragon Cult following the Dragon War, and this was done thousands of years before Tiber Septim was even born. Yes, the ancient Nords had a barbaric religion with barbaric practices. They started a revolution back then to put a stop to that religion. How is this a reason for being disgusted with the Stormcloaks and their ideology? What is the connection?
Unlike the Forsworn, the Stormcloaks are not trying to return to that ancient barbaric religion, and they aren't fighting for the right to create draugr and use the old sacrificial altars in the Dragon Cult temples. Talos worship has absolutely NO relationship to the Dragon Cult, and it's ridiculous to claim that Talos worship is equivalent to the old religion of the Forsworn because Nords used to have a Dragon Cult. There is no logic to that argument at all.
AND this is the biggest difference between the Stormcloaks and the American Revolution even the Alyssian Revolution. They fought solely on ideas and PRINCIPLE for ALL. Not just for Nords. Freedom for EVERYONE.Get mad, I don't care. Either we're all free with the same rights and God created us equal OR the other side. Make up your mind PLEASE.
The American Revolution fought only for freedom for the American colonies. Yes, the revolutionaries held that there should be liberty and equal rights for all, but they fought only for their own. As John Quincy Adams said, "She [America] is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
I pointed out that the Stormcloaks are probably not so enlightened and that they are fighting only for their own freedom without any guiding principles regarding anyone else's. So what? How does this prove that I am confused about my own beliefs and need to make up my mind? Many revolutions in the history of humanity have been fought only to secure the freedom of the revolutionaries themselves. Taking note of such facts does not in any way show that I do not believe in more general principles of liberty. Wishing well to the Stormcloaks in their fight for freedom and independence does not mean that I would support them in denying it to anyone else.
When it comes to the Reach, let's not forget that the Forsworn are not representative of the views of Reachmen in general. Let's not forget that the Forsworn committed many atrocities against Nord civilians who had lived peacefully in the Reach for generations. Even if I agreed that Ulfric is racist, his treatment of the Dunmer amounts to nothing more than neglect. The racism of the Forsworn, however, is active and violent.
Let's not forget that the Empire's attitude toward the Reach is no better than that of Ulfric, who was working for the Empire when he reclaimed it. The Empire is no lover of freedom and independence for anyone at all, so there is even less reason to support them on the question of liberty than there is to support the Stormcloaks. There are no Adamses or Madisons or Jeffersons on either side, so we can only choose between the sides we are offered even if neither of them is ideal from an enlightened point of view.
I have a hard time seeing how Ulfric and/or the Stormcloaks deserve condemnation for their supposed racism yet the non-Nords deserve only sympathy despite their equal racism and criminal ways.I... I... ahhhh.... I'm afraid I can't respond to this garbage or any other part of your last post without insulting you. Sorry, cause I'd *really* like to. How are you against Socialism again? Cause you sound very much far left. Just an observation.
You seem to be observing me in some kind of fun-house mirror if you think that statement is in any way far left or socialist. I was objecting to the kind of bleeding-heart liberalism that makes excuses for or ignores the bad behavior of those they anoint as "victims" while allowing no excuses for the bad behavior of those they anoint as "oppressors". I was objecting to the kind of thinking -- left, right, or other -- that apportions all blame to one side and tries to turn a gray issue into pure black-and-white. I am objecting to the kind of illogic that willfully disregards selected facts in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion. How in the world can that be characterized as sounding far left?
Are you really claiming that you can't respond to a point of debate without resorting to personal insults and ad hominem attacks? Do you understand how sad that is?
-
You will need at least two witch heads to cure Kodlak, do the two "Purity" quests, and cure yourself. One head will be destroyed when curing Kodlak. For some reason, doing "Purity" does not destroy the head in your inventory, so you can do both of them with the second head. Curing yourself will destroy it.
Once you have cured yourself, you will no longer be offered either "Purity" or "Totems" quests. So don't cure yourself until all five of those quests are done if you want to complete them all.
-
Regarding the Civil War, there are several scenarios that can justify a Dunmer becoming involved.
1. Sooner or later the Aldmeri Dominion is going to get around to Morrowind unless somebody else beats them first. The Dominion wants it all in the long run. A Dunmer who realizes this has good reason to evaluate the situation and decide whether a unified Empire or an independent Skyrim will have a better chance of beating, or at least delaying, the Dominion. So shouldn't this smart Dunmer throw his support to the side he thinks will give his homeland a better chance in the long run?
