MidbossVyers Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) No, the Reachmen are a people. The "Forsworn" are group of Reachman rebels (with a couple other non-Reachmen mixed in, such as Borkul and possibly the player character), just as the Stormcloaks are a group of Nords (and a couple other non-Nords). Edited November 11, 2014 by MidbossVyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeddBate Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 Also, the Forsworn attack everyone who isn't Forsworn. The only exception is if Madanach escapes Markarth alive and flees to his base at Druadach Redoubt after which the Forsworn in that area will be friendly to the Dragonborn. The Forsworn are a series of tribes that are criminal to anyone not Forsworn. Unlike the Civil War questline, you don't have a choice of whether to join them in general or not (with the exception listed above.) They are certainly "People of the Reach", but the title of "Forsworn" is a statement that they've become a group with an agenda. In this case, kill pretty much anyone not Forsworn. I remember stopping in at a mining community (Karthwasten, I believe) and listening to the miners chatter after their working shift at their barracks. One miner was considering joining the Forsworn while another warned him not to saying that they weren't just rebels, they were vicious killers. As most of the miners were Reachmen, I think that pretty well summed it up. Which is really a pity. There was an opportunity in Skyrim to really develop the Forsworn into something more. The whole episode in Cidna Mine seemed to be pumping the player up to have to make a choice, join the Forsworn and basically be an outlaw anywhere near Markarth, or turn on Madanach at the last moment and help the Markarth guards defeat him and his fellow escapees. Instead, it doesn't matter what you do. If Madanach escapes, one tiny area of the Reach's Forsworn likes you. And whether you help, hinder or just let Madanach go, you still get out of frame-up that got you thrown in Cidna Mine in the first place. Rather disappointing. A real role-playing opportunity was lost here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetTheJojDone Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Also, the Forsworn attack everyone who isn't Forsworn. The only exception is if Madanach escapes Markarth alive and flees to his base at Druadach Redoubt after which the Forsworn in that area will be friendly to the Dragonborn. The Forsworn are a series of tribes that are criminal to anyone not Forsworn. Unlike the Civil War questline, you don't have a choice of whether to join them in general or not (with the exception listed above.) They are certainly "People of the Reach", but the title of "Forsworn" is a statement that they've become a group with an agenda. In this case, kill pretty much anyone not Forsworn. I remember stopping in at a mining community (Karthwasten, I believe) and listening to the miners chatter after their working shift at their barracks. One miner was considering joining the Forsworn while another warned him not to saying that they weren't just rebels, they were vicious killers. As most of the miners were Reachmen, I think that pretty well summed it up. Which is really a pity. There was an opportunity in Skyrim to really develop the Forsworn into something more. The whole episode in Cidna Mine seemed to be pumping the player up to have to make a choice, join the Forsworn and basically be an outlaw anywhere near Markarth, or turn on Madanach at the last moment and help the Markarth guards defeat him and his fellow escapees. Instead, it doesn't matter what you do. If Madanach escapes, one tiny area of the Reach's Forsworn likes you. And whether you help, hinder or just let Madanach go, you still get out of frame-up that got you thrown in Cidna Mine in the first place. Rather disappointing. A real role-playing opportunity was lost here. Because being permanently a fugitive in The Reach would screw up the Civil War, and much more, that's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidbossVyers Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 I recall back when the game originally came out. Someone released a pair of Google documents, one for the Empire, and one for the Stormcloaks. I'm not sure if it was written by one or more people, but the formatting of the two were similar. Does anyone know where to pull that up from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolfEburg Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 I'm not sure if it was written by one or more people, but the formatting of the two were similar. I don't know anything about these documents... but that reminds me of the "Age of Oppression/Aggression". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidbossVyers Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 While the intensity may vary, most serious Stormcloak arguments that I've read are well thought out and well researched, while most Empire arguments just boiled down to "common sense" and "the evidence is EVERYWHERE (not giving specific pieces of evidence but literally saying 'the evidence is everywhere')". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 While the intensity may vary, most serious Stormcloak arguments that I've read are well thought out and well researched, while most Empire arguments just boiled down to "common sense" and "the evidence is EVERYWHERE (not giving specific pieces of evidence but literally saying 'the evidence is everywhere')". Whereas my experiences have been the opposite. With a few stellar exceptions, most Stormcloak arguments i have encountered have been basically "The Empire tried to kill you!" or "FREEDOM!". Point being, you have to take the arguments one by one, instead of trying to generalise the supporters of either camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bash233 Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 I choose to join teh stormcloaks because they fight for freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Whereas my experiences have been the opposite. With a few stellar exceptions, most Stormcloak arguments i have encountered have been basically "The Empire tried to kill you!" or "FREEDOM!". Point being, you have to take the arguments one by one, instead of trying to generalise the supporters of either camp. I choose to join teh stormcloaks because they fight for freedom.*sigh* case and point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeofaTsavo Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 (edited) I choose Empire because there will be, in my opinion, another war against the Dominion. The fragile breathing space should not have been wasted on a petty civil war, when the Dominion is the true enemy of both factions in that war. I'm sure Dominion strategists were celebrating. Banning Talos worship was forced by the Dominion. Pretty smart move to try and divide and lessen the threat of the Nord Legions. Ulfric is delusional to think his little adventure in "freedom" would survive very long in the face of renewed Dominion aggression, his forces weakened by civil war and deserving no support from the Empire or remaining Legions. The end result would be no Talos worship anyway..loss of lands, life and independence. The end result far worse than the Concordat. I cannot support Ulfric simply because he is a short sighted fool. The damage he caused will possibly give the Dominion the next war. At least he paid with his life for that stupidity. Edited November 26, 2014 by TeofaTsavo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts