Imperial VS Stormcloak

[MightyZ0G]

more often than not the heroes of legend and myth all had very serious character flaws that ultimately lead to their downfall.

King Arthur's downfall was caused by his jealousy

Sir Lancelot's downfall was caused by his lust

[Anska]

I just reread what I wrote in the morning and I guess my argument missed the point a bit. What I basically mean though is:

When you look at fairy tales, legends, ect. the characters usually don't even have enough personality to have any character-traits or -flaws, unless these traits are essential for the story. For the Valiant Tailor it's essential, that he's a rather sly fellow (and not entirely honest) but he doesn't get characterized any deeper than this. It's not important either, because it's a brains over brawn story and you are supposed to root for the little guy just because he tricks them all. In those fairytale-like stories there usually is a rather clear distinction between good and evil; on one side you have the hero, who is either totally innocent, naive or brave, and on the other the greedy or vain stepmother, witch or the devil who get punished for being mean to someone in the end. That's where the story stops and you never find out whether the hero of one story becomes the villain of another. There isn't much character development for anyone here, because there isn't much character to begin with.

It's different with stories that tell a hero's journey. Here you are told how a hero overcomes an obstacle, either in form of a physical threat or a trait within himself - in other words a character-flaw. In case of the latter the hero remains a hero as long as he manages to keep his flaw in check. At one point he will probably fail though and then he either manages to redeem himself again or it will become his downfall. Zog has already mentioned King Arthur and Lancelot as examples above. That their flaws eventually shaped their doom doesn't make them any less heroic during their prime though. But even in this type of story the characters still tend to have a very stereotypic personality only.

This only changed when authors actually became interested in exploring a character's personality and characters became more complex as a result. Early novels/ plays of this last type still have a moralistic overtone though and you won't see any bad guy win yet, as I pointed out before. Still, you have heroes with plenty of character flaws or quirks in those stories. To remain in the realm of knights and maidens, take Scott's portrayal of King Richard in "The Talisman" for example. He is generally portrayed in a favourable light as a chivalrous and noble man and remains one of the heroes of the story all the time. At the same time, however, he is prideful and has a seriously bad temper, which gets the better out of him on more than one occasion. Similarly the story's protagonist has a tendency to forget both common sense and duty when his lady-love is concerned.

Morally ambiguous anti-heroes or downright villains who succeed with their schemes and remain completely unpunished for them are a 20th century thing though.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Anska

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

I would not say that the characters didn't have enough character to have flaws, I am saying that they were designed intentionally to not have flaws or not a lot of them really while villains were comprised of almost nothing but in most cases. These stories were about there being a clear right side and a clear wrong side.

 

Again, you look at Amalur, and it isn't that no one is developed, a lot of them are quite developed, its just that one side is obviously intended by the writer(s) to be evil and the other good and so they are developed that way (though in that case not in such an unrealistic manner).

 

That is the character of them. I don't think what changed was authors wanting to go deeper into characters, what changed was that people (mainly the "audience") wanted more realistic people in stories. They went from wanting fairy tales and things and people to look up to, to wanting people they could relate to but also watch them overcome demons of their own.

 

Stories (whether we are talking fictionally or about the news) often are designed with propaganda in mind. What I mean is, we have to believe that whoever we're against is bad and often portray them in the most negative light possible. All I am saying is that this is often unrealistic because in the end people are people. Very few of them are a shining beacon of good and very few are the very essence of evil. Most of the time people are just puppets to the forces which have been exerted upon them in their life either due to environment, upbringing, culture, other factors, and or even more other factors.

 

Where as "villains" once just encompassed every flaw possible in general (so that we would automatically "hate" them) now we are seeing stories were it isn't so simple as "I'm just evil for the sake of it and because its fun."

 

Now it is often instead, "I am evil in your eyes, but in my own, this is the proper course."

 

So no Anska, it isn't that stories are no longer about morality/morals and or a lesson, it's just that we (at least in our own eyes) have become more complex as a people and thus the lessons behind our stories have become even more complex.

 

 

more often than not the heroes of legend and myth all had very serious character flaws that ultimately lead to their downfall.

King Arthur's downfall was caused by his jealousy

Sir Lancelot's downfall was caused by his lust

 

I missed this, but I covered this with what I originally said in several posts.

Edited May 24, 2013 by TheObstinateNoviceSmith

[Anska]

would not say that the characters didn't have enough character to have flaws, I am saying that they were designed intentionally to not have flaws or not a lot of them really while villains were comprised of almost nothing but in most cases. These stories were about there being a clear right side and a clear wrong side.

I was referring to tales like the Brother Grimm Tales e.g., when saying that characters have little to no personality.