2. Dunmer have no particular reason to love either the Empire or Skyrim, having had troubles with both in the past. A vengeance-driven Dunmer might decide to pick the side that he believes will lead to the destruction of both those enemies in the long run. Or perhaps he actually supports the Dominion and wants to help them conquer more quickly by weakening their enemies.
3. A Dunmer might well decide to make Skyrim his permanent home, putting aside all thoughts of a Morrowind that has been wrecked for the foreseeable future. A young Dunmer might even have been born in Skyrim -- second or third generation -- and consider it just as much his home as anyone else born there, having no personal memories of Morrowind or Dunmer culture as it used to be. Such a Dunmer has just as good a reason to pick a side as anyone else who sees Skyrim as home, Nord or not. Perhaps he would support the Empire under the "strength in unity" argument, having not been raised as a Talos worshipper. Or perhaps he would support the Stormcloaks under the "right to self rule" argument. Or perhaps he was even raised as a Talos worshipper by Nord foster parents (like Brand-Shei in Riften, who was raised from an infant by Argonians) and is willing to fight for his religion.
As you can see, a Dunmer (or any other non-Nord) character can easily be given a backstory that justifies involvement in the Civil War on either side. I think that's part of the fun of making non-Nord characters, because there are additional questions that need to be answered. E.g., why isn't your Redguard character fighting the Thalmor in Hammerfell instead of wandering around Skyrim?
-
Regarding the "irony" of suppressing the religion of the Forsworn while fighting for freedom to worship Talos, I don't think the two cases are equivalent. There are certain exceptions to religious freedom that even we enlightened modern people will admit to. Do we allow any religion to tie people to stone altars and cut out their living hearts with obsidian knives? Do we allow any religion to throw virgins into lava to placate the volcano gods? Do we allow any religion to toss babies into furnaces to satisfy Moloch? Yet we do not regard ourselves as religious oppressors for forbidding such practices. If you look at the "old religion" of the Forsworn, it seems to involve barbaric practices that are regarded with great distaste even by other Reachmen. (Speak to the woman who runs the Hag's Cure in Markarth, for example.) If nothing else, that religion is headed by hagravens who are created by a ritual involving the sacrifice of an innocent victim (see the "Repentance" quest in Darklight Tower).
It is hard to understand how the idea of a jobs program came up to begin with. Are there any Dunmer in Windhelm who are unemployed? The only two beggars in town are Nords. Three Dunmer own businesses, one owns a prosperous farm, one is a farm worker, one is a nanny, and one has a responsible position with a shipping company. Who exactly needs a job?
I have a hard time seeing how Ulfric and/or the Stormcloaks deserve condemnation for their supposed racism yet the non-Nords deserve only sympathy despite their equal racism and criminal ways. One of the Argonians is not shy about telling us that "our kind" (Nord or Dunmer) are not welcome on the docks. One admits to being an ex-thief. One is a skooma addict. One suggests that he is not averse to pilfering from the goods he handles. One of the Dunmer complains that Argonians are naturally lazy, and she has no qualms about dealing with pirates to shut down her employer's competition. One is either an outright fence or willfully ignorant about the source of the goods he buys. Another tells you that you had best not deal with him if you're the sort that cares about where he obtains his goods. One may very well be an Imperial spy, giving some foundation to Rolff's general suspicion. Do they deserve no censure at all for their morally-casual, racist ways? It seems pretty hypocritical to put Ulfric's actions under a microscope while turning a blind eye to the flaws of those he allows to exist in his community.
-
Ulfric HAS talked with the Empire. In fact, he made a deal with them. And then the Empire broke that deal and threw him into jail. Can anyone really blame him for concluding that the Empire will not negotiate in good faith and that revolution is the only option remaining?
As for being safe from bandits, that is not the reason that the Legion is in Skyrim. Name one instance in which the Imps ever took on any bandits or any of the other problems (vampires, necromancers, etc.) with which we must constantly deal in all holds, Imperial or Stormcloak. Suppressing banditry and the like is the responsibility of the jarls and always has been, not a responsibility of the Empire. The Empire keeps no one in Skyrim safe from bandits, so this is not a good reason for supporting them.
