MacSuibhne

I've been called worse by better, cully.

Two quick, related questions... Where is it said and by whom that the duel between Torygg and Ulfric took place immediately after Ulfric entered the Blue Palace? And who said, and where, that there was no body after the duel? Idle speculation alert: if there's no body maybe it never happened. Maybe Torygg was hustled off to Cyrodiil for his own protection?

Yet, the quotes from the Lore indicate that the Moot is basically a rubber stamp. And more importantly, that since the time of Tiber Septim its only function has been to name a new High King when there is no direct heir. The fact that the Moot is not willing to declare Elysif (or anyone else) High King is significant There is a hierarchy of believability that applies in these situations. I would suggest that the Lore is first or second from the top and hearsay is near the bottom no matter who it comes from (even Ulfric). You're absolutely correct, the King relies on support from his Jarls but as I pointed out in a previous post, in real life feudalism Good King Olaf's son, Mad King Hrolf, will virtually never be removed by a Moot. More likely he would be poisoned by his wife. [surely one of the things,albeit a small thing, that resonates with us in this game is a degree of verisimilitude to balance the fantasy.] So Sybile Stentor's statement is not necessarily gospel either, esp. since she is part of Torygg's court. But it's moot (:laugh:) because Torygg accepted the challenge. And moot again because as vassals to the High King who is a vassal to the Emperor, the Moot is not going to defy the Empire and remove Torygg. That's wishful thinking. And knowing that, Ulfric cannot trust the Moot before or after the duel.

Of course we're supposed to take her word for it. Yes, she's biased. Yes, it's blatant hearsay. Yes, she has an interest in portraying Ulfric as evil. But she's on the "good" side. And everything they say is gospel no matter how irrational, biased, objectively mistaken or misinformed, or even downright stupid. That's the way it goes down in these discussions. I've often thought that there's some other factor at work here. I suspect that people who have little or no passion in their own lives tend to dislike those that do. Ulfric's famous speech about "Why I fight" may turn off more people that anything else in the game. It makes people uncomfortable because they have never felt so strongly about anything and cannot believe that such feelings can be genuine. Then too, people don't like confidence in other people. Maybe it is lack of experience, but it looks like arrogance to those not able to tell the difference. Dilbert says experience and being a jerk look the same...to those who don't have experience (yesterday's strip). There's a whole lot of subjective, emotional, almost hysterical jargon being thrown about. It's a signal, a sure sign, that there's no analytical or rational thinking going on.

None of that is true... http://www.imperial-library.info/content/skyrims-rule "But as mighty and influential as each individual Jarl is, Skyrim's true power comes from the strength of its High King. The High King is ruler above all, and is always one of the Jarls, selected by a body called the "Moot" - a specially convened council of all the Jarls, who meet with the express purpose of choosing Skyrim's High King. Or so it is, in theory. The reality, however, is that the High King swears fealty to the Emperor, and as Solitude is the city most directly influenced by Imperial culture and politics, the Jarl of Solitude has served as High King for generations. The Moot, therefore, is more formality and theater than anything else." excerpt from Skyrim's Rule:An Outsider's View by Abdul-Mujib Ababneh http://www.imperial-library.info/content/pocket-guide-empire-first-edition-skyrim "By the early years of the First Empire, Skyrim was already divided into Holds, then ruled by a patchwork of clan-heads, kings, and councils (or moots), all of which paid fealty to the King of Skyrim. During the exceptionally long reign of King Harald, who died at 108 years of age and outlived all but three of his sons, a Moot was created, made up of representatives from each Hold, to choose the next King from qualified members of the royal family. Over the years, the Moot became permanent and acquired an increasing amount of power; by the reign of King Borgas, the last of the Ysgramor dynasty, the Moot had become partisan and ineffective. Upon the murder of King Borgas by the Wild Hunt (see Aldmeri Dominion - Valenwood), the Moot's failure to appoint the obvious and capable Jarl Hanse of Winterhold sparked the disastrous Skyrim War of Succession, during which Skyrim lost control of its territories in High Rock, Morrowind, and Cyrodiil, never to regain them. The war was finally concluded in 1E420 with the Pact of Chieftans; henceforth, the Moot was convened only when a King died without direct heirs, and it has fulfilled this more limited role admirably. It has only been called upon three times in the intervening millenia, and the Skyrim succession has never again been disputed on the field of battle." excerpt from Pocket Guide to the Empire and its Environs, First Edition: Skyrim

The thing about this is that if you start with some basic understanding (nothing too technical) of law and civics and people, Ulfric does pretty much the only thing he can do. Start by understanding what constitutes a legitimate government...in any age. To one degree or another legitimacy derives from the willingness of a government to secure the natural rights of its citizens and protect them from foreign powers and the depredations of foreign invaders. Think Saxon Shore. By that definition, the Empire has failed miserably and has no objective legitimacy in Skyrim. Ulfric understands that the Empire is not protecting citizens and by allowing Talos to be suppressed, is abrogating the natural rights of Nords to their Traditional pantheon. The Empire is also exploiting Skyrim for its natural resources, presumably without just recompense--maybe the only reason they don't just simply let Skyrim go. Ulfric genuinely yearns for independence for Skyrim. There is no evidence that his goals in that regard are not real. Torygg is High King and under Nord law, the High King has absolute authority. But because the High King must swear an oath of fealty to the Emperor, Torygg is also a vassal of the Emperor. His authority is at the sufferance of the Emperor. And fundamentally that makes Skyrim a client state...a vassal state of the Empire. For all intents and purposes...esp. as it applies to the High King...it is Imperial law that takes precedence--precedence over Skyrim's laws. Just as importantly, the Empire is a vassal state of the Dominion. As the Thalmor make clear both in their statements and in the capitulation of Imperials from Torygg to Tullius, the Empire exists at the sufferance of the Dominion. And as is made clear by the actions of everyone from Titus meade to Torygg, it is Thalmor law that takes precedence over Imperial law. The High King is essentially incapable of changing anything in that regard. He simply does not have the legitimacy to defy either the Emperor or the Dominion. It's a clever sophistry to suggest that Torygg would have gone along with Ulfric to declare independence if Ulfric had only said "pretty please." But it is false and it is propaganda. Torygg swore an oath of allegiance to the Emperor and to Imperial law. Under Imperial law, he doesn't have the authority or legitimacy to declare independence. Not only would renouncing his oath have been an irreversible stain upon his honour, the Empire or the Thalmor would have replaced him post haste. Nord law gives a Jarl the right to challenge the High King as to his fitness to lead the people. Some form of that challenge mechanism exists in all feudal societies so that "oath breaker" doesn't haunt the reputation of someone who challenges/replaces an unfit King. To declare independence from an illegitimate government--Empire/Dominion--would require a High King not aligned with that government...or a legislative body with enough authority/legitimacy in its own right. Neither of those existed. When Ulfric challenged Torygg he removed the biggest obstacle to a Declaration of Independence...maybe the only obstacle. Upon the death of Torygg at Ulfric's hand, Ulfric was the rightful High King by Nordic law and Tradition. He needed only the confirmation of a Moot that would not force him into a situation where he had to pledge his fealty to the Emperor. Since that Moot did not exist, and could not exist until those that comprised the Moot were not overwhelmingly Imperial sympathizers, Ulfric is giving those on the fence an opportunity to also cut ties to the Empire. He bends over backwards to give Balgruuf time to see reason. The fact that the Moot cannot, will not, resolve the issue independently by selecting someone like Balgruuf to succeed Torygg is proof enough that they are both powerless and confirmed vassals of the Empire.

What are the pros and cons of finishing the main quest before the Civil war Quest...and vice-versa? I read somewhere that if you defeated Alduin first the Civil War quest is a lot less complicated and conflicting.

