I will give Ulfric credit

[LobselVith66]

 

He could also learn magic. Using the shout goes against the teaching of the Greybeards, where he learned the shout, as a starter. Secondly this is a Nordic duel. We don't got all the facts up, but we do know where the concept of Skyrim came from. We also know the duel was for the seat. Now, it bcomes logical that this is a fight of "strength". Using the shout got nothing to do with strength, not when Ulfric had 20 years to practice it and the High King had what, 2 years?

 

Unless you have evidence that specifically states that using the Voice was illegal, I don't see the point in continuing to make this claim, since no character on either side of the civil war seems to address Ulfric's use of the Voice as illegal in accordance with the challenge he issued against Torygg. Even the court mage of Solitude, Sybille Stentor - who was very close to High King Torygg - never makes such a claim.

 

 

Which would be fine, IF they were of equal age. The fact that Ulfric could practice using the voice for ten times the time Torygg could, does not make it fine.

Let me ask you this: If I duel you to a duel, knowing I am ten times as experienced as you, and yet I use a skilll that takes ages to learn -- and I've had ten times the time to practice it on you, would you NOT consider that murder?

 

If High King Torygg wasn't skilled enough to defeat Ulfric, he could have said no. He chose to say yes instead, knowing how skilled Ulfric was.

 

 

At a time where the voice was more used, and the High King actually knew what he was doing. DId it look like the High King had a chance? That is the point. Ulfric used the voice to get a chance to be a High King. Nobody ever comlained about the High King, it was solely selfish.

 

If the High King didn't stand a chance, he should have refused the challenge. The man was a grown adult, he had free will, he knew what Ulfric was capable of because Ulfric had used the Voice to defeat Madanach and his people in the Reach when they held Markarth, and he chose to accept Ulfric's challenge despite knowing the risks.

 

 

I think people underestimate the power of the Thalmor. As a starter 1 dragon will not help you out in the long run. Yeah, perhaps it will be able to take down 20 THalmor the first day. It can't fly from magic, and the Thalmor are masters of magic.

 

Regardless of the actions of the Dragonborn, history has shown us that the Thalmor don't always win when they go to battle against their foes, even when they go against a province that isn't standing with the Empire, despite being magically inclined.

 

 

Half of them are also dead by the time the Civil war is over. Have you seen the map over conquered areas? The Imperials have 2/3rd of the map. The only reason they won the war is because of you. Now add a foe that is twenty times as many and ten times as strong.

And why do you think Skyrim alone would do better than Hammerfell, Cyrodiil and Skyrim together? I fail to see the logic there. You then got what, 5 times the people and a bigger tactical oppertunity?

 

Hammerfell hasn't been part of the Empire since the Emperor sold them out to the Dominion, where they held their ground and prevented the Thalmor from successfully taking over their province, and if the Empire genuinely wants to fight the Thalmor, they can fight alongside Skyrim without the latter being part of the Empire. If the Thalmor were as undefeatable as you seem to think, they wouldn't want a Stormcloak victory in the civil war. The dossier makes it clear that they don't want the Stormcloaks to win. And there is always the chance that the Empire won't be willing to fight the Thalmor in the first place, which is what started the civil war in Skyrim in the first place.

 

 

But you can't say the same if the same scenario happened, but this time you had Redguards and Imperial Soldiers helping out?

 

Hammerfell isn't part of the Empire. If you think Hammerfell would join the war against the Thalmor in spite of the bad blood between the Empire and Hammerfell when the Emperor sold them out with the White-Gold Concordt, then I don't see why an independent Skyrim and the Empire couldn't fight alongside one another against the Thalmor - assuming the Empire will actually fight the Dominion instead of capitulating to them, that is.

 

 

The Stormcloak is a rebell gang. They are not as organized and rooted as you would think. Cut of the head, I.E. Ulfric, and most will crawl back to their town and stop caring. It's not like they got a second-in command that would be able to do what Ulfric wanted, and yet keep everybody in line.

 

That would contradict the lingering Stormcloak presence if the Dragonborn kills Jarl Ulfric, as well as Tullius' assertions about the remaining Stormcloaks, and the possibility of Ulfric becoming a maytr for the cause.

 

 

Heck, the reason the Thalmor is messing around is because of Ulfric, and then he kills the King. How on earth is that logical? The guy outskilled the High King, and killed him before he had a chance to react.

 

If the King wasn't capable of defeating Ulfric, he could have said no.

 

 

He did it for personal gain - nothing else.