The fight isn't about religious freedom in the abstract. The Stormcloaks aren't fighting so that all may worship as they please. They are fighting for their OWN freedom to follow their OWN faith, and true adherents of any religion have always put this first and foremost over other considerations. Did the early Christians deny their religion to obtain safety? Being thrown into arenas full of hungry lions doesn't sound very safe to me!
Would we tell slaves not to fight against their oppressors because those oppressors keep everyone safe from bandits? Would we tell them that the rights of everyone else to safety from bandits trumps their right to be free of slavery? If not, then why is it wrong for the Stormcloaks to resist oppression without considering the costs to others?
-
I wish to make it clear. ULFRIC IS NOT A SOCIALIST OR A COMMUNIST.
Well, no. That was the point I was trying to make. One can't reasonably criticize a feudal ruler like Ulfric for failing to implement socialist, communist, or fascist solutions to social problems in his domain. Expecting a jarl in Skyrim to come up with the idea of job programs -- essentially a start at centralized management of the economy -- is unrealistic for the political system of their time and place. Ulfric may or may not be a bad guy, but if he is, it isn't because of his failure to take such actions.
-
I believe Mac was talking about things the game have for you to do. As of again, every single person has it's play style, but you can see that if you follow the game's trending, you'll do those things.
Yes. The game seems bound and determined to encourage characters to follow dark paths. You have to skip a lot of quests to avoid the worst of those things, and you practically have to skip most of the game to avoid all of them. Even tiny things may offer only two wrong choices, though there is clearly a better choice that would be the natural thing to do in Real Life. Like Mac, I find this very frustrating.
-
Every weapon available to them that was acceptable in their culture would have been available in a duel. And that included the Thu'um, as back in the time when High Kings were regularly challenged like this, the Thu'um was as much an everyday weapon as the sword or the axe.
And what time was this? I can't find a single reference to any example anywhere in Nord history where any high king was challenged at all, much less a reference to such challenges being "regular". The heirs of Ysgrammor held the high throne from his time until the time of King Borgas -- a period of some centuries. Perhaps there were challenges between competing heirs within Ysgrammor's bloodline, but we have no example that proves this. As far as we know, it never happened at all, much less being a common state of affairs. Nor do we have any examples following the War of Sucession save for Ulfric's challenge. (Yes, obviously there must have been such challenges because you don't need a custom for something that never happens. That is a far cry from being a "regular" occurrence, though.)
Furthermore, the thu'um was never an everyday weapon like a sword or axe. It took years to master, just as it does for the Greybeards in recent times, and only a rare few had the necessary dedication and aptitude. The Tongues of the ancient Nords, like their battle mages, were rare and valued. Read, for example, the journal of Skorm Snow-Strider. When he ran into a situation that everyday arms could not handle, he had to request that a Voice Master be sent to his army. According to the Thu'um lore article: "Most if not all Nords have some talent for the thu'um, but it takes particular talent and many, many years of study and training to become a Tongue." I suspect that the ancient Tongues were a tightly-knit order that spent much time in secluded training and study, much like the modern Greybeards.
And before you say it, no, the Way of the Voice isn't a part of greater Nordic culture. Its an extremely secluded philosophy that the vast majority of Nords will not and would not even know of in their entire lifetimes, and was actually created sometime after the use of the Thu'um had already started to wane.Nonsense. The principles of the Way of the Voice are inscribed on the 10 tablets lining the 7,000 Steps. When we go to High Hrothgar, we see pilgrims studying these tablets and meditating on them. The story told by those tablets must be well known among the Nords, spread by those who make the pilgrimmage, including the principle that the Voice only be used for True Need and never for wars of conquest. "While the Greybeards are famed keepers of the Way of the Voice, the core precepts of the philosophy are still reflected in Nordic culture." (Emphasis added.)
What makes you think that the use of the thu'um had already started to wane by the time of Jurgen Windcaller? I have seen nothing in the lore that even implies this, much less states it so baldly. Where does this information come from?
