Deleted4666244User

i saw on the steam workshop a mod to marry Ulfric Stormcloak, why not have a mod to Marry Elisif? i know stupid idea, and Elisif is a widow, but who cares, if i can have a same-sex marriage with the Chief of Mor Khazgur's (Spelling?) daughter, then why can i not have a mod to marry the Jarl of Solitude. If that is not possible then i will take Ravencrone's daughter.

i thought i'd throw this over here, but Elisif seems to have the majority of the ruling Elite (the Jarls), so i don't know about most people, but i think that even if Ulfric has the right of being high king by one tradtion, if the Jarls want someone else, his tradition no matter.

The Trial by combat is meant to depose the High King and his family. As I've said elsewhere, you don't duel a High King for his throne just so his wife or his sons or whoever else in the line of ascension can take it. There is no point in it and these duels NEVER would have been created to serve that purpose. If that purpose needs to be had, a simple and clear assassination is in order. Not a trial by combat. I don't see where the High King's death = The High Queen has a claim to his throne. And no, by tradition the Jarl of Solitude doesn't just become High King. Nor does the Jarl of Windhelm. That is a concept created by the Empire installing puppet kings. ITP: There isn't an impending Moot and much of the Civil War questlines aren't devoted to building up your chosen claimants claim to the throne. What are you, 7 or something? my question was legitimate, if ulfric had a real claim to the throne, The elisif would not be the Jarl of Solitude either...Becaus he also killed the Jarl of Solitude in a duel (Torygg was not just high king) :wallbash: why do you guys think Ulfric is trying to Replace the other Jarls, or the empire? it is because they know the other side is holding their leader back. If the other Jarls agree with the candidate, it validates their claim and invalidates the other one's, pure and simple. that is why Ulfric started the Civil war, Tradition did not give him the throne because a majority of the Jarls belong to the empire and as such believe that Elisif is the rightful high queen. Elisif is not high queen because of Ulfric and his "tradition" converting some of the Jarls to his side. tradition does not matter if the Jarls agree with someone else as it is stated in Skyrim's rule "if there is no heir, a moot is convened to choose the next one" it does not matter if he has tradition, if the other Jarls side with Elisif he is thrown to the back of the line, again. it is all about the Jarls, not tradition, because if s, the Elisif would have no claim whatsoever, but she does so what does Ulfric's "tradition" mean if the majority of the Jarls do not agree with him in the first place.

Ulfric was better that Torygg, most say, so it kind of paints Ulfric in a bad light. Plus if not for Ulfric Elisif would be high queen by default, even if Ulfric had more of a right thanks to killing Torygg, i doubt i can side with him 100% of the time knowing he won only by using the coward's way (disarm a weaker opponent with a shout, then kill him). i do not even use a shout with any of my character unless i really need to, i could use it, but my Character is better than most enemies i see no reason to. it is a case of win-win for the Jarl of Windhelm: do not use a shout to disarm the high king, win the duel. use a shout to disarm him, win the duel a lot easier. using a shout for a warrior=coward in my book ( i rarely use a shout unless i need to (running the risk of dying and need slow time to recover from dragon attack)) note i am not saying that Elisif's Claim> Ulfric's i am just calling Ulfric a coward for using a shout on a weaker opponent. he may have the only true claim considering that he killed Torygg, but i am saying that he got that claim in a cowardly way and needs all the good publicity he can get.

my question is not about who is the "good guy" but Who has the more legitimate claim? Elisif and her inheritance or Ulfric and his trial by combat which was not a trial but him killing the high king for the throne? i mean i bet Ulfric did his research on the subject saw that "stipulation" but did not expect that Elisif would call out her legitimacy as Torygg's widow.

before any of you say anything, i know that ANCIENT nord tradition stated that if the high king is bested in battle, his defeater becomes the high king, but that only gave Ulfric a Claim to the throne, Elisif's claim is more legitimate (she is the Jarl of Solitude, and Torygg's widow) i say that trumps ancient tradition, that may not be in use anymore, any day. i do not want to argue with you Imperistan, but Elisif has just as legitimate a claim to the throne as Ulfric does, but all the stormcloaks out there seem to 'conveniently' forget that.

You don't understand the point of revolutions do you? I understand the point of revolution (note you Are saying that Ulfric is not high king until he killed Toryg and that the revolution is to validate it). i am arguing the tradition of ascension by ancient tradition over becoming high king by tradition of trial by combat the book Skyrim's rule states and i quote "The High King or Queen typically inherits the throne by birth and rules for life or until abdication. In the event that no direct heir to the throne exists, a specially convened council of all the Jarls, called the Moot, meet with the express purpose of choosing Skyrim's High King. 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. Originally, the High King was based in Windhelm, as it was the first capital city established by Ysgramor in late Merethic Era, power has also shifted to Winterhold sometime in the First Era." at some point post-first era, the throne of high king was moved to Solitude. Since then, the Jarl of Solitude has served as the High king, especially in recent years. Ulfric needs to be voted in, as he was not born into it. nowhere do i see in there that one can just walk up to the high king, kill him in a "duel" and become high king. maybe that was how it was in the past, but right now, killing Torygg was just Ulfrib being a bully, in my eyes.

hey, wouldn't killing Torygg, who was not only high king, but also the Jarl of Solitude, not make Ulfric Jarl of Solitude as well? if so why even fight the civil war? he owns the HQ of the empire in Skyrim can't he just kick them out? oh that's right, ULFRIC IS NOT HIGH KING BECAUSE TRADITION MEANS SQUAT IN A PROVINCE OF THE EMPIRE! (going off of the line "when the Jarls start killing each other, then the empire takes notice")

why are we even debating the killing of high king Torygg? hwat we should be discussing is was Ulfric right in starting the Civil War to split his people when there were other, more peaceful options? like in the DB quest Breaching Security, He knew the emperor was going to be in Skyrim, why not ruin the plan by showing up to discuss a peaceful secession when the DB shows up to kill Mede.