 

The civil war started when the Empire sold Ulfric out after promising him religious freedom in Markarth, as this is the explanation provided by the pro-Legion Jarl of Markarth, Igmund. He admits this is the inception to the Stormcloak rebellion.

 

 

We all know Ulfric is the reason for the chaos in SKyrim, the reason for about everything related to the Thalmor, and he wants to be the High King. How the heck is that logical? "Let the idiot who started a civil war, and got Talos banned, sit on the throne! That will surely not make thing worse. He is also a master planner who managed to hold 1/3 of Skyrim without a demigod helping him!"

 

Talos was banned because of the White-Gold Concordt that the Emperor signed to end the war with the Thalmor, not because of Ulfric.

 

 

-- My point being: Ulfric havn't done a thing right since he stepped up. He murdered a young High King for no reason, he threw Skyrim into chaos and the brought the attention of the Thalmor. It is not a duel of strength when one is a veteran fighter, and the other a boy who havn't had a fight in a long time.

 

By "boy," you mean "the High King of Skyrim."

 

 

It becomes even worse when he can not refuse, and he fights an opponent who breaks every rule given to him with the voice.

 

Torygg could refuse, but chose not to.

 

 

Really, the more we get into Ulfric, the more I hate the guy. Come on, say ONE thing he have done right?

Starting a rebell group? --> Thalmor comes

 

Because the Empire offered religious freedom, according to Jarl Igmund of Markarth - the Jarl who sided with the Legion against the Stormcloaks, and was witness to the events that actually transpired.

 

 

Killing the High King? --> Why did the High King need to die? It also started a Civil War.

 

High King Torygg could have refused. It isn't Ulfric's fault that Torygg didn't refuse the challenge.

 

 

Getting rid of the Imperials? --> Yup. Having 1/3rd of the tactical points of Skyrim shows how good they are.

 

You mean the Imperial soldiers who are part of the Empire that is subservient to the Thalmor.

 

 

My only 2 points I don't get that people don't understand:

How is ONE better than THREE? Really? How?

And, why should Ulfric lead a country, when he is the sole reason it went down? Joey the random beggas is a better leader than him.

 

Hammerfell is independent of the Empire, the Empire seems to have no inclination to fight the Thalmor, and Skyrim could successfully emancipate itself from the Empire with the aid of the Dragonborn. And Ulfric started a civil war after the Empire betrayed its offer of religious freedom in exchange for reclaiming Markarth.

[Matth85]

Unless you have evidence that specifically states that using the Voice was illegal

First and foremost: THe greybeards rules.

 

he could have said no.

Come on, how many times must I say it? He COULD NOT say no. No, he couldn't. No, he could not. Can you understand that? It's getting tiring to repeat that over and over.

 

Hammerfell hasn't been part of the Empire since the Emperor sold them out to the Dominion, where they held their ground and prevented the Thalmor from successfully taking over their province, and if the Empire genuinely wants to fight the Thalmor, they can fight alongside Skyrim without the latter being part of the Empire.

 

Or Skyrim can join the Empire, and there will be less complications?

 

and the possibility of Ulfric becoming a maytr for the cause.

He is the best man the Stormcloak got to led, albeit a terrible one. They would be useless without him.

 

By "boy," you mean "the High King of Skyrim."

At the age of what, 20?

 

Torygg could refuse, but chose not to.

No. A High King must fight. This is a matter of pride and honor. Pride and Honor means more than life for certain people. People who are not like Ulfric, for instance.

 

 

You mean the Imperial soldiers who are part of the Empire that is subservient to the Thalmor.

How is that relevant to my comment? Have you heard the in-game talk about the matter off the allegiance they got? They are not working together at all, they are merely not shooting each other. A good choice, if I may say so.

 

 

 

the Empire seems to have no inclination to fight the Thalmor

I hope that was a joke. I really do. If not, you really try to stretch this to the idiotic.

 

And Ulfric started a civil war after the Empire betrayed its offer of religious freedom in exchange for reclaiming Markarth.

He also got the ban in place after rebelling.

 

Is it really that hrd to get it?

 

1) The High King was young and inexperienced. Ulfric was older and a veteran fighter.

2) He could not deny the duel. If he would, they would strip him of about everything. Honor and pride is worth more than anything for any warrior/soldier. Taking advantage of that is not "nice" in any way, shape or form.

3) Hammerfell was able to survive the invasion thanks to veteran Imperial soldiers. These soldiers formed the CORE. I.E. THEY are the reason the balance turned the right way.

4) Hammerfell wants the Thalmor gone. The Empire wants the Thalmor gone. Skyrim wants the Thalmor gone. Why not unite the 3?

