MacSuibhne

No better reason in the world.

Well said...the whole thing...as usual.

The High King is a sworn vassal to the Emperor and if the Jarls are not similarly sworn, they are, at minimum, sworn vassals to the High King. More to the point, it was at the insistence of the Thalmor, with the acquiescence/capitulation of the Empire, and the agency of Jarl Igmond and High King Torygg, that the promise was repudiated and Ulfric arrested. Chain of command, train of logic. No matter how you cut it, it was a betrayal and all the more dishonourable for that.

One hundred and fifty years ago desperate Dunmer refugees were given sanctuary in Skyrim...by Nords...virtually without any strings attached. We don't know the initial conditions for Dunmer in Riften but it makes no sense, given historical analogues, that they were immediately dispersed throughout the area and population. There must have been camps if only to facilitate relief efforts. We might assume that such camps were implicitly temporary In Windhelm, the Snow Quarter was apparently vacant...a very different situation. So what you have is one instance where the Dunmer decided to integrate with the general populations and another where they decided not to. We don't know why that happened--the Lore gives us clues--but bottom line, Ulfric and the Stormcloaks weren't even a gleam in someone's eye at the time those decisions were made. Why? Does wisdom or truth have contextual limitations? Are we down to "relative truth" now? But OK...let's just deal with feudal societies...in any medieval society, in any feudal context, the very mention of racism would have gotten you bewildered looks or, if you persisted, thrown into bedlam. It simply wasn't an issue in feudal societies such as 10th century Norse cultures...upon which Nord culture is putatively based. All medieval societies took and kept slaves. And Norsemen regarded ambition and "the song" (their legacy) as essential facets of manhood. Und so weiter...

So what you have is querulous whining on the part of...how many? two?...people who have not raised a finger to help themselves in 150 years. People the Lore cites as being "clannish" and "distrustful" of others and other races. Who are once and future slavers themselves. Have you made any attempt to talk to the Dunmer farmer who has a Nord field hand? Or the merchant in the square? Or the dark elf walking to Windhelm to join the SC, who says "Ulfric has the right of it." I suspect their testimonies will be dismissed out of hand even if you do encounter them. Well I have neither joined a faction nor finished the CW quest but people who have, tell me nothing changes after the Stormcloaks are defeated and Brunwuff becomes Jarl. Claiming that that's a limitation of the game is no more valid or convincing than claiming that it's a limitation of Brunwuff...or the Empire...or the vision of those who cannot see that for anyone to do anything for the Dunmer it will take cooperation, and initiative, from the Dunmer--something that has not been forthcoming in 150 years.

Yes, you and others have made that point repeatedly. The problem is you can make the same point about any kind of freedom. Until you can retreat no more and have zero freedom. And I've been around these forums (plural) enough to know that these kinds of threads generally start innocently enough (although given the inevitable outcome one has to suspect ulterior motives) and quickly proceed to "don't join the Stormcloaks because Ulfric is a racist (or scumbag, douche-bag...fill in your favorite pejorative)" or "Ulfric only wants to be High King" or "Ulfric murdered Torygg." Etc., ad infinitum ad nauseum. Aside from the fact that implicit in these assertions is a guilt by association that is aimed directly at anyone who perceives the right and the logic and the justice in Ulfric's actions, it is arrogant and disrespectful to expect others to blithely ignore the hidden agenda. But even that might be alright...a basis for mature and respectful conversation...except that they are all emotionally driven charges that cannot be substantiated. And when it is shown that they cannot be substantiated, those making such assertions get even more entrenched and start quibbling about the way things are said rather than what is being said. Some going so far as to reject long accepted commonalities of language.

No...it's OK. You don't have to justify yourself for siding with the Imperials. In fact, it's when people try...mostly by questioning other peoples choices...that the problems begin. If you can support your POV and want to try in a forum such as this, by all means have at it. If you cannot, well, that doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong but it does mean that you ought to re-think your involvement in such threads. If you can't be reasonable perhaps it's because you don't have good reasons...or reasons that you can really, viscerally, believe in. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I see you edited your post...too late! But to address your issues--first you asked me for a "MEDIEVAL example of your thought that religious freedom beats all citizens being safe from bandits". (emphasis mine0 I tried to address that issue for you despite my conviction that it was moot. Beyond that... The Magna Carta is considered the founding document of English liberties and hence American liberties. The influence of Magna Carta can be seen in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Article 21 from the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 reads: "That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/magna-carta.htm And again from the Wikipedia: Again, making the repeals essentially beside the point in the context of this discussion and your assertion.