 

In regards to heroes like Robin Hood etc I agree with you that they, more often than not, tend to get cleaned from their less endearing attributes to become shining examples of righteousness, like I said on the previous page. However, I disagree that all heroes are either constructed this way or are part of a fall from glory story, because overcoming one's own flaw(s) can just as well be part of a hero's tale. In this case they are heroic because they are flawed like everybody else, but deal with their problem in an admirable way. Take Parzival for example. He starts out as a flawed character due to his lack of proper education. He's a good fighter and wants to become a knight but commits some serious mistakes early in the story which place innocent people in misery. During his story he overcomes his flaws, rectifies his mistakes to become a proper knight in the end. His initial flaws are an essential part of his tale and of him being a hero.

 

That is the character of them. I don't think what changed was authors wanting to go deeper into characters, what changed was that people (mainly the "audience") wanted more realistic people in stories. They went from wanting fairy tales and things and people to look up to, to wanting people they could relate to but also watch them overcome demons of their own.

As authors generally are among the most eager readers, can we agree that people at some point started to get interested in what makes people tick?

 

So no Anska, it isn't that stories are no longer about morality/morals and or a lesson, it's just that we (at least in our own eyes) have become more complex as a people and thus the lessons behind our stories have become even more complex.

Of course there are still stories with morals, lessons and good vs evil. You mentioned yourself that even (or especially) the papers tend to turn their news into this direction. Children's as well as young adult fiction tends to have a very clear distinction between right and wrong too, even if they portrait characters as human beings driven by motivations you can relate to. What I was saying is, that stories nowadays don't necessarily have to bow to a moral code anymore and they don't have to convey a unmistakably clear morality anymore either. Take "The talented Mr. Ripley" for example, especially in the movie version. There is no obvious moral lessons in the story, the story's protagonist is hero and villain at the same time, he isn't meant to inspire you to or warn you from a certain behaviour either. You can of course always find a lesson, etc. on a personal level for yourself, but the story itself isn't aimed at it. Similarly the civil war in Skyrim wasn't created to give you a good or a bad side. You can decide for yourself whether there is a good and bad side or whether it's a decision between two noble or two despicable causes. While some NPC might judge you for it afterwards, the game won't.

 

This total freedom from morals is a very recent thing. Character-complexity otoh doesn't depend so much on the time a story is from, but on the type of story you are looking at, whether it focuses more on the characters or on the plot.

 

Apart from this I'll simply agree to disagree with you on the point, that people have become more complex. I believe they are just as complex as they've been for the past thousands of years. Their complexity has only fairly recently become a matter of research and observation though, which is why they might appear more complex. Additionally a much greater amount of people can make their opinion public these days which might as well add to an appearance of greater complexity. However, if you take a look at the things that matter to people today or at the themes which lie at the heart of their stories, those are still largely the same things they use to be hundreds of years ago.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Anska

[Mopel]

Putting aside politicics, religions and defense debates in the thread, can Skyrim sustain it's population without the imperials? I remember the queen in Solitude saying that vital food supplies come straight from cyrodiil, and that by this time Skyrim's population requires it to avoid famine. Is this true, or can Skyrim's limited farmlands yield enough crop to feed itself?

 

Skyrim has a total population in-game of around, lets say (by roughly adding guards and other generic npcs too) 1500 people. With medieval europe in the millions during the 1400s, we can simply times it by 1000 and get a near realistic population of 1. 5 million.

 

My assumptions here are not accurate, but they give a rough picture anyway.

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

Yeah, if you take the word "all," and make it literal like attacking the word "perfect" or "never" in the same manner, of course it doesn't hold true as absolutes (more often than not) can not be used literally.

 

This is why you're actually disagreeing with something I never said because I never said "all." I said something along the lines of "basically," "generally," "typically", etc.

 

Keep in mind, that in a story, a character's status can change. This means that while a character may start a hero, they may not end up being a hero by the end and vice versa (also keep in a mind that just because a character isn't a hero, it doesn't automatically make them a villain or an anti-hero). So yes, a story may also be about them rising to become a hero.

 

 

And just to be clear, does this apply to all situations? No. Is it typical? Absolutely (or at least it has been at one time).

 

And since authors would be very small percentage of the reader population and since a great deal of the audience of stories are not readers at all, no. No matter how you look at it unless you focus only on the exceptions rather than the rule.

 

It was not about what makes people tick. It was mainly because we wanted people we could relate to. We wanted more realistic characters. Don't believe me? Look at how often people mention liking or disliking the realism of something even in a fantasy environment.

 

Funny thing though, even when someone is asking why someone did something, it is because they are trying to figure out if it was realistic for a person to do and often we base what we feel is realistic of our own experiences and or feelings and thus... whether we can relate to it in some way or not.

 

At one time, it was just enough to see a hero we could look up to, but now we would prefer one we feel we have things in common with rather than one that is solely a role model.

