Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[MacSuibhne]

 

The problem with all that is that we don't stop believing because we've lost our freedom; we lost our freedom because we stopped believing.

 

 

People who support the Empire are the ones who accept that the ban on Talos worship is purely a transitory arrangement to temporarily appease the Thalmor -

 

 

 

Chamberlin made the same mistake. Tullius is just following suit. It's an old, old story that plays out over and over again...usually to no good end.

 

Beyond that, if might is right in the world of Skyrim...and I accept that...then all the hoohaw about Ulfric's dual and even the outrage over the way other races are treated, is bogus.

 

Players should take a leaf from the "normal citizens" and accept things as they are.

 

Again, the point is that we impose our own conventions and perceptions on a world that objectively doesn't conform to our notions of right or wrong. And you can play the game like that but you can't have it both ways. Perhaps the designers of the game wanted us to examine our own motives for believing one thing or another--the excuses we make, the rationales we concoct, to justify appeasement, for instance.

 

Perhaps...

[GetTheJojDone]

 

 

The problem with all that is that we don't stop believing because we've lost our freedom; we lost our freedom because we stopped believing.

 

 

People who support the Empire are the ones who accept that the ban on Talos worship is purely a transitory arrangement to temporarily appease the Thalmor -

 

 

 

Chamberlin made the same mistake. Tullius is just following suit. It's an old, old story that plays out over and over again...usually to no good end.

 

Beyond that, if might is right in the world of Skyrim...and I accept that...then all the hoohaw about Ulfric's dual and even the outrage over the way other races are treated, is bogus.

 

Players should take a leaf from the "normal citizens" and accept things as they are.

 

Again, the point is that we impose our own conventions and perceptions on a world that objectively doesn't conform to our notions of right or wrong. And you can play the game like that but you can't have it both ways. Perhaps the designers of the game wanted us to examine our own motives for believing one thing or another--the excuses we make, the rationales we concoct, to justify appeasement, for instance.

 

Perhaps...

 

 

The White-Gold Concordat has little to do with Tullius, still, l do think you make an excellent point with your last paragraph, I've never thought about it that way.

[MacSuibhne]

 

 

Chamberlin made the same mistake. Tullius is just following suit. It's an old, old story that plays out over and over again...usually to no good end.

 

Beyond that, if might is right in the world of Skyrim...and I accept that...then all the hoohaw about Ulfric's dual and even the outrage over the way other races are treated, is bogus.

 

Players should take a leaf from the "normal citizens" and accept things as they are.

 

Again, the point is that we impose our own conventions and perceptions on a world that objectively doesn't conform to our notions of right or wrong. And you can play the game like that but you can't have it both ways. Perhaps the designers of the game wanted us to examine our own motives for believing one thing or another--the excuses we make, the rationales we concoct, to justify appeasement, for instance.

 

Perhaps...

 

 

The White-Gold Concordat has little to do with Tullius, still, l do think you make an excellent point with your last paragraph, I've never thought about it that way.

 

 

 

Well, one amendment...I should have said "you can't have it both ways," without a whole raft of cognitive dissonance.

 

Which is, I suspect, why this subject keeps coming up time and again. why it is such a bone of contention and angst--because at some level we know that we're arrogantly imposing our own fantasies and wishful-thinkings on top of this world...where they have no place.

 

We want Ulfric to "play nice" when he's clearly a man with a vision in a world where war and violence is the only lasting means of negotiation. And then we turn around and want negotiation to work with folk that historically have never negotiated from an honest position. We want everyone to get along and treat others fairly when, in fact, no one in the game...no faction...even begins to see either the sense nor the utility of that concept much less understand it. We think that if the Empire "appeases" the Thalmor...for how many more centuries??...the whole issue will go away, despite the Thalmor culture and religion being diametrically opposed to tolerance or deviation from their stated goals.

 

How much of this--these obviously irreconcilable notions that we bring to the game--is actually in the game and not forced on it by us?

 

How much...when we really stop and think about it...is any different from our own world and our own way way of distorting reality for the sake of convenience and comfort?

 

People talk a lot about "immersion" but how can you be immersed in any setting/situation/game when you can't accept it for what it is?

Edited September 13, 2014 by MacSuibhne

[fgambler]

Erikur just cares about business indeed, he's just another Maven Blackbriar. No wonder he's the thieves guild's connection in Solitude.