5) Skyrim was fine under Empire controll for ages. The only reason things went bad was because of the Thalmor.

6) The Empire unites the races. Is that bad? Skyrim alone wants to kick anybody out. Which is ignorant, consider the Falmers/Snow Elves should then be allowed to kick the Nords out.

7) You are not allowed to use the Voice to murder innocent people. The greybeards got rules. Ulfric broke said rule, so it IS against a set of rule. Wether or not it is illegal in a duel is anybodies guess -- that means you got as little proof as I.

[LobselVith66]

 

First and foremost: THe greybeards rules.

 

Ulfric isn't a member of the Greybeards. In other words: you apparently have no evidence to support this claim.

 

 

Come on, how many times must I say it? He COULD NOT say no. No, he couldn't. No, he could not. Can you understand that? It's getting tiring to repeat that over and over.

 

Yes, he could. Torygg was a person, not a robot. He wasn't a machine, he was a sentient person capable of making his own choices. He was the High King of Skyrim, an adult, a grown man. Torygg could have said no, but he chose to say yes and accept the challenge to try to keep the throne.

 

 

Or Skyrim can join the Empire, and there will be less complications?

 

I don't see it that way. The Thalmor have free reign throughout the Empire, they can kidnap, torture, and kill people with impunity, and the Empire has shown no inclination to do anything about them, especially when they sold out Ulfric to avoid another war. You keep making the insinuation that the Empire will, without a shadow of a doubt, go to war with the Dominion again - but we see that the Empire has bended over backwards to avoid another confrontation with the Dominion. It's an assumption by some characters that the Empire will fight the Thalmor, not a guarenteed fact. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. If it means getting rid of the Thalmor in Skyrim immediately rather than possibly never, then I think the Stormcloak path is a valid one.

 

 

He is the best man the Stormcloak got to led, albeit a terrible one. They would be useless without him.

 

Tullis disagrees, since he contemplates the continuing presence of the Stormcloaks, and the possibility of Ulfric becoming a maytr for his cause if the protagonist sides with the Legion.

 

 

At the age of what, 20?

 

Torygg didn't look a boy when my protagonist saw him, he looked like a man. If Torygg isn't capable of being High King, he shouldn't have accepted the position and wealth that came with it. He should have declined Ulfric's challenge and accepted that a new Moot might name another Jarl to be High King.

 

 

No. A High King must fight. This is a matter of pride and honor. Pride and Honor means more than life for certain people. People who are not like Ulfric, for instance.

 

If Torygg is simply a "boy" as you claim, he has no business being High King in the first place.

 

 

How is that relevant to my comment? Have you heard the in-game talk about the matter off the allegiance they got? They are not working together at all, they are merely not shooting each other. A good choice, if I may say so.

 

Because it addresses that the Imperial soldiers are working for an Empire that is functioning under the auspicies of the Dominion, while the Stormcloaks seek to create an establishmed government of the Thalmor.

 

 

I hope that was a joke. I really do. If not, you really try to stretch this to the idiotic.

 

You're welcome to continue making personal insults instead of valid arguments, but the point stands - the Empire has done nothing to show that it is planning on taking on the Thalmor again, especially when they sold out Hammerfell and Ulfric after Markarth to avoid another war with them. Assuming that the Empire will take on the Dominion again is precisely that - an assumption, not a fact.

 

 

He also got the ban in place after rebelling.

 

There was already a ban in the first place. That's why religious freedom in Markarth was offered at all to Ulfric in exchange for regaining control of the Reach - because Talos worship was outlawed by the White-Gold Concordt throughout the Empire.

 

 

Is it really that hrd to get it?

 

1) The High King was young and inexperienced. Ulfric was older and a veteran fighter.

 

If Torygg was incompetent and too young, he shouldn't have been ruling over Skyrim in the first place.

 

 

2) He could not deny the duel. If he would, they would strip him of about everything. Honor and pride is worth more than anything for any warrior/soldier. Taking advantage of that is not "nice" in any way, shape or form.

 

You mean it would mean he could be replaced as High King. It's Torygg's decision to accept the challenge. You can continue to blame Ulfric for Torygg's failings as a warrior and as High King, but they are the responsibility of the man who accepted the role of High King in the first place.

 

 

3) Hammerfell was able to survive the invasion thanks to veteran Imperial soldiers. These soldiers formed the CORE. I.E. THEY are the reason the balance turned the right way.

 

Hammerfell was able to stand against the Dominion without the Empire, that's the entire point that was already addressed to you.

