Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[MidbossVyers]

True, as shown in Helgen, the Empire has their own torturers and therefore would not need the Thalmor's.

[Elimc]

@Lachdonin

 

While Tullius CAN get Thorald out, he doesn't. I never said he ordered the Thalmor to capture him, but he does nothing about it. The fact is the Empire allows the Thalmor to do whatever they want. I have not yet seen one example of the Thalmor being overruled by the Empire. If the Empire has all this power that you claim it does, then why does Tullius have to accept the invitation to the Thalmor's parties?

[kimmera]

 

 

 

Interestingly, Tulius seemed to feel it important to report his being taken by the Thalmor to the Battle-borns rather than to his own family

 

The missive paints more of an image of Tullius responding to inquiries made by a prominent Imperial-Aligned family. Idolaf indicates he looked into the fate of his old friend, and the best indications are that his inquiries were the reason the letter was sent at all.

 

It's more a situation of another certain Canadian being arrested by Americans following an engagement, being taken into custody, and his 'parent nation' opting not to cause problems by letting things go at that (later resulting in a kangaroo court, a gross miscarriage of justice and numerous human rights problems) instead of demanding custody.

 

The fact that Tullius CAN take custody, and that the Thalmor will turn Thorald over (if the glitch if repaired) is still a show of who has ultimate authority, whether they choose to exercise it or not.

 

Theres also nothing to really indicate Tullius would need the Thalmor to torture anyone, nor is there any indication that they would share information with the Empire anyway.

 

 

This is the same Tulius that orders your death just because you were in the same prisoner wagon as Ulfric. You are assuming conventional rule of law in the middle of a civil war. Turning a prisoner over to the Thalmor in this case isn't so much to get information from him, but to get a prominent Stormcloak supporter out of the way.

 

Intervening to get him back would mean (a) diverting troops in the middle of a civil war (b) doing so to engage/negotiate with people the Empire is not currently fighting, and © to do (a) and (b) out of concern for someone who is openly supportive of the enemy, i.e. the Stormcloaks.

 

What part of intervening under those conditions would make sense to the top commanding officer of the Empire?

 

Letting the Thalmor have him means one less prisoner to worry about and simultaneously one less supporter of the enemy, just as he is willing to order your (Dragonborn) death 'just in case' you are a supporter of the enemy, regardless of the fact you had no actual connection with the Stormcloaks, and regardless of the fact that there is no evidence that you committed a capital offense, or any offense at all. Your name isn't even on their prisoner register.

 

Edit: Note that regarding my analogy, Syria was hardly considered a top US ally at the time. Like the Thalmor in Skyrim, they were convenient in this specific case.

Edited April 14, 2015 by kimmera

[kimmera]

@Lachdonin

 

While Tullius CAN get Thorald out, he doesn't. I never said he ordered the Thalmor to capture him, but he does nothing about it. The fact is the Empire allows the Thalmor to do whatever they want. I have not yet seen one example of the Thalmor being overruled by the Empire. If the Empire has all this power that you claim it does, then why does Tullius have to accept the invitation to the Thalmor's parties?

 

But again, is that because the Thalmor are in charge or because the Empire are too busy with the civil war to care, particularly since Thorald is a stormcloak supporter?

 

What does the Empire gain by intervening in such a case? How many troops can the Empire spare to police the Thalmor when they are at war with the Stormcloaks?

[Lachdonin]

This is the same Tulius that orders your death just because you were in the same prisoner wagon as Ulfric.

Well, in Tullius' defense, he doesn't send you to the block. An overly anxious captain who probably doesn't want to deal with the paper work does. The only person Tullius sentences is Ulfric. That's not to say he wouldn't have done the same thing, but he's definatrly not the one who gave that particular order.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Lachdonin

[Lachdonin]

I have not yet seen one example of the Thalmor being overruled by the Empire. If the Empire has all this power that you claim it does, then why does Tullius have to accept the invitation to the Thalmor's parties?

Ulfric Stormcloak's execution. We know from the dossier that the Thalmor tried to intervene to prevent it. We know Elenwen was present, and speaking to Tullius as you roll in and yet, Ulfric is neither handed over, nor are the Thalmor even present during the execution. Despite Rally's assertion that the 'damned elves' had something to do with their situation we know better. And we know Tullius refused to hand Ukfric over, going so far as to execute him instead of taking him to the Imperial City.

 

And you don't really know how politics work, do you? General positions are 90% politics, 10% strategy, and once in a very rare while you may get to command a battle... Politics requires a lot

 

Aaaand bullox, I double posted there.. meant to copy and paste it in the edit...

Edited April 14, 2015 by Lachdonin

[kimmera]

 

This is the same Tulius that orders your death just because you were in the same prisoner wagon as Ulfric.

Well, in Tullius' defense, he doesn't send you to the block. An overly anxious captain who probably doesn't want to deal with the paper work does. The only person Tullius sentences is Ulfric. That's not to say he wouldn't have done the same thing, but he's definatrly not the one who gave that particular order.

 

 

 

Tullius is there and doesn't countermand the Captain. Tullius, by being the top general has some responsibility for the actions of those under his command normally regardless, but being on the scene means complete responsibility.

[Lachdonin]

 

Tullius is there and doesn't countermand the Captain. Tullius, by being the top general has some responsibility for the actions of those under his command normally regardless, but being on the scene means complete responsibility.

 

Eh, there's a fine line between causal responsibility and moral responsibility. The Captain bears the causal responsibility, as she is the one who orders the PC to the block. Tullius is not involved in the checklist or the arranging of prisoners, and thus only bears some moral responsibility for the actions of those under his command (which is shaky ground to begin with. Typically officers are only held accountable when they areaware of wrongdoings by subordinates).

 

At best, you can place secondary causal responsibility on Tullius, for ordering the executions of the Stormcloaks, but if we start going into that line... Ulfric also bears some causal respponsibility... As does the Emperor, General Decanus... Hell, we could trace a degree of causal blame back to Reman if we tried. hard enough...

[kimmera]

 

Tullius is there and doesn't countermand the Captain. Tullius, by being the top general has some responsibility for the actions of those under his command normally regardless, but being on the scene means complete responsibility.

Eh, there's a fine line between causal responsibility and moral responsibility. The Captain bears the causal responsibility, as she is the one who orders the PC to the block. Tullius is not involved in the checklist or the arranging of prisoners, and thus only bears some moral responsibility for the actions of those under his command (which is shaky ground to begin with. Typically officers are only held accountable when they areaware of wrongdoings by subordinates).

 

At best, you can place secondary causal responsibility on Tullius, for ordering the executions of the Stormcloaks, but if we start going into that line... Ulfric also bears some causal respponsibility... As does the Emperor, General Decanus... Hell, we could trace a degree of causal blame back to Reman if we tried. hard enough...

 

 

This is a military hierarchy. Tullius outranks the Captain and the Captain is under Tullius' direct command. That is formal responsibility, not merely 'moral.' Tullius' choice not to countermand the order is just as causal as the Captain's choice to give the order.

 

The Emperor bears some responsibility over both, but wasn't there. Tullius was.

Edited April 14, 2015 by kimmera

[Lachdonin]

Causal, not Casual.

 

Causal and Moral responsibility are terms used in ethics to doscribe the two ways an individual bears responsibility for a situation. Those with Causal Responsibility actively have a role in the cause of a situation or outcome. Those with Moral Responsibility are those typically involved on the periphery with no direct influence, but who bear some relation to putting those Causally Responsible into that position.

 

The Captain is the one who makes the decision to send you to the block. She bears the entirety of the Causal Responsibility. Tullius, however, is her superior, and is responsible for the situation in which the Captain makes that decision, making him Morally Responsible, and attributing Secondary Causal Responsibility.

 

Under modern law, an individual can sometimes be held Morally Responsible for something done by a subordinate so long as they are within suspected or full knowledge of that subordinates actions.

 

The Kandahar base CO and the unit Lieutenant weren't held responsible for that Sergeant who went off and shot up a bunch of civilians, because they were both unaware of his violation of the the terms of military conduct. Similarly, unless you can show that Tullius was aware of the Captain's decision to send an undesignsted prisoner to the Block, you cannot impose responsibility on Tullius.

 

In a similar vien, look at the Markarth incedent. The Empire denies reinstating Talos, implying that the 'we' Igmund refers to is the Moot and the Jarl's of Skyrim. They are directly subordinate to the Empire, so if we follow that train of logic than the Empire is blatantly guilty of violating the concordant.

 

Does Tullius bear some moral responsibility for the near execution of an unrelated, unprosecuted prisoner? Yes. But he is not the one who sent you to the block, and no commander or leader can be held unilaterally responsible for the actions of their subordinates. They are ONLY responsible for bad calls made with their knowledge.