-
Posts
32 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Archone
-
I used to be able to load the game, but then it got to where it would load - and then crash after I selected New or Continue. Upon investigating I learned that the person who was paid good money to assemble my computer apparently took the opportunity to emphasize just what sort of work ethic he has... he basically gave me a motherboard with an AMD processor with a mediocre integrated graphics card: AMD A10-7700K APU with Radeon R7 Graphics And now Fallout 4 won't even bother with a mere 1 GB of dedicated RAM for graphics. So! I have now installed my new video card, a Geforce GTX 960 SSC. Drivers updated, etc... the game still crashes when I click New or Continue. I checked on how to disable the integrated graphics in the bios. The problem continues to persist. I have tried using the NVIDIA control panel to require the game to use the new card and not the integrated graphics... and that option does not appear to be available; the little option to pick which graphical device is not there. I am genuinely at a loss and could really, really use some help. EDIT: I FINALLY fixed it! Please pin this, or otherwise save it so everyone will know. I fixed the problem by deleting all my old saves. The first time I played through I used a "vanilla" game with no mods. Then I tried playing it with mods galore, including a few that apparently screwed things up. So if anyone else starts having this problem, delete your old saves (also, make backups of your saves before trying new mods, or before deleting your backed up saves one by one if you're desperate to keep at least some of your old playthrough functioning).
-
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Um... as an actual Jew, I'd like to point out something... ...Godwin's law was invoked quite a few posts ago. Shouldn't this discussion be closed now? -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
They're being slung at a virtual character, whereas your accusations of hidden agendas and whatnot are at real people. The former is not a fallacy, and wouldn't be so anyway as long as the ARE supported (sometimes people really are racist, and it's not just slung as a slur), while the latter is a textbook fallacy. Especially if you're aware that supporting a position requires reason and logic, please do use those, not speculations about other people's motives, emotions or whatever failures about them you can imagine. Actually, I do have to disagree with you there, Moraelin. I've been slinging the accusations at a real person - at Mac, when I charged him to (among other things) provide sources for his assorted claims. And again, Mac - can you provide any evidence for any of this? One link? One citation for people to look up? I'm starting to regret wishing I'd goaded you. You're making the Stormcloak side look terrible on the basis that you support it, when my own position was always "both sides have legitimate grievances and genuine flaws." -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Oh, that's adorable. The self described "old man" is addressing a thirty three year old adult as a teenager, trying to be condescending and once again showing a blissful ignorance of... everything. Okay, let me turn that around. I'm using the words "you" and quoting the post that "you" made. Is this directly associated with you, or is it an open comment to a generalized "you?" Let me check the online dictionary that pretty much every english speaker uses... http://dictionary.reference.com/ ...nope. I don't see an "Archone" anywhere. But I know that doesn't matter, because at this point you are everything you accuse those who disagree with you of being. See... that's the thing. You've made accusations against me. I have requested you provide factual evidence to support your accusations. At this point you now have a multitude of "charges" you have levelled against me. One: that I'm okay with the Thalmor. Two, that I've been part of any anti-Zimmerman mobs (and once again you've introduced RL politics into a discussion of one of the subplots of a video game). Three: that I'm pro-Imperial and anti-Stormcloak. Four: that I (and everyone else on this forum) invariably play the Dovahkin as a sociopathic monster. Five: that I don't provide facts, links, and evidence. You have lain a number of "charges" against me in the same manner that you accuse others of laying charges against Ulfric, and you are refusing to provide any evidence, any proof, any facts beyond this "hearsay" you keep repeating over and over. You are literally everything you accuse others of being. And... I'm actually encouraging you to continue in this. Partially because I have little expectation that you will acknowledge you are being an arrogant and condescending person whose elitist sermonizing is only emphasizing your ignorance and lack of debate skills (and as such, it is nigh impossible to dissuade you at this time). And partially because every post you make actually undermines your own position; the majority of people following this thread are being conditioned against Ulfric in no small part because they're coming to associate thoughts of supporting Ulfric with... you. You and your continual insults and put downs to the entire forum as if you were the one moral individual on the internet. And now I sit back to await another chuckle, paternalistic sigh, and vocalized thought about when all the fools around you will wake up and realize the truth of your beliefs and accept them without argument. (And of course actual questions and factually supported opinions by pretty much everyone else, such as Brett, Warden, Frosty, etc...) -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
I agree with that, but not in the way that you imply it. There's the quest to obtain the Mace of Molag Bal, where you have to murder someone not once, but three times. There's the Thieves' guild intro quest that has you frame an honest merchant just because he's questioning the quality of the "snake oil" salesman who gives you the quest. There's also the shades of gray, as it were. The Stormcloaks fight for religious freedom. The Imperials fight for the stability of the Empire. Of course they set up a test of character. You get to play the sort of character you wish to play as. As heroic or vile as you choose to be. I know that there are some players who don't even bother with quests and instead focus on robbing and stealing from...everybody. (Actual quote from a friend: "Two guys were fighting in the Companion Hall when I walked in, so I hit one with my dagger... and for some reason everyone else got mad at me! So I had to kill em all. Should I start a new character?") How determinedly do we cling to our preconceived notions regarding the subject of our fanboy crushes? You've been shown verifiable evidence repeatedly throughout this thread. I'm actually thinking of an episode of "the Boondocks," at this point, and the little boy convinced his favorite pop star should be found not guilty of urinating on an underaged girl despite the videotaped recording signed by the pop star, and the girl in question bragging about being the man's urinal. We've provided links to websites showing the lore, quotes from numerous characters ingame, and references to examples from our own world, as well as from previous games in the series. You've yet to provide any of that. Nor have you answered the previous challenges from post #382: Bear in mind that if you can't provide an example of the second, you will be shown as having engaged in the very same behavior you claim to lament: accusation and condemnation without trail, without verifiable evidence. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Ah... yeah. I'm on my second playthrough now. The first playthrough had the Dovahkin kill people mainly because they were trying to kill her (or because Ulfric told her to), killed the old woman who was abusing the orphans so badly that upon her death the children gathered around her corpse to dance and sing, never stole from anyone, and did a lot of trading in the enchanted arms and potions she crafted. This playthrough has a Dovahkin who kills people because they're trying to kill him (or because his superiors in the legion ordered him to), is presently debating whether or not to kill the vile old woman as well as whether or not to do the thieves guild stuff (I'm leaning towards making that another playthrough and letting Nelrim focus on cleaning up Riften), and is heavily invested in Skyrim's economy and hailed as a friend by the merchants he's gone into business with. Perhaps you should stop projecting imagined faults onto the rest of us? -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
There IS a distinction between lore and gameplay, and gameplay can be under restrictions that do not exist in lore. This is an uncomfortable fact because it does lead to arguments over whether someone is arbitrarily picking and choosing, but it is a fact nonetheless. In lore, the thu'um IS that powerful. We are told so over and over again, and we are shown some of it. We are told that most of the Greybeards do not speak because their merest whisper could kill someone, yet the dovahkiin -- with a thu'um supposedly more powerful than Alduin's -- can do no such thing in gameplay. We see the earth shake when they welcome the dovahkiin and when Einar chastises Arngeir for refusing to help us get to Paarthurnax, yet they are just speaking ordinary sentences, not using phrases that have been defined as Shouts for gameplay purposes. We are told the ancient Nords had both battle mages and Tongues, and it is the Tongues that were called when an army needed to breach a fortress. Why, if the battle mages were more powerful? In lore, it is established that the Tongues had more power, yet this is obviously not true in gameplay. A young Voice Master brought down the main gate of Forelhost in lore, but our character can't even blow the door off a busted wardrobe in gameplay. I could cite more examples, but I think I've made the point. There is a major difference between the lore and the gameplay where the Voice is concerned, and only one of the two can be regarded as canonical. I pick the lore. I'm only responding to Brett, because he's the only one who's said anything worth responding to. You... make a very compelling argument. The Dovahkin naturally picks up in a few short days what the Greybeards spend years training to do. It's quite possible that the Greybeards are far more capable with the Thu'um than the Dovahkin himself. I'm thinking that a mod that eliminated the recharge time for Shouts would be a huge upgrade by itself (like Destruction spells that need no magicka). Throw in an actual upgrade in the power levels consistant with the "Blackbolt mute" deal, and I can see the Greybeards being capable of Fus-Rah-Do-ing even a giant clear across the border into Hammerfell. I'm going to have to concede that the Thu'um is likely a lot more powerful in the hands of the people trained to use it. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
And there were no rules for the Norse on how you fought or what you fought with (every weapon available to the Norse was available in a duel). And it is in all likelihood the same with Nords. Every weapon available to them that was acceptable in their culture would have been available in a duel. And that included the Thu'um, as back in the time when High Kings were regularly challenged like this, the Thu'um was as much an everyday weapon as the sword or the axe. Actually, there were still rules. If you don't like the way the word "duel" is being thrown about, how about the word "holmgang?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmgang In EVERY culture to have anything remotely like the concept of a formalized duel, there are rules and restrictions. Among these: one on one, with other participants employed solely to ensure fair adherence to the rules. Equality of weaponry, that neither side may be seen as having an unfair advantage. Restrictions regarding certain techniques and moves, mostly of a "no bringing secret weapons or having your friends jump them" variety. And of course these duels were generally a public affair, a spectator event. And I'll say it anyway. A reference to "DOV...AH... KIN!" and all the guards of Windhelm immediately gasping, "the Greybeards! The Greybeard are calling!" and the Jarl of Windhelm telling you, "the Greybeards have summoned you! That is quite an honor!" and reminiscing about making the pilgrimage up the steps. And of course getting near to the place and finding that there's an entire town at the base that exists solely to support the temple near the summit. Secluded? Yes. Unknown? Hardly - this is the Nordic "Shaolin temple." If previous posts are anything to go on, then this is the part where I challenge you to provide links and citations to support your claim, and you respond with evasions and snide remarks and think that you've actually scored a point. Okay. Tell me what exactly is hurting the Greybeards by Ulfric using the Thu'um? Are their feelings hurt? Do they want to cut themselves now in an emo-fit? Good question. If I used communion wafers to make breadcrumbs for a recipe of cheese stuffed pork chops served on a copy of the Koran and accompanied by a glass of Manischevitz and then serve it at a public event on national television, what exactly about that "hurts" the Catholics, Muslims, and Jews? Or would a better word be "offended?" Now tell me how I was referring to you. Because it was a direct response to my statement "by going it alone. You form an alliance and you stomp them and then you notice that historical enemies are suddenly contemplating cooperative engineering and economic projects." Post #449, quoting post #448. Not really. Nothing seen in any of the games actually conflict with any of the lore. Because those Bosmer don't agree with them. There's a big difference between not agreeing with how the government is and not agreeing that one race is superior to the other, and thats what the purges are about. The purges are political, not racial. And what sources or citations do you have to support that claim? Except they don't. The reason no one uses it is because no one can learn it without agreeing to some irrationally pacifist philosophy and giving up their normal lives to live as hermits on top of a mountain. Bear in mind...the Thu'um isn't THAT powerful. You're learning how to speak in the Dragonic language, and that lets you "speak" magic. But a Thu'um isn't going to do nearly as much damage as an Expert Destruction spell. The reason no one has tried to learn the Thu'um for combat purposes in the past is because it's like bringing a Sikh dagger to a knifefight instead of a Fairbarn-Sykes or Bowie knife. It's not the most effective method, and it's going to offend the people who give it a symbolic and religious value. I should note: you're really making the Stormcloak side look bad with your arguments. Your position at this point can basically be summed up as, "piss on anyone who thinks that honor, rules of conduct, and general etiquette are important. You think Ulfric offended some people? Let me mock the very same idea of outrage over religious issues that Ulfric cites to support his rebellion. Either you're willing to murder and maim not only the other side, but innocent bystanders, or you're just an emo-git because you're not sufficiently sociopathic." Frankly, I think more highly of Ulfric than you seem to. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
