swiftfoxmark2 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I agree entirely with Elisif but you do have to bear in mind she was never meant to be Yarl - she has had no training and has basically been thrown in the deep end - as others have said her heart is in the right place, she cares for her people, but she hasn't yet developed the ability to "moderate" that (hence her exaggerated response to the request when you first meet her) and honestly I doubt she ever will - she is purposely being kept around by the Imperials as a reminder of the High Kings death - as soon as the war is "settled" I expect they would replace her since they would no longer need the grieving widow as a figure head As for Ulfric - sorry I don't buy it - he makes several speeches with SEVERE racist intones - add these to some of the conversations you have in Windhelm he doesn't come off as caring for anyone who isn't a Nord (personally I would go further and say he cares for no-one who isn't HIM) - the most damning evidence comes from the Argonians on the docks - they are some of the hardest workers but they are barred from entry to the city proper and receive no protection from thieves or bandits - add this to the fact he allows bandits to operate within his lands as long as they don't attack Nords and the picture is firmly painted As for the conflict as a whole - I am terrible conflicted about it. The Empire in its current state is bad for Skyrim, it is corrupt to the core, bleeding resources and unable to fully protect its people. Despite this I look at the Stormcloaks and I cant help but see a power hungry leader manipulating the strong nationalistic tendencies of the Nords in a bid for supreme power which leaves me in a bit of a quandary - this is probably why I have never completed the civil war in over 500 hours of play... I have yet to see anything which Ulfric has said that is overtly racist . Like I said, if anything, he's just a disgruntled war veteran and former POW now responsible for a whole region of people. While the Dunmer are in self-imposed segregation due to their own pride and arrogance, I think Ulfric's decision to keep Argonians out of Windhelm is entirely justified. Given that the Argonians have proven themselves to be a major player in world affairs, having nearly toppled the Dunmer people on their own, which is no easy feat, he is probably wise to keep them in their own section of town by the docks. Argonians in Skyrim appear to enjoy staying in areas near water (you don't see any in places like Markarth or Whiterun), so the fact that they only appear in the Rift and Eastmarch makes sense. Not helping out them out with bandits or other attacks does not prove him to be a racist either. When his steward questions him on this, he states that most of his men are out fighting a war. It's a matter of resources and so he has to focus on his wartime interests and his own people (who made him Jarl) first and foremost. I think Viarmo said it best about the war though, indicating that leaders will come and go and that there are no heroes in this war. The only reason I choose a side in the game is because it's the only way I can get the word wall for Slow Time and because I find the quest Season Unending to be annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kradus Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Umm, I think the term, "genocidal tendencies" is specific enough. Please see Windhelm for further info. Markarth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidbossVyers Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Even Ulfric's replacement, Brunwulf, won't let Argonians into the city. He justifies it as "for their own safety". Also, there are Argonians in Riften, a Stormcloak city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer81 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) @kradus Correct, Markarth is another fine example. Seems like a conflict of interest earn your freedom by taking away someone else's, even when their cause more or less mirrors yours. While I am no fan of Jarl Ingman, he's not the worst Jarl in the world, that would be Lawgiver. Secondly, the Silver Bloods are responsible for most of this, what goes on in that mine is not because of the Jarl, although, I'm more than sure he profits from it. Finally, how quickly we forget that General Tullius is trying to straighten out that mine and the sh*t which goes on in there. The Imperial already control Markarth, they get their share of that Silver. This is actually the Empire trying to put a stop to the evil which goes on in Silver Blood mine. Edited February 22, 2013 by StormHammer81 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiumPower Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 The Bear of Markarth is penned by Arrianus Arius whose other work is The "Madmen" of the Reach, a work that is completely at odds with not only every account of the Forsworn given by the people in Markarth but also what is observable by the player. It's a clearly biased source that is not corroborated by any other account or evidence. Even if we assume the atrocities described by Madanach and Braig and other in-mates of Cidhna Mine (who are considered criminals even by the ordinary reachmen in Markarth) are accurate, according to their own account they were committed by Jarl Igmund not Ulfric. "I had a daughter, once. She'd be 23 this year. Married to some hot-headed silver worker or maybe on her own learning the herb trade. The Nords didn't care who was and who wasn't involved in the Forsworn Uprising. I had spoken to Madanach once, that was enough.But my little Aethra didn't want to see her papa leave her. She pleaded to the Jarl to take her instead. And after they made me watch as her head rolled off the block, they threw me in here anyway, to dig up their silver." source Note that he's not talking about the stormcloaks here, he's talking about nords in general and the Jarl, i.e. Igmund who is currently allied with Tullius. Ulfric was never Jarl of Markarth. Whatever atrocities happened there if any, are not on his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraquar Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I love it when people mention Windhelm, yet they conveniently seem to be blind to the fact that there isn't a single Dunmer/Argonian that owns property in any major hold. Take your pick, you won't find one. Before I'll condemn, I need to see evidence that they are welcome elsewhere - I simply don't see that anywhere in Skyrim. Believe nothing that you here, and only 1/2 of what you see. As for Markarth, I'd love to see how General Tullius would have handled that situation - he's already handing Nord prisoners off to the Thalmor by his own admission, willing to cut the head off anything that moves at Helgen, etc........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidbossVyers Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Argonians are at least allowed inside the city in Riften. Oh, wait, the default ruler there is a Stormcloak supporter. This same Jarl has an elven steward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RighthandofSithis Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 @Sithis You didn't answer my question... Admit it, the Stormcloaks are "oppressors". You guys have used this club against the Empire time and time again. Based on your response then, a Stormcloak must have your *exact* same views, they must *hate* the Empire and follow Ulfric *unquestioningly* or else they're not "real"? Know what I mean Sithis, "real"? How many tragedies were committed throughout history because people were just *following orders*? You can respond or continue to ignore me, IDC. Stormcloaks are oppressors too and it's time you Stormcloaks own up to it, or admit you're cause is wrong. I stand with the Empire, and I remember how "oppressive" you guys were to me in the beginning when I was a Stormcloak, you would not hear anyone else's opinion if it did not fit *precisely* into your doctrine. LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE!!! http://static.skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/images/32122-1-1361464638.jpg Sorry, I didn't know a question was posed to me, so forgive me if I'm answering the wrong question. Are the Stormcloaks oppressive? Yes, for a number of reasons. The Stormcloaks are a revolutionary organisation. The entire civil war is a class war between the Nordic and Imperial aristocracies. As Marx would say, a war between the oppressed, and oppressor. So we can see three oppressive tendencies within the Stormcloaks: 1. They are aristocrats, and thus naturally oppressive.2. They must repress counter-revolution.3. They must repress further revolution (ie, the Nordic people rising up against them). Also, are you accusing me of ignoring you? Quite the opposite. I was telling you not be so aggressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer81 Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) Well, at least you are willing to admit the Stormcloaks can be oppressive as well. Although, your reasoning sounds more like an analysis of Imperial oppression: 1. They are aristocrats, and thus naturally oppressive.2. They must repress counter-revolution.3. They must repress further revolution (ie, the Nordic people rising up against them). However, you my friend are the first Stormcloak ~ever~ to admit that the Stormcloaks also are oppressive. Carry on... LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE!!! Edited February 22, 2013 by StormHammer81 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayyyleb Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Who exactly are the Stormcloaks oppressing that the Imperials aren't? None, every kind of government opresses its people in some way. The stormlcoaks however take one step further with the class system and genocidal tendencies.Umm, be specific here. Ok, Dark Elves and Argonians come to mind immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts