Imperial VS Stormcloak

[TheLoreSeeker]

Secondary question? Why are we casting "The Bear of Markarth" and "The Madmen of the Reach" out anyway? They don't seem particularly outrageous....just sort of written from the view of a Reachmen sympathizer.

[Sianama]

 

As for the Reachmen: Ever listened to the prisoners' stories? None of them says a word about Ulfric. They say it was the Jarl who ordered the executions and the imprisonment. I'm not saying Ulfric didn't do anything or is an innocent lamb, but that Bear of Markarth book is so full of contradictions in itself, I just can't believe a word in it. And if you then listen around and talk to people, it becomes even more suspicious.

And I don't think Cedran for example would be ok with the Hagravens. He explicitly states that that is the road to ruin. I didn't mean only the Nords were not ok with that, but can you imagine Cedran, Ainetach, Rhiada or Enmon being willingly ruled by Hagravens? I can't. Madanach claims 'their fight is the fight of the people' but that's not true. Or do you think Eltrys' father was not a Reachman?

 

You lost me. Who said anything about Ulfric?...And whether or not the Bear of Markarth can be used as evidence, that won't eliminate the fact that the Markarth Incident did in fact happen.

 

The Reachmen still in Markarth make it plain that the Forsworn are "lost", they aren't what they once stood for. And like I said...I had hoped that Madanach would chill them out and unite them again...but they seem to all be scattered and crazy now...and Madanach has sworn to kill all the Nords.

Oh, sorry, didn't make that clear, that was not an answer to your posting.

The Markarth incident did ofc happen and I am surely not saying it was a cup of tea they all had together ;)

 

I found the Bear of Markarth not outrageous at first, because I didn't question it much. But after listening to people I put it in the same category not with 'Madmen of Reach' but with 'The Talos Mistake' as propaganda. I was only refering to that book because the poster above was refering to it, not you. (Because I think it is debatable if it was indeed Ulfric or Ulfric alone who murdered all those civilians at Markarth.)

[TheLoreSeeker]

Oh sorry...I should have checked to see if you were referring to something else before I accused.

Yeah I just went back and reread both "The Bear of Markarth" and "The Madmen of the Reach"......the author is definitely a Forsworn sympathizer.

[Anska]

A short note from my side: That there appear to be more Forsworn than decent Reachmen is, in my opinion, a distortion of proportion caused by a necessity of game-mechanics - you simply need more enemies than nice people. Otherwise you might have to argue that the Empire is indeed right in calling the Nords "lawless barbarians" because most of the population of Skyrim consists of bandits, necromancers and vampires. I don't argue that there are a many Forsworn, I just doubt the "most".

I agree with Sianama that there are a lot of parallels between the reasons for the Stormcloak rebellion and the Forsworn. They both believe themselves to be ruled by foreign leaders who don't care about them but want them to do the dirty work and they both feel that their culture was taken from them. So they probably have the same right to pursue their ambitions while the other side has the same right to put them down. Yet, I can't bring myself to feel very compassionate towards the Forsworn.

In Red Eagle's story he became a Briarheart as a last resort and it twisted his personality. He might have driven the foreigners out of the Reach, but at the cost of his humanity and free will. You could say, he made the ultimate sacrifice so his people could live freely. The present day Forsworn copy that behavior and build their whole "culture" around it. Becoming a Briarheart is seen as the ultimate dedication to the cause and all the unease in dealing with the hagraven, that was still present in the original legend, seems to have been lost. From fighting foreigners so they could live their way of living, they turned to make fighting foreigners their way of living (not to mention they kill a lot of Reachmen too); from hesitantly accepting a deal with a dark force, they turned to embrace it quite willingly now. There is only one Redoubt that is a real settlement, all the others are a weird mix of banditcamp and ritual place. I sincerely doubt that the Reachmen in Markarth, who only want to live their lives in peace, would really prefer such a way of living. ... and apart from what the Reachmen might want or not want, most of my characters don't want these people to succeed, so they help getting rid of them.

This said, I agree, that probably a lot would have gone different in the Reach, if the Forsworn had had a real leader - one less bent on revenge and personal interest. I usually don't let Madanach walk free. Leaving Madanach dead and Thonar in deep misery doesn't feel like such a bad solution, because I have little hope for the Forsworn at this point and I hope Thonar is frequently reminded of being responsible for his wife's death. The only thing I regret is, that there is no way to save Eltrys's life or to do something to help his wife and kid. I always feel a little responsible for his death, even though he took the risk willingly.