I'm probably going to draw immediate cries of "internet tough guy" or "liar" or whatnot (even though I'll post some pics from the last match http://imgur.com/m4GY8 http://imgur.com/jrUcJ http://imgur.com/fVpJl . I was the shorter one), but... I'm a kickboxer. And I also know how to defend myself in a real fight...and the two are not the same. In a real fight I can (and have) used the environment as a weapon, used my teeth as a weapon, and done whatever I had to. In the ring... I strut in, wiggle my hips, show off for the crowd, then restrict myself to the padded gloves not only laced but also taped onto my hands, the other legally permitted weapons on my body. There is a referee wearing medical latex gloves who is constantly jumping in to break us up to put a stop to deadlocks and keep things exciting and relatively safe (and they get knocked around a bit by flailing limbs. I've got a lot of respect for those guys). The use of the Thu'um was frowned upon by all sides in this conflict. The Stormcloaks tried to rationalize its use. Ulfric himself insisted he used his sword to strike the deathblow, not his voice. The Empire says "you don't use a powerful gift taught to you by a peaceful monastic order to kill someone." Everyone else just says, "cheating!" It's just like if a boxer were to step into the ring with some metal hidden in his glove. Boxers can and do get disqualified for that sort of thing, because it is... cheating. Dueling is applying the rules of sport to a conflict. When you break the rules, you muddy the decision. You can bite someone's ear in self defense, but not in the ring. The Way of the Voice is the ONLY way for anyone to learn to use a Thu'um, aside from being the Dovahkin. Whether or not the philosophy is rational or whatnot is less important than the fact that they taught Ulfric something which was sacred to them, and Ulfric misused it in their eyes. It would be like a pop musician taking Gregorian chants and creating a remix for a video involving scantily clad dancing girls. Is it illegal? No. Are there people who are going to admire it? Probably. Is it going to offend the originators of the vocalizations in question? Most certainly. Cute. Now copy/paste wherever I said that you said that. "Denying it is denying the reality of the situation for no other reason than to cling to the idea that EMPIRE GOOD. EEMPIRE BIG, BIG IS GOOD HURRP DURRP." Posted Yesterday, 04:12 PM. Yes - like the cutscenes, the lore, and the dialogue. Translation: if it's part of the gameplay, it's probably canonical. Otherwise you're attempting to pick and choose what's valid and what's not based solely on what supports your opinions. You might want to read up in the thread. Not only did I not say I dislike the Stormcloaks, but I also mentioned that I'm Jewish. People fighting for their religious freedom in the face of oppression by social darwinists are automatically going to appeal to me. I simply feel that both sides have.... and here I repeat myself yet again. "Both sides make valid points." The only ones that are undeniably and unrepentantly vile and evil are the Thalmor, and Alduin. Not going to happen. It's been happening already. They already started with the Bosmer in Valenwood. Delphine (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Thalmor_Dossier:_Delphine ) explicitly states that the purges have already begun. (Please, no jumping on me for the pics. That would simply be rude and childish. And yes, I did strut my hips and dance into the ring. It's a show - we're there to entertain the crowd, after all) -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
I can agree with that point, yes. What we do know is that Torygg did in fact admire Ulfric, that a lot of people disapproved of Ulfric killing Torygg (including those who might have allied with Ulfric had he not done so), and that the Thu'um is considered "cheating" as the Greybeards emphasized: the Thu'um is not to be used in battle (the Dovahkin being an exception because he's saving Skyrim, not conquering it). And? And therefore the bias is in favor of the ancient tradition of duels consisting of "tell them why you're mad, and then chop off their head without further adu." It's not like the Argonian Account, where the Imperial author shows a disdain for the Khajiit attackers. This is a book saying "this is what was done - and I approve." No, its not the same Empire. Yes, it is. They have not fallen and then reformed. This is not like how the Aldmeri Dominion is a different Dominion than the original enslavers of Tamriel's humanity. It's the same Empire, but one that was attacked by an outside force and forced into a humiliating treaty. There was no time span between the collapse of the Empire that gave us Uriel Septim, and the rise of the Empire seen in Skyrim. It is the same Empire. Only the circumstances and their status as the greatest power of the continent have changed. Not realy. The Altmer, Bosmer, and Dunmer always had a bit of a "sibling rivalry" thing going on, even back in Uriel Septim's day. Pretty soon the disagreements are going to involve things like "failure to agree that Altmer are superior to Bosmer and Dunmer," and "failure to agree that Bosmer and Dunmer need to recognize their natural place as subordinate to the Master Race descended from the gods themselves." Except they wouldn't because its the total opposite. The different races all had their own technological innovations independent from the help of any of the previous Empires. The Empires have only ever served the capacity of uniting Tamriel. It was never a case of one country annexing another and introducing fire. Never said it was. I said it was a case of one country introducing the concept of working together, and as a result they got to enjoy the benefits of Orc warriors and smiths in the legion... Breton battlemages and healers... Nord berserkers in the legion... Bosmer archers... The Empire became big in the first place because they were uniting with others through treaties and alliances, not because the emperors were crushing people beneath their heels. That's why Morrowind still had slaves in the time of the Nevarine - the Empire frowned on slavery elsewhere, but Morrowind wasn't a conquered territory, but rather a province through treaty and mutual respect. Considering you fail to understand where he emphasized the importance of letting your enemy do the work for you (one unit of your enemy's provisions is equal to ten of your own, etc), I'd say you need to read him again. With the exception of Arena, all the game champions were indeed able to become MOATs. In Oblivion you could gain 100s in every skill and (with clever choices and min/maxing) max out your stats. And that's in addition to the use of Restoration and Alchemy. A few seperate spells for cumulative "Fortify Intelligence" and "Fortify Magicka" effects, and then you could fortify... whatever. Strength. Acrobatics. And that's not even touching on the effectivenes of cumulative stacking "weakness to X" effects. Unless it was a book about a Mary Sue. Let us all give thanks that Bethesda has never caused vampires to sparkle in the daylight. What mercy? The Dominion made a surprise attack on the Imperial city, slaughtered a bunch of people, and forced a humiliating treaty upon the Emperor. Since then the Empire's wealthier sort have rationalized going along with what's been happening, and now the Nords (and Redguards, and presumably other provinces as well) have decided enough is enough. Cute. Now copy/paste wherever I said that EMPIRE GOOD, or anything other than "both sides make valid points." And no "fixing" them when you do. Then why ARE they fighting? Most of them are fighting because Ulfric leads them. Because he IS a charismatic leader. The Legion lacks that sort of leader. General Tullius isn't fighting with nearly the same passion because for him, this is just a job. He serves the Empire. Whatever he does, he does it for the Empire. He wasn't born in Skyrim. He probably has spent much of his Legion career in other provinces. For him, this is just a job. If you want to insist on casting Ulfric in the heroic light, you might compare him to the protagonist from "the Fugitive." For Ulfric, the cause is everything. For Tullius, it's just one more challenger to the laws he swore to uphold. (I find Legate Rikke to be a more interested character anyway. Which also emphasizes the differance; the Stormcloak lieutenants are less memorable because Ulfric overshadows them with his charismatic presence) -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
