Join Empire or Stormcloaks? My Thoughts

[GetTheJojDone]

 

 

 

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?

 

I suppose you're right. Now that I think about it, it makes sense that I'm more predisposed to support the Empire - I don't really like or see any meaningful purpose for nationalism. And yeah, I suppose I've superimposed that opinion onto Skyrim.

Edited September 14, 2014 by GetTheJojDone

[MacSuibhne]

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".

 

 

Your first point about instinct is simply wrong. If it were true we'd still be living in caves and democracy...no matter how flawed...would never have arisen. Everyday we get up in the morning and instinctively resist the oppression of time and age and disease and, yes, cynicism and despair.

 

Your second point is just more quibbling. You evade the issue--you cannot objectively apply any of those three attributes to any other faction than the one that it properly belongs to.

 

Your first third point is more of a simplification than anything I said. What I said is just a distillation of the motives of each faction. Most of which is supported by the Lore itself and the proclamations of the factions themselves.

 

Your second third point, is representative of a cynical POV: What I say or do doesn't breed gullibility, it's self-deception that breeds gullibility...imposing solipsistic fantasy and wishful thinking on reality.

 

But if I had to choose to between being "gullible"...and optimistic and believing in things outside of myself--aspiring to higher principles, holding to ideals that promise to elevate the human spirit rather than oppress it...if I had to choose between that state of mind and the cynicism of Orson Wells or the implied notion that nothing matters outside of one's self, I'd always choose to be "gullible."

 

The fact that the human race generates such notions...that we write documents such as the Declaration of Independence; that we sacrifice our lives to protect not only our families and ensure that the world they live in will be better but also other people who we may never know, to nurture ideals that we may never entirely see brought to fruition, and have done time out of mind...gives currency to the idea that some part of us ( or perhaps just some few of us) are moved by aspiration and belief and hope.

 

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. . . .

John Stuart Mill

 

And...

 

It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion. W. R. Inge

 

Sorry, but that's the world we live in (as current events remind us time and again); that's base reality...even when expressed in a game.

 

No human being is perfect, no social or cultural system can address every problem with every individual perfectly. Sometimes individuals have to exert themselves on their own behalf...sometimes that lackadaisical, "compliant," "base state" comes to the fore and people just don't. Perhaps for the lack of something, some principle, outside of themselves to believe in.

 

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.~Theodore Roosevelt

 

I doubt there's a resolution here. It is a sentiment I expressed in my first post a page or so ago. It is a conflict of Weltanschauungen--world views.

Edited September 14, 2014 by MacSuibhne

[Lachdonin]

 

Your first point about instinct is simply wrong. If it were true we'd still be living in caves and democracy...no matter how flawed...would never have arisen. Everyday we get up in the morning and instinctively resist the oppression of time and age and disease and, yes, cynicism and despair.

 

 

All right, first... No, it's not wrong. Resisting time and disease are not the same as social resistance, no matter how much your philosophy may require them to be. They are biologically derived characteristics that are the product of billions of years of evolution, not some moral or ethical drive. You don't do either instinctively either, they are totally autonomic and have nothing to do with any cerebral function. Furthermore, the emotional and social resistance to despair is something that typically requires active counselling. People all to often fall into despair, and it is rare for someone to fight against it without outside support.

 

 

 

Your second point is just more quibbling. You evade the issue--you cannot objectively apply any of those three attributes to any other faction than the one that it properly belongs to.

 

 

Again, you are wrong. The Thalmor are not, from their perspective, subjugating or exterminating anything. They are seeking to liberate the world from the shackles of mortality, and to RETURN the Godhood that was stolen from EVERYONE. To them, both the Empire and Stormcloaks are soulless savages who revel in the death and destruction of the world and wilfully perpetuate the ENSLAVEMENT that is Mundus.

 

Likewise, the Empire does not see its self as prone to acquiescence or being complacent. It is mobilising under the nose of the enemy, a viper ready for the perfect time to strike. From the perspective of the Empire, the Stormcloaks are drawing unnecessary attention to the preparation for war, they are short sighted indulgents who require instant gratification and can't understand patience, while the Thalmor are the hated wolves, preying on the sheep that must be tolerated until the pit is finished and lined with spikes.

 

Your examples ;

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.

 

Only exist from the singular perspective of the Stormcloaks, and totally ignore the perspectives and motivations of the other two factions.

 

 

 

Your first third point is more of a simplification than anything I said. What I said is just a distillation of the motives of each faction. Most of which is supported by the Lore itself and the proclamations of the factions themselves.

 

You can claim whatever you wish here, that doesn't exonerate you from the fact that you are totally, and now knowingly, ignoring the motivations of the leaders of each faction in a failed attempt to shoe horn their motivations into neat boxes, based on a singular perspective, to support a false premise.

 

 

 

Your second third point, is representative of a cynical POV: What I say or do doesn't breed gullibility, it's self-deception that breeds gullibility...imposing solipsistic fantasy and wishful thinking on reality.

 

Are you sure you know what solipsism is? The need to consider individual motivations other than your own is the total opposite of solipsism.

 

Anod, it's not a cynical point of view, it's a comprehensive point of view that requires both the understanding of your self, and those around you. Blindly following someone because of what they say, or in most cases because of what you THINK they say, is a textbook example of gullibility.