 

 

4) Hammerfell wants the Thalmor gone. The Empire wants the Thalmor gone. Skyrim wants the Thalmor gone. Why not unite the 3?

 

The Empire may want the Thalmor gone, but there's no evidence they plan on doing anything about it. Again, no evidence - plenty of opinion from some characters on what may happen, but no actual evidence.

 

 

5) Skyrim was fine under Empire controll for ages. The only reason things went bad was because of the Thalmor.

 

I'm sure Hammerfell felt the same way.

 

 

6) The Empire unites the races. Is that bad? Skyrim alone wants to kick anybody out. Which is ignorant, consider the Falmers/Snow Elves should then be allowed to kick the Nords out.

 

According to one book, the Falmer may well be planning that, but until then, we have to deal with the scenerio we are given. The Dunmer aren't kicked out of Windhelm under Jarl Ulfric. The Argonians aren't prevented from being in the Hold. And I'd agree that the diversity of the Empire is a reason to side with them - not to mention the good and competent Jarls over the asinine, small-minded ones who ally with Ulfric. Again, I don't see either the Legion or the Stormcloaks as a good or bad option here; neither side is good or evil, both sides have flaws and strengths. However, if the decision focuses on dealing with the Thalmor, then I know the Stormcloaks want them gone from Skyrim, while I have no evidence that the Empire will ever do anything about them.

 

 

7) You are not allowed to use the Voice to murder innocent people. The greybeards got rules. Ulfric broke said rule, so it IS against a set of rule. Wether or not it is illegal in a duel is anybodies guess -- that means you got as little proof as I.

 

It's not murder when both sides accept a duel to the death - Torygg wasn't some innocent person who was killed without any awareness into what was going on, he was the High King who accepted a challenge over his right to continue ruling over Skyrim, and he lost. Since it's never addressed as illegal, I don't see why you keep insisting that it is.

Edited December 23, 2011 by LobselVith66

[Matth85]

Ulfric isn't a member of the Greybeards. In other words: you apparently have no evidence to support this claim.

They are masters of the voice. You know the shout, you got a fing in their way.

 

Yes, he could. Torygg was a person, not a robot. He wasn't a machine, he was a sentient person capable of making his own choices. He was the High King of Skyrim, an adult, a grown man. Torygg could have said no, but he chose to say yes and accept the challenge to try to keep the throne.

 

 

You don't know what "honor" and "pride" is I see.

 

If Torygg isn't capable of being High King

Give me one source of information where it states he was not capable. He was not a veteran fighter. There is no connection between veteran fighter and a leader.

 

You're welcome to continue making personal insults instead of valid arguments

I tried, but you seem to stretch your point so awefully far. I know you know, but I see you just try to stretch it. I believe that gives me every right to blow it down.

 

Assuming that the Empire will take on the Dominion again is precisely that - an assumption, not a fact.

And your idea that the Thalmor would lose against Skyrim alone is a fact?

 

Hammerfell was able to stand against the Dominion without the Empire, that's the entire point that was already addressed to you.

Wether they were under it or not is irrelevant, they won thanks to the help of the Empire. Albeit it was not the leaderships of Cyrodiil that won the fight, but it was the help of the veteran solider that was set behind.

 

The Empire may want the Thalmor gone

 

There are plenty of sources that they want them gone. First and foremost that they almost got slaughtered. It is an assumption, yes, but so is about everythin we say. And with "we" I also mean "you".

 

The Dunmer aren't kicked out of Windhelm under Jarl Ulfric

They are under no protection from the guards, and they live like crap. Is that good?

 

I don't see either the Legion or the Stormcloaks as a good or bad option here

Neither do any of us. However, I see one as better and more logical than the other.

However, if the decision focuses on dealing with the Thalmor, then I know the Stormcloaks want them gone from Skyrim, while I have no evidence that the Empire will ever do anything about them.

Ulfric is as likely to join the Thalmor as he is fighting them. He got tortured, he is broken. It doesn't take much mindplay to get him to turn. That is not an assumption, it is a fact.

Also, there is a very big difference between "Wanting to" and "being able too". I know that both sides want to get rid of them. I also know the Stormcloak are about 3 times as bad tactical than the Imperials. Why fight when you are on your knees, than wait a second and fight when you can stand up?

 

Since it's never addressed as illegal, I don't see why you keep insisting that it is.

Oh, I never said it was illegal through the Nord tradition. I said it was DISHONORABLE and MURDER:

By the way, it is irrelevant if both accepted the duel: The fight was over before it had started. Wether it was legal or not, it was murder in my eyes.