You are greatly exaggerating Torygg's apparent admiration for Ulfric, as well as making a rather large assumption as to how the duel actually went from start to finish. Fact of the matter is, only the very end of the duel was witnessed by the others. Everything else leading up to the end was only between the two combatants. So you can't sit there and portray Ulfric as just stumbling in like some violent, unpredictable gorilla that comically smashed Torygg into the ground with a club. Okay, I think I see the problem here. It's been implied that we're projecting our expectations onto Tamriel's landscape. Well, I think you're doing it now. We're all saying "duel," but that doesn't mean we're talking about a formal European style affair, with seconds and a choice of weapons and whatnot. The only examples we've seen of duels in TES are fairly immediate and brutal affairs. In a number of incidents in the games, the PC may be challenged by duelists - and the result is an immediate battle with the foe. I'm tempted to cite the examples in Skyrim of mages walking up to the Dovakhin in town and challenging him to duels... but I'm honestly uncertain as to whether that's canon or one of the mods I've installed. Yes, but you also have to see past the inherent bias and recognize what degree of accuracy the source you're looking at will actually have. Only then can you really see what really happened, as otherwise you're muddying whatever truth exists. The book I was quoting was very pro-Nord, praising the king who chopped off his brother's head as a liberator for his kingdom. An evil Battlemage taking over doesn't turn the Empire evil. It may pit them as antagonists but that doens't make them evil. The army isn't evil just because its following its general's orders to be as such. I didn't say the soldiers were evil - but you weren't going anywhere near the imperial city until you had all the pieces of that staff. Fix'd. No, twisted. It IS the same empire - but an empire that's been attacked, beaten, and humiliated. It's an empire that wants to do good, but is under pressure by a very vile foe. No, the Thalmer are focused on humanity first because manking is their "ancient foe" by virtue of having fought and won their freedom and refusing to know their place as good little slaves. Do you really think a race that will wipe out 80% of the sapients on the continent is going to stop and say, "naw, we don't need to kill the rest?" They've already genocided the Bosmer in Valenwood. To put this in perspective: in Arena, Orcs were NOT a playable race, but another species of NPC combatant. Argonians, Bosmer... these guys travel across the Empire for a reason, because it benefits them. The Khajit caravans know full well that the Empire is the best thing that ever happened to them. Legate Rikke makes it clear - she's a Daughter of Skyrim, a Nord, AND a loyal Imperial subject. For most of the citizens of the Empire, they'd argue this: People also don't really talk to you much unless they give out a quest in Skyrim. In prior games it was random gossip for most NPCs. Now it's just a random selection of one liners. It's a game mechanic change, really. Read my previous posts. I'm not explaining why this is wrong again. Read Sun Tzu. I'll let him explain it to you. All right, let me try it more bluntly. The Dovakhin doesn't need the Thuum to be walking death. The Dovakhin is going to have a combination of spells, stealth, archery, one handed and/or two handed weapons, as well as magical armor and equipment, until he can take down Alduin. Anyone who can take down Alduin is not going to be impressed by mundane warriors. It'd be easier if you just admit that you just don't like the Stormcloaks rather than trying to make it sound like you have an objective point to make. It'd be easier if you would look at my previous posts where I make it clear that both sides have both pros and cons. I never said I disliked the Stormcloaks, I specifically said that they had genuine grievances but were seeking redress in an ill chosen manner. I said the Thalmer were "nazi elves" (And I highly doubt anyone here ever didn't already come to a similar conclusion long before they started posting here), and you don't beat nazis - elven or otherwise - by going it alone. You form an alliance and you stomp them and then you notice that historical enemies are suddenly contemplating cooperative engineering and economic projects. Stormcloaks are not bad. Stormcloaks are just angry. And not listening to clearer heads. Which is a shame - even a lot of Ulfric's enemies are quick to point out that he was a good man and a champion of the Empire, before the rebellion. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Not...really. The Thalmer are pretty nasty - and they're pretty blatant about it. The weaker the Empire gets, the nastier they'll become. They're fairly open about their plans to eventually reenslave humanity, the way the ancient Aldmeri Dominion once did (way way back when. When Talos became a god by... defeating the Aldmer). Not to mention that religion... in our world we get pretty sensitive about religious freedoms. But in Tamriel, religion isn't just philosophy and morality and rituals. To quote Terry Pratchet, "it's tough to be an atheist in a world where the gods exist and throw stones through the windows of the houses of atheists." Pray at a shrine of Talos and you're reminded that he's still very much a deity. Yes. Ulfric's an idealist who makes a lot of mistakes. If the Dovahkin doesn't side with him, he's unlikely to last long. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
I accept your apology in spite of the condescending tone and failure to provide any links, quotes, or facts to maintain your defensive barriers. I will concede that Ulfric definitely screwed up by not getting more people on his side with a platform of "let's kill Thalmer." Let's face it, that's like offering water to people in the desert and alienating potential customers because of your sales pitch. Though in the case of the initial missions, he doesn'really send you there because you're a non-Nord, he sends you because you're the new guy and they don't know what you can do. In fact, the Legion gives you a similar starting mission. If you return, they express surprised delight and let you continue to work for them despite not being a part of their official military with its rigid heirarchy. The Stormcloaks are simply more informal about it. "Let's send the new guy. The new guy came back alive? Awesome. Let's send the new guy out again. Another success? Damn... I'm LIKING the new guy." Even Ulfric's racist advisor starts addressing you as a friend by the time you're leading the charge against Imperial camps. Doubtful. You spun it as a slight against Ulfric, hence me asking why it was a problem. I apologize if it came across that way. Accepting Ulfric's challenge was the only thing really worthy that Torygg did, but thats only because he accepted a duel he was clearly couldn't win. But as I've already explained, he was still stupid for doing it. Like I said, there's two possibilities. Either Torygg accepted the duel because this was his hero and he felt hurt and humiliated by the challenge, or it was a traditional traditional duel and the challenge was "you're a bad king," while openly brandishing an axe and waiting for Torygg to get up and draw his weapon on the spot before the "Fus-rah-do"ing and the killing blow. I've never taken Ulfric's word for anything, so I don't see your point here. Yes, but as Macsuibhne said (even if he doesn't provide any actual examples), you have to go with what's actually stated by the characters and what's written in the books... or else it really is just conjecture and speculation. We might as well claim that the Supermutants from the Fallout setting are secretly manipulating the Thalmer, or that the Daedra lords are actually from Star Trek's Q continuum, or something like that. I think it's best if we take Ulfric's words, as well as Elisif's, at face value. I mean, even the Thalmer don't lie about their intentions and motives (mainly because they don't have enough respect for humans to give them even a veneer of courtesy). You probably ought to read up earlier in the thread, where I stated that I've played almost all of the TES games, starting with Arena (which I beat with an Argonian Spellsword, because Arena predated the custom classes and Skyrim's the first one to do away with classes entirely). I started with the Empire being a combination of evil (on account of Jagar Tharn having usurped the Emperor) as well as the best hope for peace in the world (because Tamriel is a pretty rough place to live in). Then I was an agent of the emperor sent to Daggerfall. Then I was a prisoner, a criminal, sent to Morrowind to serve my sentence by performing community service (i.e. helping the Blades and eventually becoming the Nevarine - though of course they didn't know that would happen when they started sending me on assignments). Then I was the criminal who took up a weapon to aid the fleeing Emperor and watched him die, before devoting myself to finding, protecting, and serving his heir and saving the Empire. Now we fast forward a few centuries (which was a shock in itself, when all the prior games took place during or shortly after the reign of Uriel Septim IV), and the Empire is dominated by a bunch of nazi elves. The rebellion thing... personally, I