The case can be made...quite nicely too...that the situation in the Grey Quarter is appropriately an Imperial responsibility, or failing, however you wish to look at it. The Dunmer have been in Skyrim for 150 years. If the Empire has suzerainty over Skyrim...as it claims and as an impending Civil War to determine the legitimacy of that claim will decide...then it is ultimately the Empire's responsibility to look after its citizens...all its citizens. Nothing was done about the Grey Quarter by Torygg--the vassal King, sworn to uphold Imperial law--and nothing will be done by Brunwuff when...if..the Empire wins.

Yes, and it is the Empire itself that commissions Ulfric to deal with the problem. In effect, it is the Empire itself that is the instigator and the engine that drives the Markarth Incident to its inevitable conclusion.

Is freedom a noble aspiration? Is it only for some people and not for others? Is the desire for freedom keyed to a certain level of technological development? Is it limited to people with the ability to write it out with pen and paper, or enter it into a word processor? The Magna Carta was at least partly about religious freedom. In January 1215, the barons made an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and they demanded that King John (who was himself embroiled in a conflict with the Pope) confirm the Charter of Liberties.(Wikipedia) More importantly... What do you call it when a man can be ripped from the bosom of his family and tortured and executed without trial; when your father, brother, son or daughter...neighbor...can be dragged away in the middle of the night without any appeal to the laws of the land or justice? What do you call it when a man's life can be taken from him because of what he thinks...and believes? When his dreams, aspirations, and future can be stolen from him at the whim of people who consider themselves above the law? Is that not banditry? Is that not thuggery? And what do you call it when your (putative) government looks the other way? When it even actively aids the "bandits"? Do you call that "safety"? Freedom is not a laundry list to be sorted into separate loads...some things needing bleach, some needing delicate care. Freedom is axiomatic. It is canonical. An article of faith...almost a religious precept. If you take away one freedom, all freedoms are threatened. Maybe not today but ultimately...unequivocally, inescapably. If you deprive one man of freedom, you threaten the freedom of all. What do you call it when friends and neighbors look away because it's not happening to them...or those they love? "Ask not for whom the bell tolls...it tolls for thee."

As ill-considered and thoughtless as this statement is, the implications are serious enough that I feel compelled to comment. First, the idea of a "right of safety", esp. as it applies to the purpose of government, is illusory at best. There is no right to be safe simply because life itself is not safe. The notion that there is, or ought to be, is the bastard child of the "nanny state" and the idea of entitlement. And to the extent that safety is a right that can be conferred or guaranteed by a government...any government...a corresponding curtailing of freedom must ensue. For example, in order to ensure that a citizen is safe, all dangerous sports would have to be outlawed--rock climbing, skateboarding, para-sailing, & hiking in rough country, are but a few that would almost certainly have to be proscribed. Eating foods not grown under strictly sanitary and sterile conditions, not carefully decontaminated by irradiation, not packaged under rigid conditions...not government approved, IOW...would have to be banned. Farmers would be factory drones or outlaws selling raw milk and organic beans to the unwary. I'm sure anyone here can take the analogy even further. "Natural rights"--those we optimistically ascribe to our creator...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...tend to be ones that pertain only to our individual selves and our interior dialogues. How we spend the hours and years given to us. Where we go, where we live. What we think, what we believe, who and how we worship. If any of those are forfeit or circumscribed we have neither freedom or safety. Think about it...if your very thoughts are regulated...as in what you are allowed to believe, and who, where, when you can worship/express those beliefs...then nothing is off limits and no one is safe. Benjamin Franklin had "the right of it". For any and all times. And as the dark elf on the way to Windhelm to join the Stormcloaks asserts, so does Ulfric. The Thalmor thought-police are just the sharp end of the punji stake...as is the notion that security trumps freedom...while the rest may be buried there's always a sharp, even deadly, reason for its existence. And where's there's one there's bound to be dozens. Freedom is never lost in one big blatant crackdown (although such actions are an obvious and symptomatic manifestation of oppression). Rather freedom is lost "not with a bang but with a whimper." That said, we do have expectations of any government--chief among these is protection from the interference and depredations of foreign powers--those not "of us", or supported by us...by our taxes, by our blood. Securing those natural rights and protecting its citizens from foreign powers are the principle expectations of any government. It is the simple difference between legitimacy and tyranny. To the extent that a government fails to secure those natural rights and fails to protect its citizens, it fails to be legitimate... A good example is the Empire in Skyrim.

How many times do I have to do "Animal Extermination" or "Escaped Prisoner" for the companions before better/different quests will become available from Aela or Vilkas? Farkas won't even give me a quest...Who else is there now that I'm the harbinger? The game keeps telling me to ask the Companion leaders for work but it seems I'm getting repeats of jobs I've already done or completed successfully...not always specific repeats--one time Animal Extermination will be a wolf, the next a bear, etc., but with the Radiant quest system, I'm not sure they're really new at all. At some point, just for the novelty of it, I would like to cure my lycanthropy...

Except in rare occasions with regard to people who have already, in my opinion crossed the line, I don't characterize people or their behaviour...not specifically...nor do I call them names. This who I am...this is the way I talk, this is the way I walk...what you see is what you get. [shrug]

It needs to feel like it has some measure of self-determination. It needs to not feel like it is a sacrificial pawn in an Imperial game of temporizing and capitulation. And if the Empire wants its help in some pie-in-the-sky, once and future re-match with the AD, Skyrim needs to feel like it is a valued partner whose sons and daughters will not be indifferently or even cavalierly thrown away to mollify the Thalmor...who, if the Empire had any legitimacy at all, would not be allowed to patrol in Skyrim or take and torture and execute people for their religious beliefs without any recourse to the laws of Skyrim or judicial representation, in the first place. Skyrim needs to stand on its feet, not kneel to an oppressor and its vassal state. More importantly, it needs the Empire to assume an upright, instead of bent over, position, as well. No matter what Imperial apologists say, it's hard...maybe impossible...to wield a sword when you're clutching your ankles. As Benjamin Franklin said..."Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

I don't like arguing with teen-agers (and note that "arguing" is the critical word there)...I've said as much. But against my better judgement I am going to address your post in the wildly optimistic hope that you will actually read it and comprehend it. First, the word "you" can be either singular or plural. It can be associated with a specific person or it can be used to refer to a generic or unidentifiable "you"...in much the same way we say "they" not meaning any particular they. To the extent that you think everytime someone says "you" in a conversation it is referring to you specifically, you reveal your self-centered and egotistical perspective. All the so called evidence that you have provided, to this date, strikes me as hearsay. I know that you do not accept the definition of "hearsay" as provided by the Concise Oxford Dictionary...apparently preferring the Archone Dictionary of Solipsistic Sophistry...but most of the "evidence" is prima facia worthless to any fair, mature human being. It is more akin to someone from this board PMing me to tell me that they saw Archone giving candy to kids at the edge of the schoolyard. Such information might be reason enough to look more closely into the matter. It might be reason enough to keep a close watch on you for a while. But it would not be a reason...at least not in a just and mature society...to go about denouncing you as a pedophile. Nor would it be reason enough...in a fair and mature society...to ask you or your friends and family to prove that you are innocent of the charge, short of a grand jury, or real, empirically substantiated evidence. An extreme analogy perhaps but one that makes the point about evidence fairly cogently. Or... Not wanting to draw this into a political conversation, the Treyvon Martin situation from real life is another...maybe a bit more to the point. When the story first broke it was portrayed as a case of white-on-black bigotry and racism. The headlines and the drama queens immediately screamed "Racism!"...in much the same way that the drama queens in this debate scream "racism" or "murder" or "scumbag", yada yada, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I'm not going to judge the case or comment on the rights and wrongs of it, esp. without a lot more verifiable information--that's for a fair trial (to the extent that one can even be held), and the judge himself, to decide. But I will point out that George Zimmerman is, himself, a grey elf. Yet the media and those already decided (or themselves bigoted) remain convinced that it is a crime of white on black racism...he's guilty period. Don't confuse me with the facts. Guilty by association. Trial by innuendo. And nevermind the photographic evidence that Zimmerman was in a scuffle shortly before his arrest. Here it is, in all its ugliness--mob mentality, a trial in the media, guilt by association. And the accusations against Ulfric for being a racist are exactly parallel to the two above examples drawn from real life. Personally I deplore that kind of lazy and itself bigoted thinking. I don't need to prove or even cite an an example of Ulfric renouncing bigotry. It's not been proven. Neither the man nor his friends and family need...nor should they be compelled...to prove his innocence. Not in a fair and mature society. Not to fair and mature people. And if you had a shred of objectivity, the best your hearsay evidence would offer is the impulse to investigate further. And in investigating further you might...were you objective enough to comprehend and absorb it....stumble upon the fact that the Dunmer came to Skyrim, and Windhelm, as penniless slavers and refugees, one hundred and fifty years ago...where they were offered more than just a bowl of soup and a road map--"don't let the door hit you in the butt." They were offered accommodations in the Snow Quarter and haven't left or made improvements in 150 years. And it doesn't have to be anything as insidious as racism, especially when you consider the fact that according to the Lore the Dunmer are clannish and distrustful of others and other races. And so it goes...not only with regard to the racism charge, but every other charge laid at Ulfric's feet. Says you...frankly, I don't recall having ever said that specifically. Or if I did, it may have been an observation aimed at all the Imperial apologists who make excuses for Imperial indifference to the Thalmor patrols and the summary executions that they carry out in the basement of their embassy. All the people who claim that it's a small price to pay to avoid Thalmor pique. In my view, those who make that case are complicit...not unlike white Americans who defended the internment of Japanese-Americans--citizens of the USA--in WWII. And in that complicity they bear a share of the guilt for the injustice that was done. And if I did indeed make such a semantically world-shaking accusation...well, old son, how do you like it?

