MacSuibhne

Well...how important is it? Not only is he trying to secure independence for Skyrim--somerthing on the order of George Washington trying to defeat the most powerful nation on the earth with a small, unorganized, underfunded militia--but every other group, every other leader, on Tamriel is demonstrably OK with having racists among them. [i would even venture to say that every leader in the real world has racists working for or with him/her.] The Thalmor are the most xenophobic and racist group on Tamriel but how many people actively, even eagerly, defend the Empire and its "best boy" relationship with them? Where is the hue and cry? In fact, where is the honourable distaste for slander and guilt by association and trial by gossip? Where is the distaste and condemnation for 30 years of spineless collusion and oleaginous betrayal--having engineered the Markarth Incident and then reneging on promises and arresting the prime agent? where is the outrage at the Thalmor patrols thumbing their noses at Imperial or Skyrim law and summarily judging, torturing, and executing friends, neighbors, sons, and fathers? Sure, some people kill Thalmor patrols...but one has to ask--in a game where killing is almost the raison d'etre for playing, how does that signify? Esp. if you defend or make excuses for the perpetrators at all other times? It strikes me as hypocritical...or relative morality at its most repulsive. What's sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander.

Great minds think alike...I posted something similar in another thread this morning. I'm not a communist, however, so we're not that much alike. :laugh:

Why don't either one of you make up a small list of things that I've stated as fact in this thread and then later recanted or changed to speculation? If you can't do that it gives the lie. I had a fellow tell me that he was amazed I posted to forums where the average age was about 14. I think I know what he meant because I've been there and done that...and trying as hard as I can to hold myself to hard facts and irrefutable evidence when appropriate and the rational progression of one idea to the next when facts won't suffice, it still feels like arguing with teenagers. PS...if you can ignore the basic facts and indisputable evidence, I don't know why you need an ignore list. It doesn't speak well to self-control.

You promise? Does it matter how many fronts there are? In the event of a defeat in the Civil war, Skyrim is unlikely to come enthusiastically to the aid of the Empire esp. give all that has gone before, anymore than Hammerfell is. So the Empire will face the Dominion more or less alone...with the possible exception of a sullen conscripts and the odd foreign brigade ala the Spanish Civil War. But the thing that amuses me in all this is that it is pure speculation. There is no credible evidence to determine what will happen--whether the Empire can stand alone or whether they can triumph even with Skyrim united behind them 100%. And my speculation is just as probable...i would venture to say more probable....than yours. Why? Well... All we know for sure is what has been--the Empire has been dithering and colluding with the Thalmor for thirty years. Even if you dismiss the obvious--that the Thalmor has been using that time to actually, seriously, prepare for war--they still have far more intelligence about troop moral and disposition and men and material (that they've gained through their patrols) than the Empire has about them. If the Empire couldn't grow a pair in thirty years it is unlikely they will ever. I suggested a scenario that would, in my opinion actually unite men against the AD. It was pure speculation.From what you've said here, it seems apparent that if you were the Emperor, you wouldn't even consider the proposition. I suspect Ulfric would, though.

Optimistically...believing the best that can be believed about the Empire...I suspect the rape is all going the other way. Thirty years as the Thalmor's "best boy" tells a different story than any of us want to believe.

You're not thinking this through...it's basically the same thing. If the Empire is currently helping the Thalmor in Skyrim it takes less Thalmor troops. If Skyrim is forced to remain in the Empire, it's is not going to be eager to pull the Empire's chestnuts out of the fire (again?) at any future date. At that point, all the Dominion has to do is defeat the Empire--alone because they have alienated everyone but the Thalmor--and perhaps Skyrim then falls by default ( or maybe not...esp. if Skyrim spends the next 30 years...it could very well take that long if you're waiting on the Empire...actually preparing itself.) The question for the Empire is: How do you force the citizens of Skyrim to fight alongside you when you've spent the last 30 years ignoring them...except to help the Thalmor to oppress them...and brutally suppressed their aspirations for independence? If a government owes its legitimacy to its willingness to protect its citizens and secure their natural rights and freedoms, the Empire has no legitimacy in Skyrim nor can it expect any loyalty (which is, in this case, just another way of saying that it is unlikely that citizens of Skyrim will be willing to sacrifice themselves and their land, for a government that didn't care enough about them to intervene on their behalf when their lives and rights were forfeit to the Thalmor.)

How does it? Same troops, same geography, same number of fronts. Except the Empire is aiding and abetting the Thalmor in Skyrim. They have a part in suppressing the insurrection and, even if only looking the other way, in oppressing the populace. The Thalmor rely on Imperial cooperation.They need not be a full occupying force to exert their will or have their way. So effectively..."with friends like these..."...they're on the same side in Skyrim. Same geography that's true but less troops and only one active front.