thought, "what's going on? Who is rebelling, and why?" Actually, popularity with other races would have been a sound strategic move. Insisting on tolerance towards the Dunmer and other races would result in having those races being more willing to fight alongside the Thalmer. By contrast, the Legion isn't just Imperials. There are a LOT of Orcs on the empire's side, and have been for centuries. And Orcs, Redguards, and Nords are the three primary "big tough fighter" races. (And Hammerfell is still fighting the Thalmer, so there's one more example of how working together would achieve the optimal goal of... defeating the Thalmer) Oh yes, I remember the Ordinators. Though I always thought it was more because they were extremely aggressive cops who felt that way towards anyone who wasn't on "the force." Some cops have a regretable tendancy of treating civilians that way. "You're not a cop, therefore you're a suspect. Even if we don't know about any crimes... yet." Though most of the Dunmer in Skyrim seem to have left all that behind. They're still pretty arrogant - but at least they're not like House Telvanni used to be. I've yet to meet a Dunmer female in Skyrim who reacted increasingly negatively to me with every conversation purely on account of my character not being a dunmer female. Which emphasizes why Ulfric is actually hurting his own cause, here. "Never do for yourself what you can get your enemy to do for you." He's hurting the Empire - which makes it easier for the Thalmer to further dominate everyone. Hence the Thalmer note about Ulfric actually being a double agent working for them. Which I still assert to be their attempt to take credit for something they had nothing to do with. Ulfric is a well intentioned extremist, who fights "so that all the fighting I've already done isn't for nothing." ...actually, I'm considering making a character whose main strength is the Thu'um. Because up to this point I've made characters who were basically walking death even without the Thu'um. The Stormcloaks had a female Orc who wore heavy armor she smithed and enchanted herself, carried an axe (edit: WARHAMMER, sorry) that could kill any dragon in two hits, and generally killed any humanoid with one hit. The Imperial run through is with a male Breton whose magical abilities means that he lays waste to entire hordes with his lightning spells. Then I'll try my "peacemaker" runthrough with the Redguard "paladin" who uses lots Blocking and a weapon and shield style. Let's face it, the PC in any TES game is going to become something nigh unstoppable, whether it's a Dovahkin whom dragons know to fear, or a Blade who charges into Oblivion gates and butchers every Daedric warrior between him and the top of the tower, or a Nevarine becoming a new messiah and taking on false gods... even in Arena, once I had gathered enough artifacts and spells and quested for the Oghma Infinium a few times, I got to the point where Jagar Tharn was annoying rather than dangerous. Freyrgjurd, I highly encourage you to try some of the older games. They're all very... ambitious. And they give you a greater appreciation for what was achieved with Skyrim. Every TES game is full of bugs and issues - because they're always reaching for the stars. You have to admire Bethesda for that. Besides, older games tend to be very cheap, and a lot of fun. :) -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
And this is a problem, how? And honestly, he chooses the Empire not only because he was backed into a corner, but also because he was likely to align with the Imperials anyway. I may not remember all of the dialogue, but from what I do remember nothing ever indicated that Balgruff would have taken the side of the Stormcloaks. That's... actually what I meant. It's not a problem. He chose out of pragmaticism and logic. The strategic merits may be debatable. Ulfric's greatest asset is his popularity with others. Here is a guy willing to actually tell the Thalmer where to stick their "Eight Divines," and even punctuate it with a weapon. That's actually what really wins it for him, if the Dovahkin sides with the Stormcloaks: the fact that he was able to attract people like...the Dovahkin (also known as "walking engine of unstoppable slaughter, who terrifies dragons"). And we're supposed to take her word for it? Without even considering the fact that she would have a vested interest in portraying Ulfric as an evil bastard regardless of whether there's truth behind it or not? And even if we presume Torygg would have done that, its still rather terrible. As I've said before, a High-King doesn't wait on the whims of some Jarl's son. He makes up his own damn mind like a man. No, Lex Luthor stealing forty cakes is terrible. Torygg was a young king, nothing more. Not a bootlicker, not a spineless toad. He DID accept Ulfric's challenge, after all (unless this is like the TRADITIONAL sort of Nord duel referenced in one of the books from Oblivion, where you walk up to the other guy, say, "thou art no brother of mine," and chop his head off before he can blink). He wasn't waiting on anyone's whims. He heard "that guy you hero worship is here to see you" and eagerly invited him in to talk. And yes, we are supposed to take Elisif's word for it. If we're to take Ulfric's word for the things he claims, then we can surely extend the same courtesy to Elisif. Otherwise the theory that Ulfric is actually a secret Thalmer double agent becomes a lot more plausible -- and I for one would rather treat the character with more respect than that. Propaganda machine? When you start the game you're on a cart waiting to be executed by the Empire because of a glitch in paperwork. One of the two people who saves you is a Stormcloak and you walk out of there with the impression that you're now already a fugitive from justice in the eyes of the Empire. And the first of the two sides you get a mission to go join up with is the Stormcloaks. When I first started playing with my first character I didn't know joining the Empire was even an option! And every time I start a new character and am reminded that I'm about to have my head chopped off just because I rode in a cart with a guy who I never met and whom we know nothing about, I feel the urge to kill a few Imperials (especially the torturer and his assistant. They NEVER live when I start a new playthrough :P ). Mac... I'm accusing you of trolling at this point. You've insulted everyone here with your posts. You've repeatedly failed to answer my challenge to either show Ulfric denouncing the racism of his supporters, or to showcase where I ever said I was fine with anything the Thalmer have done. You have repeatedly used the word "hearsay" and repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of the definition of that word (insert Inigo Montoya quote: "Why do you keep using that word? I do not think that word thinks what you think it means."). And you have repeatedly made it clear that you idolize Ulfric, that he can do no wrong -- and that the only thing worse in your eyes than claiming that Ulfric is a bad guy is claiming that Ulfric is a nuanced and complex character with strengths as well as flaws. You're using the wrong homophone here. I believe the word you're actually meaning to use is "heresy." -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
