Anska

Oh, the Twilight Sepulcher! Bound to Nocturnal are we? So, tell me, friend thief, in what way would the Dovahkin make a better ruler of Skyrim than the Emperor or Jarl Ulfric would? Or is it in the end just your dragonblood beckoning, calling out to your inner need for domination? Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously though, I've read a couple of times that the Dragonborn should just take over Skyrim so s/he could turn it into a juster, better place. Which is (apart from probably being a fun game idea) basically the same thing Ulfric is currently doing and perhaps underlines the idea that, in order to fundamentally change anything about Skyrim, you need the title and power of High King or Queen. Disapproving of Ulfric for wanting a position while at the same time wishing to take it over for oneself (for the same reasons no less) seems a tad hypocritical to me. Wouldn't you agree?

The Rift isn't imperial at the beginning of the game, and even if it was: There is only a very narrow, steep path that goes up to Ivarstead somewhere near Dark Water Crossing and I don't think it's even broad enough for a horse-cart. I think they picked Helgen, because it was the closest town with a military base. Just look at it: Half of the town is actually an Imperial fortress. That Roggvir's execution was delayed for so long is odd indeed, but the rest seems rather plausible to me. The Stormcloaks as such are older than the CW, the original ones apparently were the men who followed him to Markarth 25 (?) years ago. The name was originally meant as an insult but was later adopted by the soldiers themselves as a sort of honorary title (And I currently can't find, where I read this. I think someone in Markarth or one of the Stormcloaks tells the tale.). So after the duel Ulfric's troupes didn't form, they just grew in numbers - just as the country was now forced to take sides. Things went well for Ulfric until the Empire sent its man for dire situations, Tullius, up, who managed to turn the tables again. Catching Ulfric out of his own territory seems indeed daring. Apparently all previous attempts to catch him had failed. At least, that's what Hadvar tells you. Edit: And Helgen becomes perhaps a bit more logical too, if you consider that they were actually on their way to Cyrodil, when Tullius suddenly changed his mind - also according to Hadvar. Perhaps he was afraid the Thalmor would meddle after all.

The whole point, I brought the duel up for, was as an example for Ulfric using a legally accepted custom/ rule to get his ends, which according to Sybille it was. It might not be a very nice custom or a very clever one (and I still think it was an ugly affair ) but within the legal system of Skyrim it is apparently possible to challenge your High King if you think, he isn't fit for the job - so no matter how unpopular this particular rule is, I believe the example still supports my point. And, to add a particularly heartless observation, from what Sybille says, Torygg very much had a choice. He could have played it cool and waited for Ulfric to call the Moot, changing the battlefield from one he was certain to loose to one he might have had a chance to win (if with a dented reputation).

I was just looking up that quote, I promised yesterday and have to take back what I said about them being shocked. Sybille simply regrets having not noticed sooner what Ulfric was up to. The following quotes should also settle the question if it was a duel in the first place and they also pretty strongly indicate that Ulfric was able to leave Solitude, because nobody objected to him having won the challenge yet just after the duel. Apart from that, they all seemed to have needed some time to recover from the shouting. And from the way Ulfric and his thu'um are described, (Eilisif even compares it to "something out of a legend... Or a nightmare.") Ulfric made just the impression he was aiming for.

To start at the bottom: Is the theorie I go with. They should have expected someone to die in a duel. I don't really go with the idea that Ulfric just showed up in the throne room, killed Torygg and left. I think Ulfric issued the challenege for the duel as it was supposed to have been (which admitedly came as a shock to the court too) and the rest is somewhat shadey and the reason for not jumping into action right after the duel. Secondly: when did "respected him" become "great respect"? The court assumed Ulfric might try to talk Torygg into leaving the Empire, an endeavour all of Torygg's advisors would have opposed. So it is doubtful if it had really been as easy to persuade Torygg as Sybille makes it sound. ... but what Torygg would have done or wouldn't have done is a very uncertain topic at best. The quote from Torygg you posted actually indicates that it was a duel situation too, even if not an honourable one. Torygg had enough time to prepare for death to actually face it fearlessly and think about his terriffied wife, also the questioning of honour makes only sense in a duel situation. It is called "murder" by some people because they equal a dishonourable duel with murder. Doesn't everything taste like chicken anyway?