What makes you think the Way of the Voice is simply pacifism? Not supporting wars of conquest does not make one a pacifist any more than it makes one an isolationist. The Voice is the Nordic equivalent of a nuclear weapon. Look at what Alduin did to Helgen and tell me that's not true. Even if no individual human Tongue could match that performance, a small group of them certainly could. For the Greybeards to try to keep such a weapon out of the hands of just anyone who wants it is hardly proof of pacifism. From Lore: Way of the Voice:
Due to the rarity of times of "True Need" and the nonviolent lifestyles of the Greybeard monks (the most famous practitioners of the Way of the Voice), the philosophy is generally viewed to be one of pacifism. Actually, the Way of the Voice merely teaches that using the thu'um for battle is merely "the least of its uses".You also keep accusing Windcaller of inventing the philosophy to save face. He claimed that the defeat at Red Mountain was a punishment from the gods for misuse of the gift that Kynareth gave them. How do you know that this isn't true? How do you know for a fact that Windcaller did not receive some divine revelation to this effect during his seven-year meditation? This is a world where the gods truly exist and do interact with mortals at times. You may be correct, but where is your proof that Windcaller made it all up out of butthurt?
Bear in mind...the Thu'um isn't THAT powerful. You're learning how to speak in the Dragonic language, and that lets you "speak" magic. But a Thu'um isn't going to do nearly as much damage as an Expert Destruction spell. The reason no one has tried to learn the Thu'um for combat purposes in the past is because it's like bringing a Sikh dagger to a knifefight instead of a Fairbarn-Sykes or Bowie knife. It's not the most effective method, and it's going to offend the people who give it a symbolic and religious value.There IS a distinction between lore and gameplay, and gameplay can be under restrictions that do not exist in lore. This is an uncomfortable fact because it does lead to arguments over whether someone is arbitrarily picking and choosing, but it is a fact nonetheless.
In lore, the thu'um IS that powerful. We are told so over and over again, and we are shown some of it.
We are told that most of the Greybeards do not speak because their merest whisper could kill someone, yet the dovahkiin -- with a thu'um supposedly more powerful than Alduin's -- can do no such thing in gameplay. We see the earth shake when they welcome the dovahkiin and when Einar chastises Arngeir for refusing to help us get to Paarthurnax, yet they are just speaking ordinary sentences, not using phrases that have been defined as Shouts for gameplay purposes.
We are told the ancient Nords had both battle mages and Tongues, and it is the Tongues that were called when an army needed to breach a fortress. Why, if the battle mages were more powerful? In lore, it is established that the Tongues had more power, yet this is obviously not true in gameplay. A young Voice Master brought down the main gate of Forelhost in lore, but our character can't even blow the door off a busted wardrobe in gameplay.
I could cite more examples, but I think I've made the point. There is a major difference between the lore and the gameplay where the Voice is concerned, and only one of the two can be regarded as canonical. I pick the lore.
-
-
I am NOT advocating a welfare nanny state you leftist @#&*.Maybe I missed it, but when was this thread hijacked by reactionary neo-cons?
ROTFL. So, which is it? Am I a leftist piece of trash or a reactionary neo-con? I must be doing something right if I'm accused of both for the same view. I'll give you a hint: the true answer is neither, and I am against welfare states whether they come from left-wing socialists or right-wing socialists.
-
3. Whatever the rules and traditions may have been for wars and succession, it seems clear to me that the other Jarls do not consider what Ulfric did as counting as having earned the throne. In fact, the only thing he has going for him seems to be more like everyone not being convinced that Elisif has a rightful claim by just screwing the old king either.
So either he did something wrong in applying that tradition (e.g., it qualifying as a murder rather than duel), OR it's not a tradition to earn the throne that way after all.
I would say the second of these is the case. Even Ulfric says that it wouldn't be proper for him to just proclaim himself High King, but that tradition requires the Moot to give him the title. The duel wasn't about directly earning the throne, but about throwing the throne into contention and forcing the calling of a Moot to decide the issue.
This was only possible, as near as I can tell, because Torygg did not have a direct heir. If he had, then his death would have placed that heir on the throne according to the law of succession established by the Pact of Chieftains. I don't think it would have mattered if Ulfric killed him or if he fell down the stairs while drunk, no Moot could have been called as long as a direct heir existed. Without a direct heir, however, a challenge would open the throne to all claimants regardless of whether Torygg lost or whether he refused the challenge. Torygg was screwed either way, and his only hope of keeping the throne was to kill Ulfric once the challenge had been issued.
However, if a Moot had been called immediately after Torygg's death, it would have almost certainly honored Elisif's claim to being the heir by marriage. Ulfric's strategy was to delay the calling of the Moot he had forced until he had enough jarls backing him to be assured of being named High King. (I'm almost certain Ulfric or Galmar have some dialog explaining this if you join the Stormcloak side, but I don't have a transcript handy.)
