rattlemebones

Well, I would say dead men tell no tales, but it seems TES goes out of its way to invert that. lol.

Yes, it is possible to see something and tell a biased story about it; however, witnessing something and telling a biased story will have more truth then hearing a biased account and telling a embellished account.

I believe the court of Elisif. They were there when Ulfric "duelled" Torygg", and they saw most everything. I believe a witness over someone who hears a biased account.

I didn't get my point either.

War is not fear cloaked in courage. The Romans didn't conquer almost all of the civilized world because they were afraid of the opposing sides. If they were afraid they wouldn't bother attacking. They were ruthless, and thats why they won.I'm sure the Romans that were fighting the Huns at Chalôns in France were scared to death; however, they knew if they didn't defeat the Huns their very lives would become worthless. The fear of war was replaced by the bigger fear of the Huns. OK how about this. War is not always fear cloaked in courage, it completely depends on the senario. In one scenario the party may have little to know fear and in the other scenario they may be soaked in fear. But to say war is fear cloaked in courage is an incorrect statement and what I should've said in my last statement is that war is not always fear cloaked in courage, but it can be true.Ok, so sometimes war isn't feared, but then as Franklin D. Roosevelt said,"The only we have to fear is fear itself."

War is not fear cloaked in courage. The Romans didn't conquer almost all of the civilized world because they were afraid of the opposing sides. If they were afraid they wouldn't bother attacking. They were ruthless, and thats why they won.I'm sure the Romans that were fighting the Huns at Chalôns in France were scared to death; however, they knew if they didn't defeat the Huns their very lives would become worthless. The fear of war was replaced by the bigger fear of the Huns.

Yes, groups do collapse because the leaders are killed. That happens when the thing holding the group together is the leader and the leader only; However, if said leader is intelligent enough to pick a good second-in-command who is charismatic as the leader then the group will survive. Ulfric made a good choice when he picked Galmar Stone-Fist as his dragon. If Ulfric was killed, Galmar would win because of Ulfric's death.

Hate to foist my morals upon other people, but war is neither fun nor a game. War should only be waged if all other options are exhausted and neither side can come to an agreement. Thanks to diplomacy, we haven't had a world war since World War II. To sum it up, war is fear cloaked in courage.

Even if they did execute Ulfric it wouldn't have mattered if Galmar was intelligent enough. Galmar could easily turn a dead Ulfric into a martyr, and his soldiers would fight twice as hard. The best way to put down a rebellion is to make the leader a criminal and put them in prison. Over all, if Ulfric were executed, it would only make things worse.

Too bad that summary execution is legal in Skyrim. If it was illegal, then they would've been forced to take him to a hold capital to give him a trial, albeit a show trial, and then formally execute him in front of everyone

Well, if Skyrim does do correctly it's saying that war is .... well something that is horrible. Fighting your enemies since before the world is created is one thing, but fighting and killing your neighbour is a PTSD event.

What if they player was originally a bandit from Cyrodiil that had been captured, escaped from prison, ran and just had been at the wrong place at the wrong time? The guards may not have known because of horrible communication and just not caring about one bandit that escaped from Cyrodiilic prison.

Well in Fallout, you could get summary execution for stealing someone's pencil. Illegal immigration is a much worse crime, and it seems likely that you committed a horrendous crime since you crossed the border to, maybe, escape prosecution.

Speaking of Talos, what about the empire he created at the beginning of the third era? He basically dominated all of Tamriel because, based on different accounts, he either was particularly ambitious or it was his destiny. He is The Conquerer. He then must be the evilest man in the history of Nirn because he conquered a continent. I'm not arguing anything; I'm just applying logic.

So if I see a nation of subjugated people, is it then wrong to conquer and liberate those people?

This entire event (except the High King assassination bit) can be compared to the American Revolution. A tax on something which one party has no say about. An empire that is trying to secure its interests. A rebel faction that contests, in their opinion, a corrupt political faction In the case of the Americans the tax was actually a lot less then their British counterparts. Even though they didn't have a say, it wasn't until a small group of people agitated that the British Parliament started cracking down and the Continental Congress declared a rebellion. Granted that was after King George III refused the Olive Branch Petition. The Stormcloaks made no such offer. In the case of the British they fought the French and Indian War to protect their Colonies. They expected their Colonies to help pay for the war that was fought for them, which was reasonable. The British, when the Sons of Liberty started violently protesting the taxes, treated the Americans like an unruly child and punished them as such. The Empire when Ulfric agitated they were forced to take action to prevent further rebellions. Both sides had a reason to fight, but at the same time neither of them were entirely correct.

How did this degenerate from a question saying "Anyone else disappointed with the stormcloak storyline" to "let's pick apart the Nordic legends". That kinda feels like a new thread.

I end the argument saying that both of us can keep our opinions, yet you say that if I call them Wyverns you'll start another argument. According to the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I have the right to have my own opinion and distribute it. I do believe that repeatedly arguing with me over something I said is over and we both can keep our opinions constitutes harassment and I will treat it as such.

This has gotten out of hand. Let's just agree to disagree and stop the pointless arguing.

Fine, you win. Not because of you and your arguments, but because I want to sleep. Either case, it doesn't matter what I say because you're one of those people who have to be right about anything. If you do however manage to find a dragon skeleton with two wings and two back legs, I'll let you call it dragon and I'll go along with it. (Hint: a good place to start is to first find Beowulf's tomb, for in Beowulf they pushed they dragon's remains into the sea close to where he was buried.) Until you find those remains, I'll still call Skyrim dragons Wyverns.

No, Dragons and Wyverns are different creatures. I noticed a logical fallacy, you want to define a Dragon as a large flying reptile. The Komodo Dragon fits two adjectives, not only is it a reptile but it is also large. Hmm, it seems that the Komodo Dragon can't fly, therefore it is a Komodo and not a Komodo Dragon. Also, since only insects tend to have stingers, and since your Wyvern is a reptile, there's no dice that they could possibly have stingers. It would seem that the Thu'um is magical in property and not biological. As for having a breath weapon we could just hand wave that to the fact that Wyverns are magically disconnected. Although, I'm sure utterly horrible breath can be considered a weapon. As for saying that Dragons tended to look different depending on where you are, you said that there are subgroups of Dragons. Even today we are finding species of plants and animals lumped with other species, so how is that argument absurd. The reason is, Technological Advancement. I'm 99% sure that they had better in the Middle Ages then earlier ages. Thank you for the history lesson (which I may or may not have yawned at). Personally, I believe that your the touchy one. Now with that, I say good day

I killed him because not only did he severely wound another DB member but he also tried to kill Astrid. Being ordered to kill him was icing on the cake.

If the Dragonborn has the soul of a dragon, then like the other dragons (which I am calling Wyverns from now on) they could be resurrected like the other Wyverns by being shouted at. Therefore the Dragonborn's soul goes wherever other Wyvern souls go, and that means that a Dragonborn can only be really killed forever by another Dragonborn. Dragonborns have no afterlife then besides where Wyvern souls go.

If one were too pay attention to the creatures that Bethesda says are Dragons they would notice that whilst they have back legs, but they are missing front legs. That would actually make them Wyverns instead of Dragons.

They hate every other race that isn't nord. and then they are self hating nords unless you are what they think a "true nord" I wouldn't call that friendly. Actually, remember that first Imperial captain you meet calling you cat if you're a Khajiit? Now, compare that to Ralof and at least several other Stormcloak soldiers that actually say Khajiit.As this is above all else an rpg conducted by the gms (Bethesda), that could just be an oversight or a bug or the stormcloaks being too busy killing Imperials to be racist