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. More than that...when faced with choices that embody ambiguity (and make no mistake Beth deliberately designed the game with lots of ambiguity) too many choose what's easy and what appeals to their own sense of self-congratulation; deliberately ignoring what little hard hard evidence we do have and avoiding all pretense of analytical thinking. It is easy to listen only to the gossip of disgruntled NPC's. No digging, no interminable efforts to hear the other side, no having to think about it or maybe even do a little research. No pretense of fairness. It is easy to brand ...accuse, condemn and dismiss...Ulfric and the Stormcloaks as racists (too easy, if you think about it). It is something we see and identify in our real lives (to the extent that we have real lives) and it immediately marks us as the "good guys" because we're not racist...heck, we're vigilantly and eternally on the look-out for those that are. It's almost Jacobean in its zealotry. But amusing for all of that simply because so many would apparently rather be aligned with a faceless, soulless, dead-in-the-water, drone bureaucracy than a struggle for independence and self-determination led, as all such struggles historically are, by someone of extraordinary vision...and, perhaps, probably, extraordinary flaws, as well. And while this is not a popular thesis here (in fact, it is nearly anathema to many, apparently) at some level there is a test of character going on that I believe Bethesda intentionally set up. How avidly do we embrace the dark side? (who's to tell us "no"? The game gives us a license to act without external restraint and thereby forces us to find limits within ourselves...such as there is, if any) How rabidly do we join in the mob mentality of accusation and condemnation without trial, without verifiable evidence? How readily to we take the easy way out, without thought or reason or logic? Are we sheep or... It's all too easy to extol a standard of ethics...or morality or behaviour...for others; harder...much harder, apparently...to apply to our ownselves. And it's all too familiar, as well.

This from someone (the Dragonborn) who thinks he's a privileged character...even entitled to go around Skyrim killing people with shouts far more numerous and powerful than Ulfric's could possibly have been, without any apparent thought for honour or justice or simple issues like right and "wrong"; who, in all but exceptional cases, joins the Dark Brotherhood and unequivocally murders...let me say that again--murders...people for fun and profit or just because someone told him to; who kills an old woman running an orphanage...in cold blood; invades and ransacks people's homes and bullies innocent merchants; and if that weren't depravity enough, loots graves, eats human flesh, betrays innocent and trusting people to malign powers, sometimes drinks peoples blood...and revels in it; and then has the gall to accuse someone who does none of those things but adheres to an ancient code of honour and Tradition to remove a weak and self-serving king who has sworn allegiance to a distant and impotent Empire?! An Empire which is not only playing bum-boy to the most evil race in Tamriel but is actually engaged in a macabre dance of self-destruction by aiding and abetting them. It's a joke, right? Go on, pull the other one... If we were honest enough to judge the Dragonborn by the same standards we judge Ulfric, the Dragonborn is far more culpable, far more arrogant, far more self-serving and far and away less admirable than Ulfric at his worst.

It doesn't seem to make any difference what you or anyone says; no amount of verifiable Lore or fact (dictionary definitions, etc) or logic is acceptable. The response is always something along the lines of "no, it isn't, yes, it is", "no, I'm not, you are" and/or "don't confuse me with the facts you leftist poopyhead". Perhaps the more honest (and honourable) response from these folks would be a simple "neener, neener." The responses are so immature (regardless of chronological age) that no objective, intelligent conversation can be had. I don't know why we bother to answer such emotionally charged incoherence. For me, I've done that and I don't really want to go back there again.

Out of the question--who would they blame if they did that?

...