 

Yes, we have become more complex as people in regards to our desires. The thing is, for your argument to be true that we became interested in what makes people tick (which it isn't anyway (well not entirely or mainly) but still) we definitely would have become more complex in our desires given our stories were definitely more simplistic (in general) then no matter how you put it. You said that they characters didn't even have character then. I agreed, but credited a different reason than you. So your own words actually support people becoming more complex.

 

Look at what games we consider good now vs what we consider good awhile back. Movies, other stories, etc. I overheard people as I walked out of a theatre discussing how everything has been taken up a notch and that movies that were once considered great in their times and actors that may have been great during their time wouldn't measure up now.

 

Look at a car. At one time all we desired was something that was more convenient than walking and or a horse, now we need a car to have computer controlled braking systems and or other crazy features.

 

As we advance technologically, we advance in other ways too and stories are no exception. Sure this advancement has plenty of ugly sides, but still.

 

And before you, or anyone else, names yet another exception or two to what I am saying, I want you to realize that exceptions are already covered by what I have been saying because I already acknowledge their existence.

 

Now, whether it is agreed or not, I feel I have more than adequately expressed my point and at the very least have said as much as I could say without repeating myself over and over again. My only point to make was that this story was done exceptionally well so unless that is what you want to talk about and or refute, I don't see the point in going, and or continuing to go, so far off topic.

 

That being said, I apologize the part I played in going off topic just because I said that this story was great in my opinion due to there being no real bad guys on either side of this war (meaning the Stormcloaks aren't evil and neither is the Empire) when in plenty (due) of stories, one of them clearly would have been.

 

So I am done with that aspect of the discussion. Others may argue that whole thing if they want, but I won't be part of it myself.

 

Thank you for your opinions though. They were interesting.

 

 

Putting aside politicics, religions and defense debates in the thread, can Skyrim sustain it's population without the imperials? I remember the queen in Solitude saying that vital food supplies come straight from cyrodiil, and that by this time Skyrim's population requires it to avoid famine. Is this true, or can Skyrim's limited farmlands yield enough crop to feed itself?

 

Skyrim has a total population in-game of around, lets say (by roughly adding guards and other generic npcs too) 1500 people. With medieval europe in the millions during the 1400s, we can simply times it by 1000 and get a near realistic population of 1. 5 million.

 

My assumptions here are not accurate, but they give a rough picture anyway.

 

While it would be difficult, yes, they could. Key word being "could" as it doesn't mean they would. The most likely outlook isn't good for them to be able to do so, but at the same time when people are determined enough, anything is possible.

 

They did take it over and settle there and survive after all, so yeah, it is feasible, just it would b a difficult way to go.

[zamio1]

The stormcloaks are simply shortsighted. They only think about how things will affect them now or for the next year. At least the Empire knows what the Thalmor can do and try to avoid them till they are ready to destroy them. The Thalmor seek to divide and conquer. If Skyrim becomes independant, it becomes too easy for the Thalmor to come in, wipe everything out and take over.

 

Plus they are rascist pricks and I certainly don't like that.

[Anska]

And just to be clear, does this apply to all situations? No. Is it typical? Absolutely (or at least it has been at one time).

 

And I was saying, that there is more than one typical type of heroic story than the good vs evil type, such as facing an inner demon or a dilemma. In these cases heroes are heroes because you can both look up to them and in a certain way relate to their problems. What I was giving above was an example not an exception. But you wish to let it rest so that's all I'll say to this too.

 

 

Yes, we have become more complex as people in regards to our desires. The thing is, for your argument to be true that we became interested in what makes people tick (which it isn't anyway (well not entirely or mainly) but still) we definitely would have become more complex in our desires given our stories were definitely more simplistic (in general) then no matter how you put it. You said that they characters didn't even have character then. I agreed, but credited a different reason than you. So your own words actually support people becoming more complex.

 

No, they don't. They support that literary theory has become more complex. From simply telling simple (probably verbally conveyed) stories, interest shifted to explore different ways of telling a story etc. The things people care about are still the same they always have been physical support (a place to live, health, food to eat, clothing, ...), safety, social standing, respect and a little admiration from the people around you, answers to a couple of basic philosophical questions and entertainment, people never liked to be bored. The stories and movies which totally surprised you as a kid, don't do so anymore because you learned to read their basic pattern (or have spend too much time on TVtropes), so you require new stories or more precisely new forms of storytelling to be entertained. (Unless of course, you don't want to be surprised but for example want to watch a romantic or heroic movie for its mood. In which case you are quite content with a well known pattern.) But does it make you a more complex person, just because you learned that the guy in black leather most likely is a shady character? I doubt it. It hasn't even really made your desire to be entertained more complex.