-
Well you're missing the point of what I'm saying and that point is Ulfric CAN get the Blacksmith(s) to work on Contract for the Stormcloaks and he CAN also refuse to send out the Guard when a Non-Nord party is under attack and he CAN influence the other allied holds do provide service for the war effort, but apparently, he can't help a group of refugees who've lost their homeland?
BS.
Ulfric CAN do anything except for what he's supposed to do as Jarl and that's doing his job. Seriously, this guy can't even get Jarl right but he wants to be High King of Skyrim. You know why he had to kill Torygg and start this war? It's because he's incompetent. Yep. He's a loser Jarl who can't get his priorities together. The people look up to the Jarl he's he's... the one who sets the tone for the city.
Now, I have no clue where you're coming from. I just, see the ways you're bending and twisting my argument... I have no clue how any of that pertains to the discussion on the Dark Elves. I... I just don't. I have never advocated a welfare state. I don't. There's nothing I hate more than people who won't contribute. I mean???
According to your argument then, by Ulfric putting the Blacksmiths and Guards and Bandits and everyone else behind the SC War effort, intentionally creating jobs, then by your definition Ulfric is running a welfare state. Ulfric is creating jobs for the war, he's paying and contracting bandits and blachsmiths for the war where they usually wouldn't get paid or have a job, then that's a welfare state.
By your own admission, you're trying to reinforce your point with Sarcasm, DENYING the Truth thereof. I am just stating the facts, with arguably some realistic conjecture but it's all founded on what is and if anyone else has noticed, I also took Ulfric's side on some things in the beginning.
And lastly, if Ulfric can create jobs for the war... then he CAN also create some way to help the Dunmer, even if it's resettling them to a proper location. According to him the Nords are ENTITLED to Skyrim and everything there in. Perhaps another reason for the war...
Sarcasm doesn't deny the truth of anything. If you think it does, then you do not understand what sarcasm is. Yes, I did use sarcasm to make the point that Torygg had nothing to do with inviting the Dunmer to Skyrim, and I pointed it out myself. How did that deny any truth? I also used a little reductio ad absurdum to point out that you were suggesting that Ulfric start to implement a welfare state. Again, that does not deny any truth or twist any arguments. You ARE advocating steps that are part of a welfare nanny state, though not to the extent that many countries in our world are currently suffering under, whether you're willing to admit it or not. This is something that is simply unreasonable to expect in a feudal society.
If you really believe that what Ulfric is doing is "creating jobs", then you really, really need to learn some economics. Really. No sarcasm. And if you really believe that it is Ulfric's "job" to help people be successful, then you really, really need to learn something about how feudal societies work. Holding the government responsible for such things is exactly what leads to a welfare state.
Where in the world did you get the idea that Ulfric is paying and contracting with bandits? That is a truly bizarre contention.
-
You don't necessarily need to pace yourself. There are plenty of faction quests and side quests that you can do if you finish the main quest early. If nothing else, you can now join one of the sides in the civil war and break the truce, since it is no longer necessary.
-
For Christ's sake. Get over the welfare state thing - Please! Never, ever did I insinuate welfare. Putting people to work is NOT welfare. That's job creation.
Government involvement in arranging jobs for the benefit of a certain segment of the population IS seeing to their welfare, by definition. A welfare state is about much more than simply handing money to people. You don't get to pretend it isn't socialism just by refusing to call it socialism.
You're demanding that Ulfric order employers to give certain jobs to certain people, or to create positions for those people even if the employer has no present need of additional employees. Whatever you choose to call that, it sure isn't free-market capitalism. There is a term, though, for a system where businesses have private owners but are operated according to government orders. See if you can guess what word I'm thinking of.
Such an employment program results in the forced transfer of wealth from one segment of the population to another, whether the money to pay for those "created" jobs comes out of the pocket of the employer or the pocket of some employee who was fired to give his job to a member of the favored underclass. Jobs are created by economic growth, not by government ordering them into existence. Forced transfers of wealth IS welfare, even when the transfer is not directly between the government and the subsidized citizen.
Or perhaps you had some sort of public works program in mind. But giving people money for makework jobs is just as much welfare as giving them money directly. Except now the forced transfer of wealth is from the pockets of taxpayers and is more visible than the hidden costs of mandatory private employment.