What are the downsides of doing the Goldenglow estates quest? Aside from the mercenaries who gets hurt? I am looking to do a few TG quests as possible to get the disarm shout and maybe Chillrend.

What you describe is Federalism--the founding principle for the United States of America; the banner under which we fought two wars against England. And a voluntary association that lasted until the American Civil War and the Grand Army of the Republic. Also the basis for the European Union. And the motivating impulse for the Allies to fight the Germans in WWII--to preserve the right of these small nations to retain their cultural and national heritage--language, currency, traditions, religions. There is also a significant difference between a voluntary alliance between countries or states with common purpose, and one nation holding others in military or political bondage...as a client states...so that it can exploit their resources and population. Every nation in Tamriel is authoritarian...it is a defining characteristic of feudalism. Authoritarianism is also to some extent a characteristic of republics which tend to centralize power. Power when concentrated is almost by definition authoritarian. The Empire is not a democracy (despite those who wish to identify with it and in doing so, see what they wish to see). It is also authoritarian. And it is not looking for a voluntary alliance with Skyrim or Hammerfell. It is looking to subdue them...bend them to their will. If it were otherwise, the Empire would simply let Skyrim go...let it become independent. At which point, it might find that it had a voluntary, and willing, ally. But then it might have to pay more for iron and corundum and gold ore... The comparison of Ulfric and the Stormcloaks to Germany is skewed, at best. Has it escaped your notice that Ulfic doesn't send stormtroopers to round up and condemn people for their religion? What is the effective difference between the Thalmor patrols and the Gestapo? If Skyrim were larger and had more people than could be quickly processed (tortured and beheaded in the basement of the Thalmor Embassy) could we expect "camps?" I know...you're going to tell me that the Empire doesn't have control of the Thalmor patrols (or some similar apologia/excuse). So what does that mean in your world? That the Empire is not Germany but rather Vichy France? Or Poland? Ask the people who lost fathers and sons to the Thalmor if they care about such fine distinctions. And where is the resettlement that you claim Ulfric has forced on people? Or is this just more of the same old emotional, sophomoric cant that is characteristic of Imperial apologists? Finally, you raise the issue of race again...if Ulfric (or even Galmor) is racist because of who they associate with or who they're related to...well, does the name Jeremiah Wright strike a familiar note? And before the self-righteous and self-congratulatory outrage spews forth, let me point out that I am drawing no conclusions...I prefer to judge a man by his own words and deeds. But for all intents and purposes, that's not a widely shared principle among those arguing that Ulfric is a racist, is it? The point I'm making is not about racism...in all of this, it's about hypocrisy.

I'm inclined to agree with you...I haven't made a decision and haven't joined either side despite being inclined towards the Stormcloaks for a number of reasons--but initially because of the nearly hysterical ranting by those who dislike Ulfric.

That said, The Great War is to be found in the Imperial Library and while written by an Imperial...and might even be open to "interpretation" depending on your point of view and propensity to interpret...contains a fair account of the strategic situation during and after the Great War.

You're starting to catch on...but some of the Lore is background that has been written by the developers of the game to flesh out the story. There's a lot of Lore there and it does not all derive from books. Parenthetically, I warned against trusting books that were obviously one-side in my evidentiary suggestions above. I'm sure you must have caught that so your point is moot.