 

About the ridiculous civil war:

 

-The real enemy is the Thalmor;

-People still can worship Talos (despite the Thalmor ambushes but bandits also do that all the time right?);

-You're free to kill any Thalmor outside of the cities, the Empire doesn't care.

Edited September 13, 2014 by fgambler

[kradus]

You could always stay neutral.

Like you I think the empire makes the most sense tactically, but I also sympathise with the stormcloaks. With that in mind, non of my 'good' characters can find it in themselfs to join either side.

Although, neutrality is the worse option of the three in the long run.

[soupdragon1234]

Siddgeir is a better example, though still something of a self serving weasel. Still, he IS a staunch supporter of the Empire, if only because they prop up his power and help fund his indulgences.

Yes exactly, if he thought he could get a better deal from the Stormcloaks he'd switch sides in an instant.

[Lachdonin]

Chamberlin made the same mistake. Tullius is just following suit. It's an old, old story that plays out over and over again...usually to no good end.

 

Actually, Chamberlain made the mistake of thinking that war could be avoided entirely through appeasement. The Empire is under no such illusion, as evidenced by statements made by basically every Legion commander in Skyrim. Instead, their use of appeasement is similar to that of France towards the end of the 100 years war, After which we saw France reclaim the entirety of the mainland and drive England back to the isles.

[fgambler]

Although, neutrality is the worse option of the three in the long run.

 

Not really. I've been ignoring the civil war in my recent playthroughs, never joining the Legion or Stormcloaks. Just let the story decide the fate of Skyrim. We'll know how things really ended up in a future Elder Scrolls anyway.

Edited September 14, 2014 by fgambler

[MacSuibhne]

Actually, Chamberlain made the mistake of thinking that war could be avoided entirely through appeasement. The Empire is under no such illusion, as evidenced by statements made by basically every Legion commander in Skyrim. Instead, their use of appeasement is similar to that of France towards the end of the 100 years war, After which we saw France reclaim the entirety of the mainland and drive England back to the isles.

 

 

 

To my way of thinking, that's just quibbling. Appeasement is still appeasement no matter how you rationalize it. And no matter how you rationalize it, it's always ugly.

 

When I look at the factions in the Civil War I see three impulses...each clearly represented by one group. (Not surprising if you think of Skyrim as kabuki or a morality play.)

 

1) The drive to subjugate, enslave and eventually exterminate.

 

2) The instinct...the determination...to resist subjugation, to defy oppression.

 

3) The will to placate--to acquiescence, equivocation, and complaisance.

 

I suspect that it would be difficult to objectively ascribe any of those impulses to any other faction than the one it properly belongs to.

 

That said, it may be hard for some people to choose among those impulses...which to admire, which to reject...but, fortunately (or not) I don't have that difficulty.

Edited September 14, 2014 by MacSuibhne

[Lachdonin]

Rome appeased Prythia until it was sure it could win, and promptly invaded, conquring it's lands.

 

Babylon appeased the Caanite Stares, until they were weakened by a series of earthquakes and Babylon gained the upper hand.

 

Spain appeased a city-state in Mexico to use them against the Aztec's, before promptly destroying them once their common enemy was gone.

 

Appeasement is a tactic often used between equally powerful states in order to hold off conflict until the playing field favors one side. Historically, it works, particularly as a delaying tactic and not as an outright avoidance of conflict (as was the case of Chamberlain).

 

You also continue to oversimplify things.

 

First, there is no such thing as an instinct to resist oppression. Humans in a base state are surprisingly acomidating, trusting and compliant...

 

Second, your examples fail to account for any perspective but the Stormcloak propiganda. They do not account for either Imperial or Thalmor motivations, and only reflect how the Stormcloaks VIEW their motivations.

 

Third, you account only for the banners being waved (and again only from aStormcloak perspective) and not the individuals waving them, or THEIR motivations.

 

The third point is a crucial flaw in your approach, because it breeds gullibility. The same stance was taken by colonial citizens during the American Revolution, who honestly believed in the words on the Declaration of Independence. However, deeper insight reveals that the Declaration its self was largely a flag to build support, the the motivation fir the Founding Fathers was to consolidate their control over the wealth of the colonies. They used a seemingly altruistic rallying call about freedoms and liberty to consolidate their own power, NOT to liberate others.

 

Orson Wells once wrote "Never has a revolution brought about lasting change for the better. You just end up with the same system, with a few new problems tacked on for good measure".

Edited September 14, 2014 by Lachdonin