At the very least you are suggesting some government agency to oversee private hiring to ensure that there is no discrimination. Hurrah for the medieval EEOC! Such bureaucracies are also symptomatic of welfare nanny states. And I'm sure you would insist that all those newly-employed Dunmer be paid a "living wage" (as determined by the government, naturally). So now we can throw a minimum wage law into the socialistic mix as well.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, you are advocating that Ulfric initiate a welfare state. A small one, true, but it is the nature of such things to grow.
-
Well first of all, the Dark Elves were invited into Skyrim by Torygg, not Ulfric.
Really? Torygg was High King when the Red Mountain erupted, nearly 200 years ago (4E 5-6)? Wow, I had no idea he was that old!
In case you missed the sarcasm, the refugees were invited in by the High King at the time of the eruption, with the support of the jarls of that time. Since then the tower used as a welcome center has fallen into ruin. All of this happened long before Torygg or Ulfric were born. In fact, it happened long before their fathers were born. Probably before their grandfathers were born.
Suggesting that Ulfric should institute work programs to improve the lot of the Dunmer is a breathtaking idea. Perhaps he should implement universal health care, Social Security, and Food Stamps while he's at it. Seriously, though, this is a medieval, feudal society. I don't think they're quite ready for socialistic welfare programs yet. (And, for their sakes, I hope they never will be.)
-
The Greybeards should have taught you one word of Whirlwind Sprint when you first went to High Hrothgar ("The Way of the Voice"), and made you demonstrate it by sprinting through the gate in the courtyard. As far as I know, there is no way to get the Horn quest without fully completing "The Way of the Voice". I don't see how you could have missed Whirlwind Sprint because there just isn't any way to skip parts of that quest.
If you do have to leave to get a word, I would suggest going to Dead Men's Respite, since that should be easier than Volskygge.
-
Baby-name sites are my best source for inspiration. There are many of them that specialize in different cultures or have cultural sub-sections, and they give the meaning of each name. Just google "norse baby name" and start browsing the lists for inspiration.
-
The Dwemer were neither ascended or destroyed, they were merged with Numidum, and are in whatever state it is in. Did you even read the link?
Did you? Because the author asks the question of whether they were ascended or destroyed at least twice, and says that he does not have an answer to it. Yet somehow you have divined that neither is the case, citing a document that says no such thing as "proof" of your contention.
The very same author that determined that the Dwemer merged with Numidium says that there are still unanswered questions, which I presume he doesn't consider to be irrelevant since he took the trouble to write a lengthy addendum to address them. He makes it quite clear that their souls were merged with Numidium long before the Battle of Red Mountain, and their bodies were only destroyed later. He does NOT state that the merged souls are still part of Numidium, but that it is unknown if this is the case because Numidium was intended for multiple uses. He outlines a couple of scenarios for how a multiple-use Numidium might work, including ascension of the merged souls once they are gathered, but is unable to say which is correct. He does NOT say that the Dwemer are incontrovertibly in the same state that the Numidium is in.
I read it most carefully. I have good reason to question whether you have done the same.
Furthermore it is not arrogant to ask people to stop asking questions about a subject were all questions with any important responses have been answered. What happened to the Dwemer post Numidium is entirely, and 100% irrelevant as it changes nothing.All remaining questions relating to the Dwemer boil down to "whats the deal with airline food"
In your opinion. Other opinions are possible, and to proclaim that anyone holding an opinion other than your own should just shut up is the very definition of arrogance. Since the author of the piece you cite asks "irrelevant" questions about the fate of the Dwemer post-Numidium, I suppose he should just shut up as well?
In the words of Dagoth Ur, as related by Vivec: "And who knows, perhaps the Dwemer are not gone forever, but merely transported to some distant realm, from which they may some day return to threaten our security once again." There is absolutely nothing in the writings you cite to show that this is not possible.
-
-
http://www.imperial-library.info/content/final-report-trebonius
This explains EVERYTHING you need to know abut the Dwemer's disappearance.
Right. There is absolutely no mystery left regarding that disappearance. Nope. Not a single question left. Unless you count the mystery of what exactly happened to the Dwemer -- ascension or destruction? -- and whether or not there is any possibility of their return.