Just to clarify: By Forsworn armor you mean the chest-piece, right?

I pondered this a while and have to concede. I totaly forgot the very basic idea that when you aren't in the mood for something it simply won't do at all, no matter how great it would be otherwise. If you are in the mood for a suspense laden plot with many twists and turns, a sappy and predictable romance story won't make you happy - just as it wouldn't work the other way round. As for deadking Torygg. I would think, a dead man should be the one most biased by his own demise because he is, after all, the one subjected to a rather life-changing experience (or crime, depending on your pov). Not to mention, I am not sure how accurately he was able to percive the last moments of his life, since being shouted at is a pretty shattering experience in itself. Apart from this; how come everything Ulfric says is either a flat out lie or somekind of rhetoric manipulation, while everything the other characters say is either taken literally or as statements "unspoiled" by rhetorics or bias? In his short speech in Sovngard Torygg presents himself as the cultivated, romantic hero (fearless in the face of certain death, while his only thoughts concern the feelings of his lady-love) while casting Ulfric in the role of the honourless brute of a villian who slew him. This is conveyed by the very poetic wording and syntax which presents Torygg as a gentleman capable of genteel speech, while Ulfric on the other side comes across almost as a force of nature (something that subjects you to an inescapable fate, like a great storm for example) and is associated with a "savage" (in other words uncultured) practice. The Highking of Skyrim dares to call one of the most sacred traditions of his own country savage... Apart from sounding somewhat miffed, Torygg's short bit in Sovngarde underlines nicely why Ulfric claims to have killed him: he cared mostly about his wife, was too soft (overly cultivated in a cyrodilic way) and didn't care too much of the more traditional aspects of Skyrim's cultur. Concerning the duel and the escape afterwards: I have never really thought about where the duel took place. I always assumed, it had taken place either in or somewhere near the palace, but Castle Dour seems a plausible location too. If Ulfric had had a large number of people with him, I assume someone would have included this within their story. Yet I would guess he did have someone with him (at least someone who waited for him outside the gate), because it would be odd for a Jarl to travel this far completely on his own. My guess would be that, what made Ulfric's escape possible is exactly the topic we have been debating about on the last page: the confusion over whether he had won the duel or commited a crime. When you ask Sybille Stentor about it, she remarks that they had been too shocked by the events to react at first (I'll look up the exact quote later). I guess in regard to the guards "shocked" simply means that they were somewhat nonplussed, when the duell ended the way and as quickly as it did. They didn't object to Ulfric leaving the scene, because they were not quite sure what to make of the events at first. By the time the dust had settled and the opinion that Ulfric hadn't won the duel but murdered the king had taken shape, Ulfric was already halfway through the city. Now I have two ideas how the story might have concluded: In the more dramatic one, the guards charged after Ulfric and caught sight of him just before the gate. They shouted at Roggvir to close the gate but he didn't. Ulfric escaped and Roggvir got arrested instead. In the less dramatic version, the guards only reached the gate after Ulfric had already left and Roggvir got primaly executed for being the only person in Solitude defending Ulfric's position instead of claiming he knew nothing about the exploited duel and regretting he let the man get away.

Can you actually read those rules up somewhere? I am just curious. The thing which leaves a bad taste in my mouth about the whole affair is that it wasn't an even match. Torygg never stood a chance. Otoh that was exactly Ulfric's point, wasn't it? *sighs* I guess in the end it runs down to me feeling somewhat sorry for Torygg - which is an emotion that isn't rather helpful in this matter.

Most of all it was his conversation with Galmar after you return the axe to him which went along the lines of "Then I was wrong about him." "Told you so" "Do shut up." .... it was a bit longer, but that's the gist of it. Additionally, I wonder, why do you find it so implausible that Ulfric indeed would prefer to win as much of Skyrim as he can without bloodshed? Just because he apparently has no qualms over killing Torygg? 2nd Edit: I just saw that we probably misunderstood us. I don't think that the "duel" was absolutely in accordance with the rules. Ulfric claims it is. I meant that it's rule-bending if ever there was some, but he at least tried to get rid of Torygg under a sort of legalish pretence. He didn't just kill him, he tried to find an culturally accepted frame for it.