It's just common sence. Country has been crushed by war once finished it starts to rebuild. There oportunity for profit everywhere, so there are many traders from the world coming, economy starts to grow once again. Aside from private/foreight investors and traders as well as normal production the Empire still had money incoming from other provinces as well as Eastern Empire Trading Company profits. It's common sense?! Maybe 'cuz it "says so in the good book"? I haven't been to Cyrodil, I don't know how the economy is doing but economies are not going to defeat the Thalmor unless the Empire intends to get into a bidding war with them. Again, I'd like to see evidence that he Empire is markedly stronger than it was after the Great War. I'm not asking for proof positive, just some indicator that might lead a person to have a bit of hope....after 30 years of stagnation. I don't see it in Skyrim. I do, however, vaguely recall hearing grumbling and complaints among Imperial soldiers about morale. That's sophistry. Read any objective history...read British history. The British Empire was the strongest military force on the face of the planet in the 18th century. In 1776 the British began serious operations against the Continental army by sending 21,000 troops under General Howe to America--just one command and it augmented forces already there. These were highly trained, highly disciplined troops and well equipped. Additionally at least 25,000 Tories (Imperial apologists) fought on the British side. Among them one of America's heretofore most respected generals--Gen. Benedict Arnold. At the beginning of 1776 there were only 20,000 men under arms in the US and many of them were in militias--under equipped, under fed, poorly led and reluctant to fight. And the British navy was already world renown esp. by comparison to what the once and future Stormcloaks could muster. Britain had over 130 men-of-war, some mounting over sixty guns (although admittedly many were deactivated or in poor shape), but America had none. As the war went on some of the smaller British ships were captured and put into service but the US relied mostly on privateers for the duration of the war. Britain, like the Empire had no allies or friends. It's main reason for resisting American Independence was, like the Empire in Skyrim, to extract raw materials, resources and men to prop up their economy. If it hadn't been for the intervention of the French and others, well, who knows what would have happened.

I would like to see some evidence that the Empire has been rebuilding. It may be there, it may not. But like Germany or Japan after the second world war, it's damn near impossible to re-arm when you have an occupying force apt to turn up at any time and in any corner of your country. It's just as hard to rebuild infrastucture unless you have a sugar daddy like the US to pump money into your economy or you can appropriate resources--men and materials--from a client state such as Skyrim. Those who've played prior TES games are almost universally agreed that the Empire is a shadow of its former self. So they're not really getting stronger by any recognizable measurement, either. Even without a Civil War, how long would it take them to get back to the strength they had before the last war with the Dominion? How strong are the Thalmor going to get in the interim? While England did have other distractions...King George (of the blue piss) wanted the colonies back as much as he wanted anything. The resources England devoted to the American Stormcloak Rebellion were far from insignificant and should have been sufficient to the job. Where there's principle and determination there's hope. Where there's naught but equivocation and appeasement there's no will.

We all know what Torygg said....it's in the Lore. Having died and gone to Nord heaven doesn't seem to have transformed him much, however. What he says is still his opinion...his interpretation of events. If someone were to say that Torygg had gone to Nord hell, it would be entirely appropriate and irrefutable for someone else to say "Nonsense, I spoke to him in Solvengarde." That's an eyewitness account. But Torygg's side of the story...while interesting...is no more credible than Ulfric's side of the story. Both sides have elements of truth to them but neither is likely to be the whole truth.

There's nothing wrong with speculation. If you read my posts, or any one else's here...for content--to understand, IOW...you'd know that no one, myself included, has ever...repeat ever...said that speculation itself is a bad thing. And we all do it. But when we speculate, we do so to fill in the gaps of what we know or have evidence for. We don't try to substitute speculation for evidence. Sometimes people are not aware of a fact or a source and they speculate, or hypothesize, or fantasize in lieu of that knowledge. Nothing wrong with that. But when they are presented with the facts, with hard evidence that contradicts their imaginings, and then continue to cling to their theories and fantasies, they lose all credibility. It becomes la-la land, air-fairy delusion. To put it in terms anyone can understand...speculation cannot be used as evidence or to prove something. It might even be 100% spot on but it's still theory, it's not proof. Beyond all that, I really wish you would take your own advice and gin up your ignore list and put me on it. I have yet to see a post of yours that has addressed either the intent or the issues raised by someone else. My point, before you so rudely interrupted, was that...in my estimation...nothing the Empire has done in the last 30 years would give any citizen of Skyrim the confidence or faith to relinquish the yearning to be free of oppression and tyranny that burns in every human heart. And there is much...a documented much...the Empire has done in the last 30 years to make a continuation of the relationship entirely unacceptable and unpalatable. You completely ignored that central point...putting the issues involved on a de facto ignore list...and focused on one, out-of-context phrase you obviously didn't even understand. I don't want to compound your confusion any further...it would be better for you, better for me, better for the forum as a whole, if you put me on your ignore list. You won't hurt my feelings. PS...it might profit you or anyone who's interested to read post #24 in the Ulfric used the "Disarm" Shout on the High King thread. I don't claim it is ultimate truth but it's closing in on a workable frame for understanding how evidence...and by implication, speculation...works. Or not...as your nature befits. 'nuff said.