I should like to note that I just finished the part in the Imperial side of the civil war story arc where the Dovakhin must help defend Whiterun along with the Empire. And... one: the Jarl is NOT happy about being pushed into a corner like this. He finally chooses to side with the Empire largely because Ulfric literally gave him no alternative. Two: Ulfric makes a point of using fire in his catapults. He's not trying to batter down the walls; he wants the fortifications left intact even as he uses fire on a civilian population. This further disenchants the Nords with him, even those who had sympathized with him prior to his raining fire down on their heads and the heads of their friends and relatives and neighbors. Three: it's neither sophistry nor false to claim that Torygg would have listened to Ulfric had Ulfric used words other than "fus-rah-do." Elsif specifically states, "my husband idolized Ulfric. He would probably have joined Ulfric's cause had Ulfric come to talk, not fight." -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Yes, that's something I have noted previously. Ulfric was more than that, in fact. He was a war hero, a living legend in Skyrim even before the civil war began. Torygg idolized him. Ulfric is a combination of practical, idealistic, and... ruthless, yes. That's one of my main disputes with his choice of actions. He chose to divide rather than unify. Had he shown up to talk, Torygg might well have said, "Ulfric, you're right - I'll give you the support of all of Skyrim when we march against the Thalmor and drive them from our lands!" Instead, Ulfric said ,"Fus-rah-doh!" and made things a lot bloodier and nastier than they had to be. The civil war between Stormcloak and Imperials is distracting everyone in Skyrim from a common, unifying factor, something they ALL have in common: a hatred of the Thalmor. I'm actually wondering if the Dwemer will come back in the next game. That'd be SO cool; have them return from whatever place they ended up in after their foolish experiment wiped them from the face of Tamriel (as recounted in Morrowind), and then bring their technological creations to bear against the Thalmer. OH, would that make for some interesting stuff in the next TES game... ^.^ -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
That's a very good point, Sukeban. However, that implies that Ulfric is being... well, a weasel. He's politicking; he's ready to compromise doing the right thing in order to maintain the support of his more radical followers. And that's assuming he doesn't agree with them. My current character (though it's been a few days since I played, so I haven't progressed much since the last time) has been following the Legion path. So far I've had Elisif point out that her husband hero-worshipped Ulfric and would have joined Ulfric had the guy shown up to talk instead of fight; Tullius has begun to grudgingly pay more respect to the local culture, but has never hesitated to emphasize his loyalty is to the empire - and to all its citizens (which means I just went to Whiterun to give the Jarl aid from the Legion against the imminent attack by the Stormcloaks), and have wandered around the city where the Argonians are indeed allowed to be inside the city walls, where Altmer (not Thalmer, mind. Altmer. The first people the Thalmer conquered were their own) live in peace with the Nords, as do Bretons, Imperials, and even a Redguard or two. And there's the fact that the Thalmer secret documents claim that Ulfric is actually a sleeper agent working to advance THEIR interests, by undermining the Empire. Though he may very well be unaware of it; for that matter, it may simply be the Thalmer claiming credit for everything, in a "Can't Argue With Elves" sense. (if you check that page, try the "Screw You Elves" link. It directly references Skyrim and the legal punishment for killing a Thalmer in cold blood. "Now, go to the nearest guard to pay the fine for littering." :P ) I repeat: I'm not saying that Ulfric's not justified in his grievances. We've got two sides that both make excellent sense... and when I make my NEXT playthrough, I'm going to try something that a friend told me about. Apparently I can ignore the civil war entirely and focus on the main storyline... and when I get far enough, the civil war missions become locked because you get to go make peace between BOTH sides. I'm curious to see how that will turn out. It'll be interesting; most of the leaders on each side harbor great respect for leaders on the other side. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
An excellent question. In answer: Ulfric doesn't have to be the MLK of Tamriel. And though he SHOULD be saying, "guys... knock it off. Those Dunmer and argonians khajiit are helping to fund our war effort," he doesn't have to. But... if he doesn't, he's showing an acceptance of and agreement with the racism of his compatriots. It's not that it's a crime. It's simply showing that aspect of his personality. Like I keep saying (in spite of those who want to claim that Ulfric is the Nordic messiah... when that would actually be the Dhovakin), both sides have points in favor of and against siding with them. I'm not condemning Ulfric, I'm just pointing out that he's not wearing a pristine white hat here. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Yes. And you asserted that I was fine with the Thalmor. Also, I've laid enough evidence against Ulfric to warrant an actual "trial" (if such a notion can apply to the perceptions of the beliefs of an NPC in a game). You want to defend him... provide one example of him refuting the bigotry of his advisors and friends and underlings. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Actually, I don't do the thieves guild either. Nor have I done the Dark Brotherhood quests. I have always had a serious problem with playing "evil" characters. When I played Fallout 2, my one serious attempt to play a genuinely evil character got to San Francisco and was... denied the opportunity to fight for Lo Pang, on the grounds that she wasn't evil enough. (I couldn't even stay in the negative karma range!) Okay, now I'm challenging you to provide two examples. First an example of Ulfric specifically renouncing the bigotry of his supporters. And the second being any point where I ever said that I was ever fine with the Thalmor (here's a hint: it won't be the post where I talk about how much fun it is to provoke Thalmor into letting me kill them), or where I focused on "gossip" instead of blatant statements of "this is what Ulfric is doing to us." In your entire self righteous and judgemental post, this is the only thing you have said that is factually true. That is literally the crux of the moral dilemna in choosing Stormcloak versus Imperials. Do you focus on the desire of the Nords to fight for their freedom of religion and to stand alone? Or do you focus on the Empire attempting to maintain cohesion and rebuild in order to finally stand against the oppressive and genocidal conquerors? That is the choice presented (unless you choose to avoid the civil war and eventually force both sides to negotiate a truce until Alduin is defeated). Actually, I have a great deal of hope for RL western civilization. I'm actually reminded of a Canadian who sends her friends editorials about how the United States is headed for collapse in six months from...whenever she shares said editorials (it's been six months from collapse for at least eight years now, apparently). I also have great optimism regarding Skyrim... because you know they're going to make another game. Probably set someplace where the focus can be on fighting Thalmor. That's going to be fun. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Everyone's been showing you empirical evidence, MacSuibhne. You're being like all the conspiracy theorists of the past... twelve years, in two differant presidential administrations, who accused the standing president of being illegitimate and/or participating in some unholy conspiracy, instead of simply pointing at their actual mistakes and/or misdeeds like all their more rational and clear headed opponents. (and please, I beg of everyone, no comments about Bush OR Obama here. We're here to discuss Skyrim) And in persisting in this behavior, you're doing the same thing that the political fanatics have achieved. You're making all the pro-Stormcloaks look bad by association. They've been able to argue intelligently and without condescending and insulting responses. You have yet to show that ability. No, war is about controlled force to achieve your objectives. It's about making the enemy do what you want. It is not about slaughtering innocent civilians and people who don't want to get involved. Not only is that considered war crimes in our world, but even in Tamriel killing civilians is the exact opposite of what a smart general does in order to achieve their objectives. If a village gets wiped out because they didn't side with Ulfric, the other villages aren't going to side with Ulfric. They're going to side with the Empire. when I played as an Orc and joined the Stormcloaks, Galmor made it clear that he was willing to overlook my race as long as I killed Imperials. He never did proclaim tolerance for other races; the Dovahkin is a special case if you join the Stormcloaks because the Dovahkin is a killing machine and Galmor likes seeing Imperials being killed. (which is one more example of why