Why everyone thinks that the Empire is bad?

[MidbossVyers]

 

Brunwulf himself admits as Jarl of Windhelm it isn't as easy as letting the Argonians into the city, on account of their history as slaves to the Dunmer. As for Ulfric's innocense in the Markarth incident, speak to all of the prisoners in Cidhna mine. The only authority figure that's mentioned is the Jarl. There's no mention of Ulfric whatsoever.

 

Brunwulf actually says it's because he fears that the Nords will commit violence against them. And IIRC, the prisoners in Cidhna Mine don't talk about the Markarth Incident, they only talk about why they were imprisoned.

 

Yes, several of them (but not all) were imprisoned during the Markarth Incident.

[GetTheJojDone]

 

 

Brunwulf himself admits as Jarl of Windhelm it isn't as easy as letting the Argonians into the city, on account of their history as slaves to the Dunmer. As for Ulfric's innocense in the Markarth incident, speak to all of the prisoners in Cidhna mine. The only authority figure that's mentioned is the Jarl. There's no mention of Ulfric whatsoever.

 

Brunwulf actually says it's because he fears that the Nords will commit violence against them. And IIRC, the prisoners in Cidhna Mine don't talk about the Markarth Incident, they only talk about why they were imprisoned.

 

Yes, several of them (but not all) were imprisoned during the Markarth Incident.

 

 

I'm reading over their dialogue on UESP, and they talk about "the Nords" more than anything else. Granted, no mention of Ulfric, but there's only one of the Jarl, by Braig, and it's unclear if the Jarl ordered his execution in the first place.

[Kraeten]

Brunwulf actually says it's because he fears that the Nords will commit violence against them. And IIRC, the prisoners in Cidhna Mine don't talk about the Markarth Incident, they only talk about why they were imprisoned.

 

 

Braig at least speaks of the beginning of the Forsworn uprising, and again there's no mention of Ulfric. As for Brunwulf's fears, point taken. Going back to the Markarth incident, I've always found it curious how some people are so eager to see Ulfric as capable of committing such atrocities when there's no actual in-game instances of him doing anything even remotely similar.

 

If Ulfric was so eager to butcher civilians for not aiding his siege of Markarth, surely he would have killed the Battleborns at the very least when he took Whiterun during the Civil War? If the Markarth incident was personal for him, the civil war should be even doubly so...and yet he shows surprising restraint throughout the war. No torture, no killing of Imperial sympathizers.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Kraeten

[Lachdonin]

 

If Ulfric was so eager to butcher civilians for not aiding his siege of Markarth, surely he would have killed the Battleborns at the very least when he took Whiterun during the Civil War? If the Markarth incident was personal for him, the civil war should be even doubly so...and yet he shows surprising restraint throughout the war. No torture, no killing of Imperial sympathizers.

If Ulfric (or Tullius for that matter) were to repopulate half the NPCs in a captured city, thus affecting the merchants and potential quests in that area, do you think anyone would actually do the Civil War quest line?

 

The notion that just because we don't see imprisonings and executions in a minituarised image of the Holdmeans they don't happen in the world is just silly.

 

Meanwhile, the in-game sources are written within the context of a legitimately scaled world.

 

No one, anywhere, denies Ulfrics participation in the Markarth incedent. Likewise, no one disputes the content of the book The Markarth Incedent. Without any contradicting evidence, your just falling back on gameplay limitations as proof of your position. Using similar logic, no one in Skyrim k.les you can use a rope to climb things.

[Kraeten]

 

If Ulfric (or Tullius for that matter) were to repopulate half the NPCs in a captured city, thus affecting the merchants and potential quests in that area, do you think anyone would actually do the Civil War quest line?

 

I'm not even talking about half the city. I'm talking about a precious few specific characters who opposed Ulfric's war effort. And NONE of them faced any sort of violent retribution. Zip. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Meanwhile in the Dawnguard dlc we have Vampires killing civilians left and right yet people still bought that so don't tell me the developers were opposed to going in that direction design wise.

 

What's really silly here is you're taking ONE book written by an IMPERIAL scholar and using it to present a COMPLETELY different Ulfric from the one we as the player can actually observe.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Kraeten

[notmyhome]

The Interesting NPCs mod is usually very accurate in all things lore, isn't it? I'd really like to know where from they got their inspiration for Haakon Iron-Fist. That guy was imprisoned by Ulfric for committing massacres during the Markarth Incident.

[Lachdonin]

 

I'm not even talking about half the city. I'm talking about a precious few specific characters who opposed Ulfric's war effort. And NONE of them faced any sort of violent retribution. Zip. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Meanwhile in the Dawnguard dlc we have Vampires killing civilians left and right yet people still bought that so don't tell me the developers were opposed to going in that direction design wise

You don't see the Empire killing off the Silverbloods, who openly support Ulfric. Or the Smith in Whiterun who is practically in love with him. You don't see any visible signs of siege tobamy city, no occupation beyond a change in the guards, and no arrests. Nowhere, in any city, is the change of occupation shown, regardless of which faction wins.

 

And yes, I can say they didn't want to go that direcction, because the Vampires and the Civil War are very different things (and the Vampire attacks have been complained about profusely, and Howard has apologized for them). The Vampire attacks are to force a sense of urgency to the game, to keep people from getting killed in the first place. The Civil War conquests are player driven and designed to affect as little in a city ad possible (erroniously, I think, but that was the intention).

 

The simple fact is, there is nothing which contradicts the information on the Markarth Incedent. Even the Karl of Markarth states that Ulfric took the city without prompting, and then basically held it ransom, and nothing Ulfric says denies that.