Only, it wasn't really just a guise or some way to look good in the end. (Although I wouldn't put this past him either.) Ulfric didn't really expect the thing with the axe to go that way, he expected Balgruuf to join him. It's odd really, I usually get the impression from these early stages of the CW that Ulfric likes Balgruuf quite well and holds him in high regard, while being totally oblivious of the fact, that Balgruuf can't stand him and thinks nothing of him. There is an odd parallel to Ulfric and Torygg in this. And I wondered about the way Ulfric talks to Delphine too. Edit: Just to clarify, I agree with the general statement and especially with the assumption that Galmar couldn't pull of the CW on his own even if he wanted to. He is a good right-hand but not such a great leader. And I think Ulfric's "duel" with Torygg is quite a good example for him being political, if you are looking for one. He tells you at the same time that while it wasn't really a fair fight (Torygg never stood a chance) it was absolutely in accordance with the rules... The thing with the axe though ... it leaves me a little puzzled whenever I think about it.

I remember to have seen a mod once, which allows you to sell the stones to the Trading Carawans if you don't want to do the original quest. I still think, that is the smoothest solution for the problem. I forgot what the mod's name was, but I am sure you can easily find it in the Nexus. :)

I am a bit surprised nobody mentioned "Shalebridge Cradle" in regard to scary things in games yet ... Apart from that, the zombies and Lucien's mangled corpse from Oblivion weren't scary, they were disgusting. There's a fine line and I'm quite glad they didn't try too hard to cross it in Skyrim.

So quick answer: it is certainly possible - I mean for all we know the whole dossier could be a fake just waiting for a nosy intruder to pick it up - however I don' t think it very likely, the story told in the dossier just simply makes most sense if you accept it at face value. You could say that, according to the dossier, the Thalmor conditioned Ulfric to really hate them (amongst other things) so they would have one more person of importance who would not like their terms, should the need for a treaty arrise and possibly cause trouble in the future . They wanted to let him go, but simply releasing him might have caused suspicion, so they allowed him to free himself. However, as you said yourself, for your argument it's totally irrelevant whether or not he really escaped.

Thanks for the link, you two. I'll try this the next time I start a new character, it looks like fun. I had seen some left-over CW files in the creation kit before and thought that it's such a waste that they never have been put to use. Bozzz, perhaps it helps with the realism that many Stormcloaks are former Imperial soldiers? I guess they simply didn't give up their training along with their loyalties. I generally agree with you though.

Yes ... I did this once. Even though she has a "Protected" mark on her house, I think. But I thought, "What the heck! As long as I don't get caught, it doesn't matter." (And I totally agree about the sneak-mechanics, DemonicSlayer.) After I had almost all her silverware and about every other item of value in the house in my spacious pockets though, it dawned on me that something was off. By all means I should have had the quest finished after clearing the dining room alone. Figures, that at some point taking things from her home doesn't count as stealing anymore ... I was thoroughly disappointed and didn't know who else to steal the stuff from, because I actually like most of the other NPC in Riften (including the Guild).

I detest her as a person but enjoy her as a character. Whenever I think, that I have seen the worst of her, she manages to surprise me by sinking yet another tiny bit lower on the likeable skale. Apart from this, I don't think the TG are puppets. They are simply trying not to anger their last important client, who has a tendency to be ... a bit dificult to please. Also I think the argument about some people prefering the TG from Skyrim over that from Oblivion (at least the one I read) went into the direction that they prefered the Riften Guild because there is no way to sugar-coat that they are a criminal organization by saying that it's all for a good cause or such. If you want to play a good, lawful character in Skyrim, you have to skip the Thieves Guild. ... Although it is probably debatable whether or not the Guild in Oblivion is so very robin-hoodish.