I salute you for actually reading through the topic. I doubt less than 20% have...heck, I doubt less that 20% rigourously read the post that they are ostensibly responding to. There may be no "right" answer, no "right side". That would certainly square with Bethesda's penchant for moral ambiguity. But there is a wrong answer--it is to ignore the Lore; ignore the conflicting in-game opinions in favour of one side or the other; rely on hearsay rather than verifiable facts; abrogate any presumption of innocence; and to impose contemporary assumptions and sensibilities on the story and the characters.

The point I was making is that they currently have to concentrate the greater proportion of their forces to Cyrodiil...they can only allocate so many men (and logistics) to Skyrim and then only if the Empire is helping and supporting them. So if the Empire were to just let Skyrim go, the Thalmor would have to devote more troops to Skyrim or get out of Skyrim. In the first instance it's a win for Cyrodill. In the second, it's a win for Skyrim. And overall it's a win for both the Empire and Skyrim because the Civil War doesn't have to be fought. Which in turn leaves both the Empire and Skyrim stronger and more capable of confronting the Dominion as allies...willing allies...perhaps with the reluctant but "for-the-sake-of-our-friends-in-Skyrim" assistance of Hammerfell. By the end of the game, of course, such options are moot but it reveals a tragic lack of imagination, as well as a complete absence of long-term strategic thinking, on the part of the Empire.

Two quick observations...according to the Lore, High Elves specialize in stealth and Machiavellian machinations. So the chances are high that stealth would be their preferred MO whether they had the resources or not. Also, if Skyrim were independent it would represent a challenge and, more importantly, a second front in a way that it does not now...simply because the Empire is aiding/supporting the Thalmor in Skyrim. There is a, at least even, chance that the Thalmor would simply pull back in order to concentrate on Cyrodiil.

You realize, of course that Skyrim is the fantasy, the "fiction." In real life the Holmganga (challenge) existed both for the benefit of the challenger and the challenged. It determined a leader's character and put it on display for all to see. It was a challenge of bravery, determination, confidence, heart, and the ability to make quick and yet reasonable decisions. All these were (and are) required for a military leader. And the King, as Imperistan has made clear over and over again (and as is supported by historical data), more often than not fought at the head of his armies...usually in the shield wall. His people looked to him to lead in the most effective and common political process known at the time--war. In that context, to "lead" is not just the ability to put forth proposals...no matter how reasonable they sound to you. It is the ability to make people believe...such that they will even die for those ideas...and you. I have tried to point this out before (repeatedly)--it is a mistake to judge Skyrim, Skyrim's society and culture, or its people, by 21st century standards. To do so, only further isolates you from the context that informs the game. For example...and to the point...if Nord culture is modeled after 10th century Norse culture, it is myopic to censure it for not adhering to, or recognizing, modern sensibilities. Instead of playing a 10th century Nordic hero (or Redguard or what have you) you end up playing a pampered 21st century fantasist in a world you cannot...maybe simply do not wish to...understand--a stranger in a strange land, as who should say.

Thank you. It is frustrating...although after a time we have to realize that it's the nature of a thread such as this. I don't know why a person has to step back and explain that the use of the word "you"...in some contexts...is generic and not aimed at anyone. It's obvious and clear to anyone who has spoken or written the English language for any length of time. Just as obvious, IMO, is that such usage differs significantly from an ad hominem attack. But there are people who frequent these forums who are so self-absorbed that everything turns personal right from the get-go. You can't really have an intelligent discussion with such people not only because they've got their defensive barriers manned and ready but because nothing is good enough to make them stop and think. You can provide them with a clear and concise definition for a word such as...oh say "hearsay" for example...from one of the most respected sources in the world, and it goes unremarked and unnoticed. You can provide a clear and cogent argument as to why, in a fair and democratic society, the presumption of innocence trumps hearsay and any accusations that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And that consistent with that principle is the requirement that the burden of proof lies with the accuser...not with the defendant. And it's all for naught. It goes over the head like a swallow on the breeze. And so you get people who are too certain that other opinions and other perspectives are not important, or who are simply too lazy to read the topic...to consider all sides. And who, no matter how many times you prove your point and support it with essential data from verifiable sources, will will come back time and again with the same old cant. As if you'd never said anything at all. Because in their minds, you haven't. In their minds, even if you did, it wasn't important enough to give any consideration to. For such folk, there are no other arguments or perspectives...only their own. For them, "everyone" is them...only them. I salute you for your patience. It's remarkable, really. Having said all that...and stipulating that my remarks were made to Imperistan only...I have to recognize that others...some of them just as I described...will read this post and possibly be offended. To them I offer my apology for any offense I may have given--past or present.