 

We live in a different world now than people did twenty years ago, hundred years ago. It's technically more advanced and we have a lot of problems people back then didn't have - but at the same time there are a lot of problems we don't have anymore too. Society has become different for sure, but more advanced or more complex? I would not be so sure. You mentioned cars. While back in the 1920s having a car was cool in itself, today you want to have a fancy car. But apart from the technical improvement the old car and the new one satisfy the same needs/ desires in their given society. They are both the most comfortable means of private transportation available and they both are the fanciest new toy available if you wish to impress your peer group/ mark your social position. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree here.

 

Putting aside politicics, religions and defense debates in the thread, can Skyrim sustain it's population without the imperials? I remember the queen in Solitude saying that vital food supplies come straight from cyrodiil, and that by this time Skyrim's population requires it to avoid famine. Is this true, or can Skyrim's limited farmlands yield enough crop to feed itself?

 

That was one of her advisors and while I don't think she's lying, I think it's a issue of perspective. Aside from Sybil Stentor the only other person who remarks that Skyrim relies on import is Ulfric once you have won the war for the Stormcloaks and he is not referring specifically to food.

 

Skyrim has been part of the Empire for a very long time, so it will have naturally started to import goods that either cannot be produced in Skyrim or can be more easily produced elsewhere while exporting thing which Skyrim produces better than other parts of the Empire. So once Skyrim becomes independent they have to modify their economy accordingly. Which is one of Ulfric's top priorities once the CW is over. However I don't think people Skyrim will starve without the Empire because if they would, more than one single person would have issued their doubts about this. Looking back at Sybil, she lives in Solitude which is a very rich city and has the closest link to both the Empire and the trade with the Empire. I could imagine that people in Solitude are more dependent on trading goods from the Empire than the rest of Skyrim, because they have a way more imperial way of living. So in order to keep up their living-standard, they need luxury goods from the Empire. They won't die without them, but they will have to get used to live without Colowian Brandy and spiced wine.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Anska

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

Due to me clarifying poorly (misusing the word "typical") I will clarify again more clearly so to make it more clear as to why your type was an exception.

 

Instead of typical, I should have said "norm" and or in general and or generally speaking. So yes, by that, you are using exceptions which means they were in fact already accounted for in my words several times over. Similar to how an electric car is a type of car, but it is an exception to our automobiles as generally speaking a car's engine is not purely electric and can/will not be recharged by being plugged in.

 

Your words on complexity/human complexity are again majorly contradictory though and also don't apply to much of anything I have said on the subject although they intended to do so. If you need more explanation as to how and why, just private message me and I'll explain in detail, but this thread is not really the place anymore... nor was it ever come to think of it.

 

If not, again, I thank you for your time and your opinion.

 

The stormcloaks are simply shortsighted. They only think about how things will affect them now or for the next year. At least the Empire knows what the Thalmor can do and try to avoid them till they are ready to destroy them. The Thalmor seek to divide and conquer. If Skyrim becomes independant, it becomes too easy for the Thalmor to come in, wipe everything out and take over.

 

Plus they are rascist pricks and I certainly don't like that.

 

I can understand this point of view and find validity in it, but one could also look at them as being impassioned and one could argue that if Hammerfell held of the Thalmor, why couldn't Skyrim?

 

Again, could and will are two different things, but they could stand a shot at holding out one would imagine.

[Selvec]

<p>Imperials. Its a very simple decision. A rebelling fractured Empire will just allow the Aldmeri Dominion time to solidify their grasp on the continent. The emperor may not be Dragonborn, but the emperor...well if you've played the Dark Brotherhood Quest then you know the Emperor's fate. Skyrim moving away from the Empire will just let the Aldmeri contain and pick off the Redguards and the Nords. Nevermind that if you read up on the last war you can note that the imperials have a competent general now, and quite a fair bit of forces in play. What allowed the Aldmeri Dominion to conquer so fast was shock and rush tactics. The empire didn't expect it, wasn't ready for what hit it, and couldn't hold. The second time round will not be the same. Skyrim couldn't hold of the Thalmor because Skyrim doesn't have the vast Desert to hide in. Its icy tundra's don't quite match the redguards desert. While Winterhold is a place of great sorcery, it often stays neutral in such wars, and so unlike the redguards, doesn't have the magic power to beat the Thamlor at their own game. (Tribal Redguard Shamans are bloody nasty apparently)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Also Ulfric is a bloody hypocritical egotistical tosspot who couldn't even win a civil war against one imperial general let alone rule and defeat an entire empire. Talos himself was Nord and went on to create and rule an empire of multiple races, who made up all levels of his governing system based on their skills, not their race or religion. They forget the very teachings and way of the god they claim to defend.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Course what annoyed me was that my Aldmeri Mage couldn't join the Thalmor in any quest line. They were presented as the enemy from day one, when both the stormcloaks and the imperials where the ones that caused my character to end up in shackles about to get beheaded.</p>