[Kraeten]

 

You don't see the Empire killing off the Silverbloods, who openly support Ulfric. Or the Smith in Whiterun who is practically in love with him. You don't see any visible signs of siege tobamy city, no occupation beyond a change in the guards, and no arrests. Nowhere, in any city, is the change of occupation shown, regardless of which faction wins.

 

And yes, I can say they didn't want to go that direcction, because the Vampires and the Civil War are very different things (and the Vampire attacks have been complained about profusely, and Howard has apologized for them). The Vampire attacks are to force a sense of urgency to the game, to keep people from getting killed in the first place. The Civil War conquests are player driven and designed to affect as little in a city ad possible (erroniously, I think, but that was the intention).

 

The simple fact is, there is nothing which contradicts the information on the Markarth Incedent. Even the Karl of Markarth states that Ulfric took the city without prompting, and then basically held it ransom, and nothing Ulfric says denies that.

 

 

The Empire did however send a spy to steal the deed to the Markarth treasury. As for Euoland, you're forgetting about that part where the Empire handed his son Thorald over the Thalmor. I might also mention Angi's parents were killed by drunken Imperial soldiers. But by all means do go on about the Imperial's supposedly virtuous behavior in Skyrim.

 

Nothing contradicts the Markarth book because there's hardly any witnesses in-game who could tell of the events transcribed in it, beyond the prisoners who make NO mention of Ulfric's involvement whatsoever despite the IMPERIAL scholar's CLAIMS that he was the mastermind behind it all. The only information in the book that can be supported in-game is the fact that Ulfric was indeed the one who led the attack that liberated Markarth from the Breton reachmen.

[Lachdonin]

Really love that Straw-man dont ya? Nowhere did i say the Imperials were virtuous. I said that the games depiction of the impact of changing occupations cannot be taken at face value. Hell, the Imperials don't eclven close the Temple of Talos in Windhelm. To argue that the treatment, or lack there of, of the Battleborns (which would impact a quest and thus is a big no-no in Bethesda's world) is indicitive of Ulfric's peaceful and forgiving nature requires the exact same standard to be applied to ALL cities that change their occupation.

 

Thus, the Empire clearly supports Talos worship and forgives the smiths that make weapons for the enemy (the Smith I was referring to is in Windhelm, not Eolund) as well as ignores its own laws and puts bounties out on Giants and hates the College of Winterhold.

 

None of this is accurate to the world and exists for no reason other than gameplay simplicity.

 

You also seem to be hung up on the fact that the author of the Bear of Markarth was an Imperial. But that isn't the point. The point is that NOTHING, ANYWHERE contradicts it. No one seems to mention the Witch Queen of Whiterun, or that Falkreath was once a county of Cyrodiil, or that the Nords are descended from Giants, but that doesn't contradict the books which talk about those things. Conversation options are limited, and we can't just ask Ulfric himself.

[GetTheJojDone]

 

 

You don't see the Empire killing off the Silverbloods, who openly support Ulfric. Or the Smith in Whiterun who is practically in love with him. You don't see any visible signs of siege tobamy city, no occupation beyond a change in the guards, and no arrests. Nowhere, in any city, is the change of occupation shown, regardless of which faction wins.

 

And yes, I can say they didn't want to go that direcction, because the Vampires and the Civil War are very different things (and the Vampire attacks have been complained about profusely, and Howard has apologized for them). The Vampire attacks are to force a sense of urgency to the game, to keep people from getting killed in the first place. The Civil War conquests are player driven and designed to affect as little in a city ad possible (erroniously, I think, but that was the intention).

 

The simple fact is, there is nothing which contradicts the information on the Markarth Incedent. Even the Karl of Markarth states that Ulfric took the city without prompting, and then basically held it ransom, and nothing Ulfric says denies that.

 

 

The Empire did however send a spy to steal the deed to the Markarth treasury. As for Euoland, you're forgetting about that part where the Empire handed his son Thorald over the Thalmor. I might also mention Angi's parents were killed by drunken Imperial soldiers. But by all means do go on about the Imperial's supposedly virtuous behavior in Skyrim.

 

Nothing contradicts the Markarth book because there's hardly any witnesses in-game who could tell of the events transcribed in it, beyond the prisoners who make NO mention of Ulfric's involvement whatsoever despite the IMPERIAL scholar's CLAIMS that he was the mastermind behind it all. The only information in the book that can be supported in-game is the fact that Ulfric was indeed the one who led the attack that liberated Markarth from the Breton reachmen.

 

 

Well, let's put Margret trying to steal the deed to the treasury into prospective, yes? The Silver-Bloods, a mafia-like family who overtly support the Stormcloaks, control the treasury of one of the richest holds in the Imperial half of Skyrim. Don't you think it would be stupid not to try and get it back? There's no evidence the Empire gave Thorald to the Thalmor, for all we know, the Thalmor kidnapped him themselves. It wouldn't be the first time. And yeah, you said it yourself DRUNKEN Imperial soldiers. Because drunk soldiers are completely aware of what they're doing.

 

And quit falling back on the prisoners, they barely even talk about the Markarth Incident, nevermind whose fault it was (beyond "the Nords"). Jarl Igmund, however, says quite unambiguously that Ulfric attacked Markarth on his own intiative, then held it to ransom in an idiotic attempt to coax the Empire into breaking the White-Gold Concordat and risking further warfare.

Edited August 24, 2014 by GetTheJojDone