What you just adressed, Tons, is basically what made me raise an eyebrow when reading the title of this thread. I am slightly dissapointed with certain aspects of the CW and the game in general, yes. For example it would have been nice if winning the war wasn't a foregone conclusion once you picked a side, but you actually had to work for it - just as I would like to have an option to deal with Grelod the Kind "the guild way" if my character is in the Thieves Guild. One of the first things Bryn points out to you is, that the Guild doesn't deal with people by killing them. Unfortunately, there isn't an option to keep this notion up for quests outside of the Thieves Guild context. Slightly frustrating and not very immersive, really. As you said yourself: But why would I be especially disapointed in the Stormcloak questline? It's basically the Imperial questline in blue, after all. After reading the thread's initial post it hit me that the person was disapointed, because he had the impression of having joined the side which was „closer to the bad guys “ with the main focus being – as always in these cases – Ulfric. Now, there is a thing which puzzle me about this: I quite often get the impression, that when people talk about their „characters with a good alignment“ they mean characters who didn't do a wrong thing in their life, wiped out all evil or morally ambiguous people in the game and are basically slightly more violent versions of a children's book version fairy-tale hero. Joining the „wrong“ side (like comming to the conclusion that you only helped an ambitious man while you actually wanted to help a righteous cause), making mistakes in general or even feeling remorse about something (like having to oppose Baalgruuf when joining the Stormcloaks or having to kill that vigilant in Markarth) does appear to contradict the idea of playing a good character. Which is something I absolutely fail to understand. Most of my characters have what would account for a good or neutral disposition by D&D standards, they have their goals and ambitions but they usually keep morals and the well-being of their friends and family (or society in general) in mind when doing stuff. But that doesn't keep them from accidently doing bad things, does it? My thief's first visit to Markarth left him devastated; not only did he feel responsible for the death of Eltrys and no small amount of anguish over that vigilant, he had also experienced how it felt to be on the other side of an intrigue not unlike the ones that the Guild is often helping out with. I thought about how he would react to all this and while I could only realize most of his actions in my head, it ended up being a nice story and helped to actually make my thief a better person in the end. So I really don't have a problem with characters being forced into nasty situations, because I don't think it sullies a good character's intentions if s/he's forced into something or makes a mistake. It simply gives you the opportunity to tell a different story about him/her. It is, after all, the story which makes a hero or a villain and it is in the player's hand to tell his or her character's story. (I still agree with what I quoted above though: a few more options would be nice.) And this is, I assume, where most people's problem with Ulfric comes in. I got the impression that players (myself included) expect all this „honour and glory, rather go down fighting than live a slave, fighting for one's believes and independence“ stuff from the Stormcloaks and naturally expect Ulfric to be a „true Nord hero“. (Keeping in mind what I assumed about the demands on a true hero, this is quite a superhuman image to live up to.) However, the nice twist to Ulfric is, in my eyes, that while he does want to hold up old nordic values and all the other stuff he so eloquently talks about, he is also very aware that a hero (or a great king for that matter) is created through the stories told about him and not (only) through his own deeds. His constant worries about his public image and „what would make a better story“ show this well enough, I think. Ulfric is so good at creating his own legend that even Galmar occaisonally thinks, that he's either overdoing it (that annoyed question if it wouldn't make a better story if the Dragonborn killed Tullius indicates this) or that Ulfric has started to believe in his own stories (which is indicated by the question whether Ulfric is aware that the Moot's decision is a foregone conclusion). That the guy who is either cast as the hero or the villain during a large part of the game and holds up all this „nord nonsense“, turns out to be someone who actually understands that heros are, in the end, only a work of fiction and works with this notion to create himself as a heroic character is such a glorious ending and such a wonderful twist to the Stormcloak questline – how could I possibly be disappointed by that? Now don't get me wrong, while I think that Ulfric is consciously creating a public image for himself, I don't think he is either a liar or simply powerhungry at all. I think he's sort of doing what he considers to be the right thing to do, but does it for personal reasons. (By „personal“ I mean that I don't think he's acting selflessly/ noble/ etc. but am not quite sure whether I want to call him selfish either.) But I think this post has become long enough and I have a couple of things to do before finally replying to Spade's question from Sunday and a couple of other comments ... PS: Ulfric didn't really escape from the Thalmor. The dossier says he was "allowed to escape", meaning he was really released from prison without knowing it - and thus Ulfric and everyone but the Thalmor believe, that he actually escaped.