Galmor's advise is hardly the best. It's not about killing the enemy. It's about achieving your objectives. The objective being: freedom of religion, and independence from Thalmor oppression. And considering that many of the Imperials in the Legion are citizens of Skyrim and/or Nords - such as the daughter of the Alchemist in Solitude - Galmor's doing almost as much to hurt Skyrim as the Thalmor are) By what agonized definition is that fair? The definition that laws ought to be evenly applied and all ought to be equal under said law. I.e. every definition of fairness that every rational person would agree to. I'm curious as to whether you think someone else has made posts that no one else can read, or if you're... trolling. No one ever said that. Titus gets assassinated for his capitulation. Tullius is not racist against Nords; he is merely disrespectful towards their traditions. Torygg we never even meet; he's the guy Ulfric killed before the game even started (and his widow notes that Torygg idolized Ulfric and probably would have sided with Ulfric had Ulfric shown up looking to talk instead of looking to duel). The Thalmor are the only group besides the dragons that everyone agrees it's okay to kill (and even then, not ALL the dragons. There's one dragon in particular whom both players and the NPCs in the game would agree should not be killed). But... you did finally start citing some actual claims here. Now I can respond to them accordingly. The Empire only cooperates with the Thalmor because the Altmeri Dominion beat the Empire in a war and is ready to commit genocide on a moment's pretext. They're cooperating while they bide their time and try to prepare to get some payback. It's not "active" cooperation. It's "we do what they say because we have families we love, but whom the Thalmor see as vermin to be exterminated if we annoy them." You'll note that Ulfric is apparently a bachelor. Things are different when you have families and children as well as enemies who think kids are fair targets. They're allowed in most of the cities. There's a sneaky fellow in Solitude right outside the tavern. There's a student at the mage's college. There are two differant khajiit caravans that wander the cities, but they don't enter town only because they're constantly moving from city to city in order to conduct business. They would likely be allowed within the city walls of almost any city other than Windhelm, because they have goods and gold and travelers with money are always a welcome sight in taverns and shops. And now it is his to change as he wills. If he so chooses. When he was made Jarl, at no point did anyone tell him, "you shall govern the city... but you are forbidden by divine law from allowing the Dunmer to resettle or to change any laws." Again, this is nothing compared to Morrowind. The Dunmer in Skyrim are far more tolerant than the ones of centuries prior, especially the ones in their homeland: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:House_Telvanni The Dunmer in Skyrim have been living outside of their homeland for a few centuries now. They've been partially assimilated. They'd be further assimilated if they were allowed to be. Actually, the Imperials are probably the second or third least racist of all the races. Or they certainly were in the previous games, as well as in the lore. The Khajiit believed in killing outsiders who entered their jungles. Argonians regarded all the mammalian people as prey. The Bosmer are probably the only Mer to not have started out saying "we're better than everyone else, so accept it if you want me to honor you by allowing you to continue to exist." The Nords started out as bloodthirsty axe wielding psychos who believed that brawls in the meadhall were no fun if it only involved fists. The Empire was created by embracing tolerance and diversity, creating alliances and respecting other cultures. The only race that I can think of that is more tolerant than the Imperials are the Bretons, who are themselves halfbreeds, part elf, part human. -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Wow. I spent a few days away from this post (among other things, actually playing Skyrim) and I peek back in...and I see MacSuibhne is still at it... Which quote are you referring to? One: I've never met the pro Imperial folks before. I started posting on this forum a few days ago, when I went looking for assistance with a bug (caused by a mod conflicting with the recent upgrade; thanks again to those who helped). Two: your own definition provides me with furhter support for my side. Right now, as in "in between moments spent typing up this post," I am casting Courage spells on Jorlief while waiting for daylight so I can sell the loot that's overburdening my character. And I'm listening to Galmar assuring Ulfric that what's needed is to murder everyone who doesn't agree with them. "Let them die with their false kings!" "Anyone who isn't with us is against us!" He's literally ready to murder anyone in Skyrim who doesn't want to help them fight the Imperials, and Ulfric certainly isn't dismissing his advice. While I've been wandering around Windhelm harvesting alchemy reagents and slaying a dragon and recovering a certain... wedding ring... *blushes* ...I've been talking to the people. Including the ones at Brandy-Mug Farm, and Kynesgrove. I've been listening to the farmers, and to the Dunmer in the Grey Quarter who state outright that they are forbidden from dwelling anywhere else. I've listened to the Nords living in Windhelm spouting hatred against Dunmer. And I repeat: if Ulfric's the Jarl, then he's in charge. That makes him responsible for what his people do. His words not only dictate policy, but also guide the actions of his followers. If he were to denounce the racism of those within his hold, then they would say, "we shouldn't do this. Ulfric wouldn't like it." And yet he has never said any such thing. No, the paying of taxes by the Dunmer is both established by the statements of multiple NPCs, as well as by basic economic principles. The blacksmith is hammering as many shields and swords and breastplates as he can, swearing by Shorl's bones that he just might have to hammer hundreds of them if need be. That costs money ,to buy that many sets of arms. The guards certainly need to be paid. And they like to eat, as do the folks in the castle. That wizard who can train you in destruction magic certainly isn't working as the court mage for free. So merchants get taxed. So do the farmers. So does anyone who has money that the government can borrow. Even if Ulfric's not taxing income (not that unrealistic; feudalism combined taxing the peasant income - a portion of their harvest - with their labor - requiring them to work the noble's fields as well. Thankfully the Empire doesn't have feudalism... anymore. One of the things the Septims managed to do for Tamriel), he's still going to be doing everything he can to raise money for the war effort. Ulfric could easily allow the Dunmer to purchase homes within the rest of Whitehelm. And not tax them as highly as the rest of his people. He's the Jarl. He is in charge. He has the authority and the responsibility. The authority to change things, as well as the responsibility for whatever happens. This would be why I say that both sides are nuanced and possessed of flaws as well as virtues. I certainly enjoy making a point of annoying the Thalmor patrols into attacking me at every opportunity, just so I can kill them. I know that no matter what city I enter, Whitehelm or Solitude, anyone I sell the elven armor to is going to smile and wink and say, "anyone asks, I'll tell them you simply found it somewhere." I've never said that Ulfric didn't have good reason to be annoyed about things, merely that he's not a pure paladin of righteousness. Now, I repeat my challenge. I and others have provided examples, evidence, facts, even links to other websites. Can you provide even one example of Ulfric openly renouncing or criticizing the racism shown by his followers, subjects, and/or friends? -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