 

Edit: ok, that wasn't short.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Anska

[Sianama]

The parallels I see are the ones you pointed out. But I, too, usually kill Madanach, as much as I understand for example Braig's hatred. He does not fight 'the good fight' He kills Reachmen in order to achieve his own ends. And the worst of it, they don't even know that they are not giving their life for the Reach, but for Madanachs personal ends. Nepos' note to Weylin says, he's going to kill the woman for the Forsworn, but in reality he's executing that woman for Thonar. And I bet Eltrys' father, who was a Breton landowner and got killed by 'a madman' (like Margret if you fail to save her) was executed by order of Thonar too. Not for the benefit of the Reachmen, but for Thonar's own personal needs and goals and it was Madanach who made the killer believe he did this for the good of his people. Without Madanach many more Reachmen could still control their own land instead of having died at the orders of Thonar. But maybe that was something Madanach also didn't want, because the more people die to obvious schemes of the Silver Blood, the more he can secure his position, the more dissatisfied Reachmen, the more support he gets.

As I said, I do agree that the Nords need to treat the Reachmen better, that they need to respect their beliefs and their ways of living more. But that doesn't make me feel more sympathy for the Forsworn and surely not for Madanach, who is a traitor to both Nords and his people.

[MightyZ0G]

there is another similarity between the Forsworn and the Stormncloaks then.

both are led by self serving ego maniacs that are using the cause to further their own ends.

even some Jarls (and Jarl replacements) that are sympathetic to the rebellion think that Ulfric is only doing it to become High King and doesn't really care about the people of Skyrim.

[Sianama]

But there is again the difference: while Ulfrics motivations are subject to debate ofc, as it would be with everyone aiming for a Jarl's, High King's or Emperor's seat, you still can not see anything that he tells his men that is untrue. He is not sending them to fight for Skyrim, while in truth they execute people for the Emperor. He does not lie to his people. He is the only one who doesn't refer to the people of his Hold as 'common rabble' when he makes you Thane of Eastmarch.

Ralof at one point says, he has heard things about Ulfric, that he doesn't like, but wether they are true or not, the cause for the fight is still the right one.

I, for one, like Ulfric and the way he is shown ingame. Sometimes he is hot headed and I would like to give him a little speech, but on the whole, I think that the ones suggesting he is only doing that for himself are wrong. He really believes in his cause and he has the best for Skyrim in his mind. Ofc I see, why some people can't agree with that. But that is why you have a choice in the matter and that is also why there is enough talk going on ingame to make both sides think they are right ;) But even the Stormcloak Jarls that are being sceptical of Ulfric's ulterior motivations never say he is right out lying or that the fight per se is wrong.

[Anska]

She didn't accuse anyone of lying, she didn't even imply it.

Skyrim isn't exactly a democracy. What the people want and what the Moot decides can be completely different things. For example the people of Morthal hate their Jarl - no matter which one - and in the case of Idgrod they even tried to get her sacked. Now, here is the interesting part. Apparently Jarls can get sacked, this is both implied by the quest in Morthal as by Dengeir's complaints. From Dengeir we learn that the nobles of a hold (which probably refers to the wealthy influential people and the Thanes) can demand a new Jarl, if the old one doesn't do his job to their liking. He never says to whom the complaints are issued, but as the letter from Morthal is to be delivered to Captain Aldis, it is safe to assume that such matters are either taken care of by the Empire directly or perhaps the High King, if one is available. If you look at the Holds of Skyrim with this in mind, you have either a Jarl inclined to the Empire or a Jarl who supports Ulfric but has nobles with strong ties to the Empire in his or her hold. Balgruuf never made his preferences known and you don't even have to be Maven to find ample evidence to get Jarl Leila sacked for incompetence. Now, to make this picture even more vivid, add the constant talk of bribes by the Empire - or "imperial support of the holds", to give it a less offensive name. While I don't know how much of this talk is true and how much is not, Avenicci basically confirms that Balgruuf got some "chests of gold". Calling a Moot in this setting would be plain stupid, as there is no chance that Ulfric could win it - and this has nothing to do with what the people want.

But, as we have reached the topic of Ulfric's character again, I would like to ask: what do you think are Ulfric's own ends and ulterior motives? The expressions alone aren't very nice, but they are rather empty. So I would like to know what do you think Ulfric wants - and, more importantly, why?

Edited April 11, 2013 by Anska

[Sianama]

That thing about lying was in answer to my discussion about Madanach. :)

 

And apart from agreeing with Anska, I must say, that some things are simply not shown ingame. Yes, there are very probably more non-Nords in the Legion than with the Stormcloaks. But the Stormcloaks are solely made up of people from Skyrim and the majority there is Nord. While the Legion is made up of people from all (former ) provinces. But that is a simplyfication by the game. Or did you see a Redguard in the rebellion? Well, there should be one, because Kerah and Endon talk about their son who joined the Stormcloaks. And Endon at the end of the discussion admits it is exactly what he'd have done, if he were younger. So there are people from other races, just not as many, because Skyrim and therefore its 'rebellion' is mostly made up of Nords.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Sianama

[MidbossVyers]

You'll find random encounters: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Random_Encounters of humans wanting to join the Stormcloaks, including Redguards and even Imperials, while many Stormcloak Jarls will have elves in high political positions. On the other hand, I don't see many beast-kin in the Stormcloak army or the Legion army...