You linked to that document, but did you actually bother to read it? If so, did you comprehend it? Luagar Anulam himself says there is still a mystery regarding their disappearance. Beyond the fact that the souls of the Dwemer merged to form the Brass God, he does not know what became of that merged soul during the Battle of Red Mountain. He states this quite clearly at least twice in his "Addendum". He does not know which account of that battle is correct: The Battle of Red Mountain or Nerevar at Red Mountain. He does not know if the Dwemer succeeded in achieving their goal or failed. He does not know what ultimately happened to the Dwemer and he says so.
So who are YOU to say we know "everything" we "need" to know about the disappearance of the Dwemer? Your own sources explicitly deny that everything is known. As to whether we "need" to know any more, that is your opinion. YOU may not need to know any more, but it is rather arrogant to tell others to stop asking questions because you have all the answers you want.
-
@Macsuibhne, what makes you think that the high king has absolute authority? As for Nordic law...I hear more about Nordic customs and traditions regarding Nord rule, than 'law'. Ulfric challenged Torygg while he was holding court. According to Nord custom, if he had refused, there would have been a Moot to decide the outcome. Not a likely scenario for someone who holds 'absolute authority I would have thought.
None of that is true...
Actually, according to the statements of Sybile Stentor, the statement you bolded in Breakwind's reply IS true. She clearly describes the challenge custom as giving Ulfric the right to demand a Moot to judge the fitness of the High King if he refused the challenge. We have no reason to doubt her word on that.
No feudal authority is truly absolute in practice. A king is bound by custom and tradition, and the bonds of fealty impose obligations on him as well as on his vassals. It isn't a one-way street, and a king violates fealty and tradition at his peril. A king rules because he has the support of the high nobility. The high nobility rules because they have the support of the lower nobility and knights under them. The lower nobility rules because they have the support of the people. If any of them goes too far, their vassals will turn on them.
For a Skyrim example of this system, look at why Dengeir stepped down as Jarl of Falkreath: his nobles pressured him into it. Without the support of his nobles, he had no authority and knew it. Perhaps Torygg could have gotten away with jailing Ulfric and using his "absolute authority" to deny Ulfric his established right to call a Moot. But I wouldn't bet on the other jarls sitting still for a High King who arbitrarily obliterates the rights of his nobles for his own benefit, even if they don't like the noble in question. If they do, they're fools.
-
There are a number of forts in Skyrim held by assorted bad guys (bandits, necromancers, etc.) instead of soldiers. If you clear one of those forts, it may then be taken over by either Imperial or Stormcloak soldiers, depending on which side of the civil war controls the hold where the fort is located. I'm not sure this will happen, though, unless you've at least started the civil war quest line. I usually don't clear forts until after the civil war is over and the sides are settled.
-
What's not to like and admire about Balgruuf?
Balgruuf is one of the few jarls who seems deeply devoted to his people and is not wrapped up in concerns for his own prestige, reputation, or safety. He's a very straight-forward kind of guy, loyal to those he considers friends, and he shows respect for you from the first. Later he honors you, takes pains to advise you regarding the Graybeard summons, and, in the end, is willing to trust you with the welfare of his people even though he considers your scheme to trap a dragon to be nuts. He considers you a friend and is hurt if you end up with the Stormcloaks. He isn't in the least corrupt, and is firm and decisive when he finally gets tired of Wormtongue ... I mean Proventius ... always advising him to be passive and do nothing.
If only I could talk to him and convince him that his decision to support the Empire is wrong. Skyrim needs more jarls like him, particularly if the Stormcloaks win. He, like Dengir, is not a slavish follower of Ulfric's personality cult, and would be able to stand up to Ulfric later if the need arises. In fact, he would probably be the best choice for High King in an independent Skyrim, better able to put Skyrim back on an even keel after the rebellion than Ulfric and his abrasive "with us or against us" crap.
which first?
in Skyrim LE
Posted
The dossier says Ulfric is an asset, not an agent. There is a difference, and Ulfric is not proven to be an agent. Agents are assets, but not all assets are agents. Furthermore, not all assets are necessarily aware that the Thalmor consider them to be assets. For example, if the Thalmor know enough about someone to manipulate them without their knowledge, then that person would be considered an asset.
If Ulfric were actually working for the Thalmor as an agent, why would they have to allow him to escape? This makes no sense. Agents are simply sent on missions, not tricked into thinking they escaped by their own efforts.