FTFY... Why am I not surprised? Good old rumour and gossip. Trumps facts every time. Actually, a citizen saying, "we all pay taxes and one particular group of the population pays more taxes" is more likely to be taken seriously as evidence in a court of law than a monument that sounds more like a proclamation of "we will allow these refugees to live with us and not be slaves or force them to sacrifice their religious beliefs." That doesn't mean taxation isn't going to be part of the deal. Taxes are an exchange for enjoying the services of the community. Such as guards to patrol against bandits, and maintaining the roads, and so on. Maybe so but it's apples and oranges and hardly relevant to either the topic or the current discussion. No, that's a pretty good example of where Ulfric is lacking. Or they would remember the ideals which the Empire came to stand for. Despite the arrogance of many Imperials in past games, there was always a generalized sense of multiculturalism. The lore includes books written by Imperials who went to Elsweyr or Valenwood and learned the ways of the locals, or who learned of the developments in magic or armorcraft by the Altmer or the Orks or Argonians. In Morrowind there was an undeniable conflict for the Imperials, between their need to respect local customs and their distaste for the Dunmer practice of slavery (a practice ultimately abandoned). It's quite telling that in Skyrim the Argonians no longer greet their mammalian neighbors with "the prey approaches. What does it want?" Now you're just throwing out things at random. Mother Theresa openly spoke out against bigotry and intolerance. The secret to her success was that she was willing to tend to anyone in need, regardless of their religious or cultural background; the Indians first started paying attention when they noticed that this Catholic nun was caring for a former Hindu priest of Kali who had contracted leprosy. By contrast, Wallace was acknowledged by... everyone, as being a supporter of the Klan and their ilk. He helped them by providing excuses and justification for their depredations, being their public mouthpiece. Your comparism is pathetically absurd. So far your standards seem to consist of "anyone who disagrees with me needs to be insulted and mocked." You have yet to provide one link, one example, one factual anecdote. You have challenged the evidence provided by others (while they proceeded to defend their evidence), but failed to provide any of your own. I repeat: can you provide any examples of Ulfric openly renouncing the bigotry of his comrades, or of him openly declaring Skyrim to be a haven for all regardless of their racial origins? -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
No, it's a limitation of the game. Let's face it... only a dozen or two dozen people in any given town? There ought to be a lot more. There WERE a lot more in previous games such as Arena and Daggerfall... but those were mostly random generic NPCs with only limited dialogue who wandered around town during daylight hours or lounged in the taverns or worked in the shops. Every game in the series has been more detailed and focused than the previous games, at the cost of scale. Arena had you roaming the entire continent as well as Sommerset Isle. Daggerfall had you limited to one province. Morrowind had you roaming a considerably less populous province. Oblivion had you in Cyrodil, which Arena shows to be a tiny space in comparism to the other provinces. It's simply a limitation of the available technology for the game. Just like how Arena had no real allowance for vertical movement aside from jumping over pools and pits, whereas Morrowind gave us Levitation spells and potions that allowed the Nevarine to "Flying Brick" across the landscape (or simply combine Fortify Acrobatics with Feather Fall). -
Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King
Archone replied to SubjectProphet's topic in Skyrim's Skyrim LE
Note that the first definition (generally considered the most pertinent usage) is precisely the way I used the word...and note the source (often considered the premier source). It's not unsubstantiated when the characters making the statements are providing examples and evidence. Like... threatening Dunmer right in front of the Dovahkin. Or openly stating, "this is what happened to me." When a person lays a criminal charge against another person, the courts do not dismiss "he did this to me" as mere hearsay. They might require evidence, but the differance between rumor/hearsay and direct testimony is one of degree; if you're saying what you yourself have experienced, it's not hearsay. I'm not painting everyone with charges of racism. I'm stating that one specific character is being shown as racist by virtue of his association with proudly racist friends. Well, considering that you not only have to pay a rather hefty sum to buy a house, but also perform sufficient services for the community that a Jarl may be assured that you intend to settle down and reside as a permanent subject of Skyrim, I'd say taxation is likely enough. Besides... it's a government. Governments will tax whatever they can. That's a given. If anything, Imperial and Nord taxation is far less than that of feudal societies (Which explains why the communities in Skyrim are far wealthier than serfs once were). I wasn't referring to Wallace in terms of his political views (though you make an excellent comparism; the colonies were populated at the time by both Revolutionaries and Loyalists and both sides offered many compelling arguments for and against their positions), but in terms of his words and actions. Wallace spoke of keeping the streets safe, while thugs in white hooded robes burned down churches and murdered innocent people. As the legendary Chicago collumnist Mike Royko put it, "Wallace provided a veneer of respectability to the haters. He made the struggle for civil rights longer and bloodier than it had to be." Not really. I just think that Ulfric is an interesting and compelling character with flaws and virtues. In my first playthrough of the game I controlled an Ork smith (mastery of smithing, enchanting, two handed, and heavy weapons) Dovahkin who became a Stormcloak and won Ulfric's war for him. I listened to his speeches and admired him... but I've also listened to the other side as well. Technically, it is. In previous posts you stated that only Ulfric's words and actions could prove/disprove whether or not he was prejudiced against non Nords. And when the Jarl confines certain races to a ghetto and won't let others even live inside the walls to protect them against a dragon or a bandit raid, that's pretty damning. Yes. Yes they did. I admire them for that. They created a story arc in which the player can choose which side of a civil war to support, and deliberately made both sides into realistically portrayed factions, neither of which could be called "good" or "evil." Nor was this the only part in the game where moral ambiguity was presented. They are to be commended for their storytelling. I should note that your own beliefs in the matter are pretty blatant. And you're still being rather condescending in your responses. And I'm not the one who has drawn comparisms between RL politics in one specific nation on this planet with the civil war story arc in a game we both enjoy. Though you are doing a good job of demonstrating the primary problem with RL politics. Because I disagree with you, you are starting with the assumption that I am stupid, prejudiced, and/or uninformed. Meanwhile, I have provided links, presented ingame facts, and worked to prove my case. Here's some more. You are the one who has resorted to name calling and dismissal, without providing any evidence to support your own side. Let me turn it around on you: can you provide any examples of Ulfric telling Galmar or the others to stop disrespecting the non Nords who live under his rule? Actually, Fraquar, that's a limitation of the map itself, with only a few dozen people in a "major" city. Otherwise the game would have been far larger and required far more space on our hard drives. Though I must admit to some disappointment; I enjoy urban settings. In Arena you could go to literally every town and city in every province of the Empire, and Arena's versions of the eight major cities in Skyrim ( http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Arena:Places ) were much larger (albeit randomly generated via the same process that created an endless series of dungeons and such for players to adventure in when not hunting for the pieces of the staff to defeat Jagar Thorne). Still...that's what mods are for. ^.^