More speculation. For someone who professes to love cold hard facts, you don't seem to use them much. I'll be tolerant because it's obvious that English isn't your first language. What's needed here is a remedial reading class, I suspect. Of course it's speculation...didn't you see the word "apparently"? Seemingly not...because you don't really read these posts for content do you? Just for out-of-context phrases you can spew about.

So let me get this straight...you're saying that after thirty years of the Empire being the Dominion's "backsteet boy" and apparently making zero headway in rebuilding their strength, the people of Skyrim should give up their aspirations for independence...independence from Imperial hypocrisy, independence from Thalmor oppression, tyranny, and arbitrary arrests, torture, and executions...so that the Empire can dick around for another thirty years with little, or no, hope (given its history) of ever finding the manpower, material or moral wherewithal to confront the Dominion? In tenth century northern Europe--the rough technological and social equivalent of Skyrim--the average life expectancy was between 30 and 35 years. Of course it was considerably more among the aristocracy--the jarls and kings and their thanes and sycophants. You honestly believe that the humble shoemaker living in Riften or Solitude or Whiterun should be content, even happy, to see his sons grow up and be dragged away by the Thalmor, his grandsons facing the same prospect, with no hope in sight...just empty promises thirty, forty, now fifty and sixty years old? For what? Tell me again...this time with a straight face. Tell that to George Washington and Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine as they confronted the greatest power on the face of the earth.

This so very very hard. Can't imagine how much it pisses me off to see people denounce me purely because I don't wrap my posts in a bubble of a "good" attitude. I'm with you on that one...I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I have made a "career" using words and understanding what they mean. I am not very fond of what I call "weasel words." And while I'm at it...I absolutely detest the sophomoric impulse to recklessly use words like "racist" esp. when they are inappropriate and cannot be substantiated. It really makes me angry---it's slander and nothing short. It's trial by gossip and innuendo. And, more importantly, it diminishes the reality. Part of the problem there is that people who indulge in that kind of thing always remind me of the old saying "It's like wrestling with a pig...you both get dirty but the pig likes it." People wouldn't make those kinds of charges if they didn't have an agenda.

It's always been a normal debate for those of us not wrapped up in being defensive. And tolerant enough to accept other people's ways of speaking or presenting their views. As far as I'm concerned, it's the message not the manner--always a clue that someone doesn't want to deal with the issues. Glad you've got something to chew on. Maybe re-read my post again after you've had time to think some? Might even want to re-read some of my others, or, even better, BrettM's (always sensible) or Imperistan's (credible and accurate to a fault)...see if they don't inspire a little re-evaluation.

I am sure it is...for some people. As for my "rules"... no rules at all, just observations. What authority do I have to make rules?(hint--the correct answer is "none".) I don't care what those other guys said, I don't think you want to make this personal.