 

You also seem to totally misunderstand what Wells was saying. Wells was a strident reformationist, espousing the value of human thought and the worth of every individual and the consideration of others, in an era where, much like today, only the self mattered. As a popular turn of phrase was, during the age 'Its a dog eat dog world'. The quote in question is a reference to EXACTLY the situation we see in Skyrim, and that occurred with the American Revolution (and the French Revolution, the Soviet Revolution... Spanish... Italian... the list goes on, and has in fact gotten longer since Wells died). People get caught up in their optimism and forget that they don't live in that perfect paradise of their imagination. They forget that they have motivations, and that those around them have motivations, and they never consider what those motivations are. Ulfric will freely state that he doesn't CARE about the Talos ban, he just wants to get rid of the Empire.

 

Optimism is a fuel for revolution. It's a tool that is used by the cunning, the wicked and the selfish to turn good folk to their cause and capitalise. Awareness, comprehension, and more importantly THINKING ABOUT OTHERS (again, the total opposite of solipsism) are the only means of social change that have ever worked out for the better. To dream of something better, of something grander, is one thing, but you must root that dream in realities or anyone who pulls at it can lead you whatever direction they so please.

 

I see, however, that you are a patriot. I, on the other hand, view patriotism as yet another manifestation of selfishness and personal arrogance, a bridge to the delineation of self and other and an attempt at nothing but the alienation of that other. Whether it is done at an individual level, or at a community level, patriotism is a blind gullibility that serves only to turn us against each other based on vague and manipulatable ideas. It has only ever brought conflict, strife and pain, and if i am a cynic for thinking that is wrong, so be it.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Lachdonin

[kradus]

Has anyone missed the part where the Empire has been preparing for another clash with the Dominion?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

That the Thalmor cooked up the rebelion with civil unrest, and want it to last for as long as possible is fact. Neutrality means letting them have what they want.

Of course yu can always just keep killing their elite troops on the roads.

Edited September 14, 2014 by kradus

[enkephalin07]

Still early in my first playthrough, just got to Hrothgar, but already I figured out that picking a side would be idiotic. The Aldmeri Dominion's armistice terms were a calculated divide-and-conquer strategy that the Empire and Stormcloaks have both fallen for. To choose a side would be to support playing into their hands; you know the Thalmor are just waiting for the Empire to hobble itself enough to steamroll all over them.

 

If you really want to be responsible for eliminating the Empire for good, you might as well be thorough about it and kill 'em all -- beats slavery to the elves. If you want to preserve the Empire, they need to come to an agreement, it doesn't matter how, and launch a pre-emptive attack on the Dominion. Neither of these require picking a side.

[MidbossVyers]

No, not picking a side is "idiotic". If the Dragonborn joins the war, the side that s/he picks will win within a matter of weeks (days?), minimizing both Legion and Stormcloak casualties. However, if the Dragonborn does not join the war, the tug-of-war between the 2 sides will weaken both interests and only benefit the Thalmor.

[Lachdonin]

No, not picking a side is "idiotic". If the Dragonborn joins the war, the side that s/he picks will win within a matter of weeks (days?), minimizing both Legion and Stormcloak casualties. However, if the Dragonborn does not join the war, the tug-of-war between the 2 sides will weaken both interests and only benefit the Thalmor.

Exactly. Not picking a side keeps the factions evenly matched, with no decisive victory being possible for either side. All it does is bleed both dry, which plays more onto the hands of the Thalmor than either victory. Of course, the Thalmor desire to keep the Civil War going is discovered through the main quest, so Enkephalin may not have found it yet...

 

But Neutrality is by far the worst of the 3 options.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Lachdonin

[enkephalin07]

If the game never gives you the means to broker the significant influence you acquire into mediating a peace settlement, then I can just imagine it occurs beyond the scope of the game, and dismiss it while I'm playing.

 

Maybe I'm just stubborn; I won't let either the Thalmor or Bethesda's writers pressure me into picking a side.

[GetTheJojDone]

Bethesda do seem to be distinctly anti-Imperial in Skyrim - in the CK, the throne in the Blue Palace belongs to Ulfric (srsly), and all the men in the Battle-Born family are at least one of the following: pasty, skinny, or have a funny nose. Alfhild and Bergritte, the members of the family who are ambivalent on the war, look much more normal. And that's not even mentioning the fact that Lars Battle-Born is implied to be inbred.

 

And of course, there's the fact that when you take over Solitude for the Stormcloaks, nobody cares, not even Elisif, or for that matter, Vivienne, Jala or Angeline Morrard, who have lost family to the Stormcloaks, hell, Vivienne and Jala both express hatred for the Stormcloaks in their dialogue. Other people who you'd expect to hate the Stormcloaks don't, often for the most ridiculous of reasons - Beirand says it's because he's a "king's man", even though 1. Elisif clearly only acquiesced to the Stormcloaks due to military coercion, and the fact that by the time she was enticed to do so, there was no realistic possibility of her making any resistance 2. Elisif will never be queen, certainly not in Ulfric's lifetime 3. surely that would make him loyal to the Emperor?

 

When you take Windhelm for the Empire, though, the blacksmiths both hate you FOREVAR.

Edited September 20, 2014 by GetTheJojDone

[Lachdonin]

Bethesda has been rather Anti-Imperial since Daggerfall. Back then, they were the ineffectual administration more concerned with indiscrete love-letters than a nearing Civil War. In Morrowind they were the colonial outsiders trying to force their laws and gods on the Dunmer. In Oblivion they were Tue petty politically minded, bickering children who couldn't get their act together in the middle of an invasion...

 

The portrayal of the Empire in Skyrim is actually one of the more flattering ones.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Lachdonin