I would guess that they got a formal execution because first of all, as Dante said, it's simply the way the Legion handles things and secondly; Ulfric surrendered to save his men if I remember it correctly (I think Ralof says this after you escape with him), so simply sticking a sword in him would have been very bad style. - At the end of the CW he didn't surrender, he just simply lost. Apart from getting it over with quickly, executing Ulfric in some petty village in the company of petty criminals might have also been a symbolic decision. By executing Ulfric in the company of petty criminals, Ulfric is degraded to a petty criminal himself. From his rank as Jarl of Windhelm alone you might think he would be entitled to an execution more befitting his rank, with a formal trial and a public execution in Solitude ... or at least a few last words. Instead Tullius treats him like the common scum that was just plucked from the road. That is terribly degrading, especially to a person like Ulfric who appreciates and knows the value of a good story. (Just how far this goes you see once you finish the CW for the Empire and Ulfric's last request is to be killed by the Dragonborn because it would make a better story.) By denying Ulfric a good ending to his story, Tullius might hope to prevent that Ulfric gets turned into a martyr, something he aparently fears at the end of the CW. - So I guess the player-character might simply be the supporting cast in staging Ulfric's execution as unimportantly as possible. I also think Ulfric was supposed to go last, as an additional punishement. This way he had to face directly how his men had to die not for but because of him and additionally he gets a few extra minutes to ponder the end of his ambitions. Another method of making someone die slowly... Concerning Hadvar, I feel it quite easy to go with Dante's interpretation. Hadvar's "Ralof, you damn traitor" sounds to me as if Hadvar felt betrayed on a personal level too, so I always assumed they used to be friends. And apart from what was said before, Hadvar doesn't only seem to feel uncomfortable at the execution, he also expresses his dislike of the torture-room. I assume they made Hadvar a rather nice guy, so you would actually have a reason to go with the Imperial after the dragon-attack. As for Whiterun, I have a bad conscience when conquering it for the Stormcloaks too, but I wonder if this wasn't done to underline how deeply the CW affects the country by showing that it rips friendships (and families) apart. There are several examples amongst the NPC, Ulfric and Rikke being the most touching in my eyes. In Baalgruf you finally have your own former friend on the other side, so you can perhaps relate to how utterly sordid some of the Stormcloaks might feel despite being certain of doing the right thing.

I would go with Lachodin's explanation for why they rushed the executions; Tullius simply didn't want to give Ulfric a chance to get away, so he tried to get it over with in the next best town with a strong Imperial military presence and planned to execute everyone they caught along with the Stormcloaks along with them too. While this is not the topic of this thread, the point about the whole affair which I personally find most curious, is the "crossing the border illegally" bit. Skyrim's border controls seem pretty lax to me: you have Khajiit-carawans travelling the country which nobody likes very much, you have a bunch of dubious warriors from Hammerfell and all sorts of refugees from Morrowind along with the usual traders and adventurers. If Skyrim has some sort of customs facilities, they seem to let just about everybody cross the border, while the real challenge is getting permission to enter one of the cities. Among all these strange characters, not only does the player-character get asked for customs-papers (probably because he simply was in the wrong place at the wrong time) s/he also seems to have felt it necessary to slip past authorities, who let about everyone else pass right through ... so, do we have to assume our characters' portraits adorn a nice "Wanted!" poster somewhere in Cyrodiil or Morrowind?

Smith, as you noticed, I didn't try to contradict anything. As I wrote above, I am not peculiarly interested in who is right and who is wrong or whose argument is weaker. To put it more bluntly: I find this question utterly tedious and rather boring. What interests me is who believes what and why. My point was that there seem to be two contradicting views in Skyrim, some folks who claim Skyrim is men's homeland and some who claim that the Nords are invaders - which are very much ingame opinions that contradict and conflict with each other. I was just trying to fit both of them together in a larger picture. (I can also assure you that your example with the house gets a whole lot more difficult if property isn't sold, but lost to the previous owners due to other circumstances.) And again my point never was that one opinion is better than the other, because I don't really care. Both opinions exist and there are people who believe in them and probably won't change their minds. Thanks to Sajuukkhar's latest link I now have a better understanding of who holds on to the Atmora-story and who might disagree with it. Just because you wish for someone to build up a counter-argument or ask for plenty of links, that doesn't mean every answer to the thread feels the necessity to comply with your request. Oh and Spades, thank you for being considerate of mine and other people's tender feelings *coughs* I guess I am just not used to a forum where people manage to get emotional without getting insulting shortly after, so bear with me. :blush:

I guess the problem here is that there aren't books which directly contradict the quotes given above, but that some people simply start the story of how the Nords came to Skyrim at a later date. The story the Pocketguide tells says that humans originate from the throat of the world, went to Atmora and returned after a war broke out in Atmora. Other sources - "Before the Ages of Men" or Tolfdir, when you chat with him during the Saarthal quest, for example - simply leave out the first bit and start the story by saying that the Nords originated from Atmora. Which of both versions you prefer probably depends on your position within the game-world; would you rather take the stance of those Nords, who argue that Skyrim is their rightful homeland or that of the other side who argue that the Nords simply invaded it at some point. - At least that's how the situation presents itself to me at the moment. (Again I am sorry for not providing links or quotes. I am currently typing on an e-reader and copy&pasting is a pain on this thing. )

Guys.... I enjoyed reading this thread so far, but at the moment it is taking this rather unpleasant turn towards "being right about what really happend" and, as Lachdonin and Bloodrend pointed out before, that doesn't really make sense for a game-world (if it makes sense at all). All the ingame sources are to some extent imperfect, because they are at best the opinions of someone (a book's author for example). More often than not though, they are the opinions someone has on someone else's opinion (like basically all books by imperial scolars about the provinces), attempts to shape the readers opinion on a subject ( The Bear of Markarth and The Dunmer of Skyrim come to mind) or historcal fiction (like "The Poison Songs") - amongst other types of writing. These sources are great material if you want to create a RPG character, but they are poor material if you wish to embark on a battle about what really happened - because the authors of the sources themselves blunder in the dark. It is way more rewarding and much more fun, in my opinion, to try figuring what different theories about what might have happened exist than trying to find the one truth of what really happened. So I can fully understand if Fifteenspades is doubtful about the above mentioned books because they appear to be Nord-biased, at the same time I agree that this not necessarily makes them wrong; they represent a certain view of the world, a facet of reality if you wish. Apart from that I feel compelled to nit-pick; "Children of the Sky" doesn't necessarily convey a Nord perspective on the matter but some (probaly imperial) scholar's view of the Nords' view of the matter. They don't have to match eachother.

Please don't get me wrong, that wasn't meant to be a reprimand at all, but simply an explanation for why I gave you an incomplete answer to your question. Neither do I think you went off topic as far as the discussion goes. It's just that I assume that people who read this topic know they are in for spoilers abou the daedric quests and possibly the tg and the db, they still might have the cw a head of them though and I didn't want to ruin it for anyone, who prefers to find out this type of thing on their own. So no offense taken or meant. ( and this reply was totally ot but I rather clear up misunderstandings in the threads where they occur than in pns)

How? Did you do this with or without a mod and or console command? You can do it without mods or consol (I can't get the spoiler tags to work atm and as it's not the topic of the thread I wouldn't want to spoil the option for player who like to figure it out themselves - you can look it up in the uesp though). The ck suggests that originally several other options to switch sides were considered but didn't make it into the final game - I guess because the CW already is rather complex as it is.

I see what you mean about Molag Bal. I hadn't thought about it that way and I have to agree that forcing the character in a situation where s/he has no choice but to submit to Molag Bal's will is fitting for the quest. However I, as a player, would still like to be given options of dealing with the situation even if I don't get a real choice - they don't even have to be successful, they just have to exist. For example I would have less of a problem with the Molag Bal quest, if he started to mock me shamelessly and with ascending spitefulness every time I tried to calm-spell the Vigilant or broke a lock-pick on the door. It's not that I eventually have to do what Molag Bal wants, which makes the quest so frustrating for me, it's that I have ideas how to deal with the situation and can't even put the most obvious ones into action or they have no effect in the game whatsoever. Additionally I think it would have gotten the point that Molag Bal breaks your character's will across much better, if you actually could try out some options to get out of the house without killing the Vigilant but none of them worked. In this regard, I think Hircine's quest is my favorite daedric quest in the game. You can keep up a heroic "I will defy you evil spirit" act during the whole quest and in the end, he just laughs at you because in your attempt to defy him, you just gave him what he wanted from the start.