Tell me where I will see Stormcloaks leading away citizens? I need to see this for myself. I've close to 200 hours in the game and although I've seen Stormcloak patrols, I've not seen them leading any prisoners. But even if true, it misses the point...the Thalmor are a foreign power. They don't answer to anyone but themselves. And if the Stormcloaks do arrest people, they are presumably given trials and justice under the laws of Skyrim (and maybe the Empire) ..not just summarily executed. The Stormcloaks are about self-governance, not capitulation and appeasement. Or aiding and abetting a hostile foreign power in oppressing a people not even their own. Additionally, the Stormcloaks are there...native sons and daughters...not leagues away in another self-contained and self-interested country. That alone confers a legitimacy the Empire will never have. But again, it all misses the greater point...and it is misdirection...which is that everybody (except the Dominion) would be better off if the Empire simply let Skyrim go.

It doesn't matter if the Stormcloaks could defeat the Dominion by themselves. The battle is between the Dominion and the Empire. (Actually, ultimately, the real battle is between the Thalmor and men). Both powers know this. If Skyrim were independent it could be...probably would be, given their history with the Thalmor...a strong ally to the Empire in any future confrontation with the AD. And an independent Skyrim means that the Thalmor would have two fronts instead of one. If the Stormcloaks are defeated and held unwillingly in the Empire, they are going to not only be reluctant to support the Empire, but depleted of resources and men. Unless of course it takes the Empire another thirty years to finally decide that being the Dominion's bumboy is unacceptable. If the Empire just let Skyrim go...allowed Skyrim to be independent..there would be no civil war. There would be no drain on Imperial resources needing to hold a rebellious and sullen population in check. The Empire would be free to do what it...somewhat disingenuously in my mind...claims it wants to do--build up its military and gather its strength. No more excuses, in other words. And Skyrim would be free to take on the Thalmor patrols and the killing of its sons and fathers. Even if an independent Skyrim couldn't kick the Thalmor entirely out of Skyrim, it would force the Dominion to divide its resources and thus weaken it. The situation would be reversed...with the AD on its heels and stretched thin rather than the nations of men. The Dominion knows this too...even if no one else does. As far as the Talos thing...anyone who has played the game for more than a little while has run across Thalmor patrols leading away hapless Skyrim citizens (ostensibly Imperial citizens) to be tortured and beheaded under a judicial system that is independent of Imperial or Skyrim laws. It begs the question: If the Empire cannot or will not protect its citizens from these kinds of depredations by a foreign power, how does it have any claim to legitimacy?

Then who the hell can you rely on? Everyone in the whole damn game have their own opinion on what happened and there is no reason to trust the word of one faction more than the other. There is a hierarchy of credibility that shakes out something like this: At the bottom is biased opinion based entirely on emotions. Something like "Ulfric is a damn murderer. Isn't Elisyf beautiful." Next is, biased opinion based on circumstantial evidence: "Ulfric hates grey people because he has not given us a lower tax rates than everyone else and appears more interested in gaining independence for Skyrim than in cleaning up the area where we have lived for 150 years seemingly without access to brooms or paint." Neither of these are credible. Just because we hear it from the mouths of people we identify with or want to like doesn't make it true. It's opinion, pure and simple. There are a lot of people...players and non-players alike...who are all too willing to accept the easy way out--and that's precisely what having such a low standard of truth is...it relieves a person of the responsibility to think. Next is the opinions of people who have "heard it on the grapevine" from third parties who may or may not be biased and who may or may not have actually witnessed an event from a distance closer than the limits of unassisted vision. An example of this might be "Ulfric literally shouted Torygg to pieces." With perhaps the added enticement to belief of "My brother heard it from a guard." Then there's the people who actually did witness an event but who have already declared their loyalty. Everyone in Torygg's court fits into this category. There is no more reason to take their version of events as gospel than to take Ulfric's version entirely at face value...even though he was there in a far more immediate and involved manner than anyone else except Torygg...may Talos rest his soul. Because their loyalties are already set, their testimony has to be suspect. It serves their purposes to make sure that their interpretation of events gains primacy. Then, closer to actual evidence is the Lore. This is probably the closest we can get to empirical truth but like the Bear of Markarth and The Scourge of the Grey Quarter by Frilgeth Horse-Breaker, there is material that needs an open and yet cautious mind to evaluate. We question Arrianus because he wasn't involved...he's writing a tract to curry favour with his Imperial masters. Igmund, also an Imperial, was there and his evidence, being first hand, is more credible than Arrianus' opinion. The Thalmor dossier, while not in dispute on its face also has to be regarded with some suspicion simply because of its source. Finally...the most credible evidence for any accusation, or decision, or even as a basis for speculating...and the only standard which is ultimately verifiable and anywhere near irrefutable, no matter what we want to believe...is that a player witnesses an event first hand. And can document who and where so that others may verify it themselves. The harassing of Dunmer by Galmor's brother is a good example. However, if we have any claim or pretense to fairness and/or honour we cannot interpolate such events more broadly than their immediate context and actual participants. Galmor's brother is a bigot but that doesn't make Galmor a bigot and to suggest it does is to deliberately slander. In the end, it's only common sense but all the more difficult if the observer is not really and truly open to any possibility as long as it can be objectively supported.