hey all, look at this the duel with Torygg means nothing for Ulfric if he just switches Jarls that will vote for him. plus the Duel may have been legal but was overkill, Shout his weapon out of his hand then kill him, even though you are better than him in battle? Despicable, cowardly even. even if it was legal, Ulfric had no reason to use a shout at all. needless to say Ulfric may not have murdered Torygg by law of the land, but by law of the voice, he did.

ignore this as i try to make a good character for Dawnguard.

my original point when i started posting here is that i thought that Ulfric may have went a little to rash in Killing the high king, when there were other options for him to follow.

so the Nords are free to treat the Dunmer as second-class citizens while Ulfric just lets them until the Dunmer do something? i know what would happen: the dunmer start killing Nords=>Dunmer getting arrested=>more Nord murders at the hands of Dunmer=>Windhelm Being destroyed by infighting. also Adrienne in Whterun post-stormcloak victory begs to differ, without her husband, the stormcloaks won't even talk to her.

a few pages back someone said that the High king is a sacrifice for the people. but what about the Jarl? is that not a sacrifice for the people as well, since the Jarl is the sovereign of the hold? if that is a case Ulfric is not dong his job his people=those in his hold. ALL OF THEM. His race=the Nords should the non-nords be treated like the Nords or should they be secon-class citizens because of their race or their neutrality towards a war that is about the nordic people?

wait, what?

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. look mac, i have this thing that i side with one side of the CW or the other depending on which side i RP. like my thief characters, they side with the empire for purely business reasons. some characters side with the stormcloaks because i RP them like they knnow the empire is dead with no hope of resurrection. some side with the Empire because they believe that the Empire can be redeemed. i have seen both sides and play my characters to what the RP is for them.

also has anyone thought that siding with the Stormcloaks makes one a hypocrite, y'know with the Forsworn and all (they can't worship their own gods, but the nords want to worship theirs)? also wouldn't living what a god represents=worship? if so, then every nordic warrior is guilty of it. empire and stormcloak alike.

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 am not questioning anyone's personal choice, it is just that i personally cannot stand for religious freedom when it runs the risk of the non-natives being treated as second class citizens and having to protect themselves from bandits by hiring nord mercenaries who care only about the gold or fighting for themselves when they cannot rely on their government which seems so bent on focusing on honor and the nordic way that non-nords look like wimps who do not need protection because the do not "deserve" it

Mac, thanks for posting that, but the Magna Carta had most of it repealed by the 19th century and all Ulfric seems to be wanting is open Talos worship back. that seems to be all the sotrmcloaks want. i do not see a single thing besides the Thalmor taking people away, that would seem a problem. now before you go and say that the Thalmor are running the empire think or are the empire afraid of the repercussions of breaking the WGC? i do not see any reason, other that Ulfric wanted to, when he killed the high king (i think Skyrim was fine under Torygg) then Ulfric says something about him getting imprisoned and duels/kills the boy.

A better question is can you find any instance in medieval times where people stopped a war and allowed themselves to be persecuted religiously even though they hadn't been defeated in battle? once again that is a more modern day issue, back then most people were on the same page religiously. i can think of the crusades, but that was them wanting to claim the holy land for themselves and not religious persecution. here is how i see siding with the empire is at least a good idea: The Thalmor do not want an imperial victory as much as the don't want a stormcloak victory, if not more so. A revitalized Empire with an army of angry Nords at her side my begin to see that it is time to fight back, break the WGC and tell the thalmor "GET THE HELL OUT AND GET READY FOR A FIGHT!" this would also get the attention of the Redguards, who would ask to join the fight. seeing a united and revitalized Empire with Imperial battle mages/soldiers, Nordic Warriors, Breton Mages/Witch hunters/Spell swords and Redguard Fighters would make them Desperate and force all Bosmer, Khajiit, and Altmer capable of holding a sword to fight. This would cause unrest and convince Valenwood and Elsweyr to revolt and end up in the arms of the Empire, destroying all Aldmeri Dominion presence on Mainland Tamriel.

i am sorry Mac, but can you point out a MEDIEVAL example of your thought that religious freedom beats all citizens being safe from bandits. i see the game and notice that the game has a medieval feel to it. anyways, i feel that the empire is the safest option right now, at least for my Dawnguard characters.

for those thinking that freedoms are better than security, ask yourself this: is the right of safety less important that the religious freedoms that the Stormcloaks want?

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." Mac, take a look at the setting, it is a medieval setting fantasy game, i think we can drop old Ben Franklin since he did not come about until the american revolution era.

sometimes what someone wants, is not what he needs, so ask yourself this: what is that Skyrim NEEDS; Safety and Security, or Religious freedom? what i am saying is, that Looking at Rikke and Torygg, i see no reason why supporting the empire is bad, as both of them worshiped Talos, and were not turned into the Thalmor. i think Skyrim does not need religious freedom if it reduces non-Nords to basically Second-class citizens.

If ulfric was such a great fighter, then why use a shout at all? Answer, to go overkill and show everyone how powerful he is "LOOK AT ME, I CAN USE THE VOICE. TO PROVE IT, I WILL KILL TORYGG AFTER I DISARM HIM WITH A SHOUT" maybe Ulfric was right that Torygg was not the best candidate for high king, but he was wrong in trying to break away from the Empire and splitting Skyrim Asunder with his putrid civil war. also, my characters are Dragonborn, and i do not need Shouts to kill people.