No offense intended but this seems almost emblematic of the position Imperial apologists take...in one form or another. It is so strikingly at odds with the notions of honour and freedom and responsibility (in my view, expedient even intolerant) that I grew up with, that I wonder if there aren't two different species posting here. Religion is at the focus of many people's lives. We don't have to even consider the objective truth of religious beliefs to understand that such beliefs afford a critical comfort to people as well as providing a "center"...a touchstone...that stabilizes people, esp. in hard times. Religions are also often inseparable from Traditions and these too are important to some people. Beliefs that are so central to people and so critical, are not relinquished easily, they're worth defending. Who are you, who is anyone, to say that these things are stupid? It is easy to say "stupid" (or "racist" or "bigoted" or "douchebag") but harder to deal with the importance that "principles" assume in people's lives...some people's. Because at bottom, it is not just dismissing 'one god too many' or even religious freedom. Rather the issue is indeed intolerance and oppression and, in the case of Thalmor patrols (which, are the manifestations of that intolerance), the dismissal of those lives lost to that oppression. Paraphrasing..."It's just one guy at a time" and "it's a necessary emollient to assuage the Thalmor"...etc., etc., yada yada. But some people forget that every time you point a finger, accusing someone of "racism" or "stupidity", three fingers are pointing back at yourself. The post I made above asking "where is the outrage?" (post 390) is fundamentally about principles and being true to them even if it means opening your eyes to an uncertain and unpalatable reality. Almost every post I have made to this board comes down to the idea that if you are willing to give up one freedom, you will be willing to give up two and if you're willing to give up two... It's not just about being a milk drinker, it's about actually becoming livestock.

What does the Empire do when you (the player) attack Thalmor patrols? If you are seen or it is known, a bounty is placed on your head. Isn't that, in a sense, defending the Thalmor? You're the bad guy and you've committed a crime. Clearly the Empire sides with the Thalmor, at the very least. I agree that any outcome is better than Civil War but the worst outcome is the status quo of the last thirty years. If the Empire would just give Skyrim its independence, they would make a friend (and potential ally) and create an entity that the Thalmor would have to deal with separately. And it would save Imperial men and resources that the Empire will desperately need when they finally confront the Dominion...thirty years from now.

I never said it was. Quote the line or paragraph where I say that....?! Well, a cursory check of my profile would make it clear that I am not. Beyond that, I have not really mentioned age, that I can recall, in any other thread or post but this one. So "constantly" is inappropriate. I really don't care about age. I strongly suspect you care more about it than I do. I'm indifferent to anything except the content of the post I'm responding to. I don't consider myself particularly wise, or smart...I just don't have much tolerance for posts that mis-state facts (or put known facts on an ignore list), make demonstrably false statements (as your post does), are disjointed and irrational in terms of the progression of ideas, and emotional almost to the point of hysteria. Why should anyone be tolerant of that? There does seem to be a point in a person's life, however, when this emotional rollercoaster ride rolls to a stop...or maybe, it just loses its appeal. As far as that goes, insult is in the eyes of the beholder. I suspect people take insult because they can't deal with what is being presented. What is amazing to me...and certainly no indication of my intelligence...is that what sets people off is almost always information that is from the Lore, eye witness accounts (by a player), etc., which is available to anyone who really cares to check. Or...as in this case...when someone challenges them to provide proof in the form of verifiable facts or eye witness accounts, and they cannot. I hesitate to raise the specter but the issue of Stormcloak or Ulfric's racism is a prime example (and a good way to bring this back on topic). No evidence exists to support the notion but people get so entrenched with their emotions and emotional reactions to the idea...and feeling good about themselves...that they become incensed when challenged to prove it. Good discussion always involves disagreement and a certain give and take. But always...always...with an eye to the evidence and basic, verifiable facts. For the simple reason that communication and exploring ideas is the goal (not simply spewing), and neither of those goals can be achieved when emotions and opinion and even fantasy are conflated with reason. I believe in the presumption of innocence and I believe in the right of the accused to confront the accuser...that said, I'm done on this subject but reserve the right to address the main topic as I deem fit.

Well I don't know if you saw my post...it was post #113 in the "Should I Join the Imperial Legion or the Stormcloaks" thread over in General Skyrim discussions. If you care to, look in on it, I'd be interested in your take. If nothing else it would elevate the discussion a bit. BTW, I don't care that you're a communist...I hope you weren't put off by my joke. I have a very dry sense of humour, I'm afraid.