 

Now, if you wish to avoid any "personal insult" - as you out it, I suggest you stop stretching a point and actually try to see it from another perspective. Perhaps read how it was back in the old days, and learn how they valued "pride" and "honor".

Edited December 23, 2011 by Matth85

[LobselVith66]

 

They are masters of the voice. You know the shout, you got a fing in their way.

 

Ulfric isn't one of the Greybeards.

 

 

You don't know what "honor" and "pride" is I see.

 

I know that an adult man - who ruled over Skyrim, no less - accepted a challenge over his right to rule, and lost.

 

 

Give me one source of information where it states he was not capable. He was not a veteran fighter. There is no connection between veteran fighter and a leader.

 

You're welcome to ignore the "if" I placed in the sentence, and the fact that it was addressing you continually referring to Torygg as nothing more than a "boy" rather than High King of Skyrim. As for your claim, given that Torygg might have lost his right to rule over Skyrim as High King for refusing the challenge, the Nords apparently see things differently.

 

 

I tried, but you seem to stretch your point so awefully far. I know you know, but I see you just try to stretch it. I believe that gives me every right to blow it down.

 

All you've done is use insults to attack me for disagreeing with you.

 

 

And your idea that the Thalmor would lose against Skyrim alone is a fact?

 

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this to you or why you keep ignoring it, but I address it as a possibility. A possibility based on historical precedence. I address that it can happen, not that it will happen. It's a possibility.

 

 

Wether they were under it or not is irrelevant, they won thanks to the help of the Empire. Albeit it was not the leaderships of Cyrodiil that won the fight, but it was the help of the veteran solider that was set behind.

 

Hammerfell had no official or unofficial help from the Empire or the Emperor, they effectively stood on their own and the Emperor even considered Hammerfell its own state when it refused to give in to the Thalmor. You were already disproven on this point.

 

 

There are plenty of sources that they want them gone. First and foremost that they almost got slaughtered. It is an assumption, yes, but so is about everythin we say. And with "we" I also mean "you".

 

You mean some characters have opinions about the matter, not that there's any actual evidence to support the idea that the Empire is planning to go against the Dominion.

 

 

They are under no protection from the guards, and they live like crap. Is that good?

 

The Dunmer have lived in Windhelm since the eruption of Red Mountain many years ago (prior to the Great Collapse in Winterhold), which caused them to leave Morrowind and head to Windhelm in the first place, where they ended up living in what is now the Gray Quarter. Could things be better for them? Of course. But there's also a civil war going on, which is what resources are being focused on.

 

 

Neither do any of us. However, I see one as better and more logical than the other.

 

I don't see the Legion being better or more logical than the Stormcloaks; both sides have their own strengths and flaws. I simply see the Stormcloak route as the one willing to deal with the Thalmor.

 

 

Ulfric is as likely to join the Thalmor as he is fighting them. He got tortured, he is broken. It doesn't take much mindplay to get him to turn. That is not an assumption, it is a fact.

 

Broken? Ulfric refused to abide by the Empire after they sold him out to the Thalmor, he refused to do what the Thalmor demanded of him. He wants to see Skyrim independent of Thalmor control, and is focused on defeating them. Saying that Ulfric will join the Thalmor is nothing but assumption, one that has no basis in the narrative. It's disingenuous of you to say otherwise.

 

 

Also, there is a very big difference between "Wanting to" and "being able too". I know that both sides want to get rid of them. I also know the Stormcloak are about 3 times as bad tactical than the Imperials. Why fight when you are on your knees, than wait a second and fight when you can stand up?

 

There's also a difference between fact and assumption; thinking that the Empire will take on the Dominion again is an assumption, not a fact.

 

 

Oh, I never said it was illegal through the Nord tradition. I said it was DISHONORABLE and MURDER:

By the way, it is irrelevant if both accepted the duel: The fight was over before it had started. Wether it was legal or not, it was murder in my eyes.

 

Do you know what the definition of murder is? It's the "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being," which means the killing must be against the law in order for it to be murder. The challenge was legal and part of Nord custom, so it can't be murder when Torygg accepted the challenge.

 

 

Now, if you wish to avoid any "personal insult" - as you out it, I suggest you stop stretching a point and actually try to see it from another perspective. Perhaps read how it was back in the old days, and learn how they valued "pride" and "honor".

 

Or, you could try to maintain your composure and we can discuss this like adults, instead of being upset that I disagree with your point of view.

[Matth85]

and the fact that it was addressing you continually referring to Torygg as nothing more than a "boy"

Yet you put that in a context where age goes hand in hand with leadership.

All you've done is use insults to attack me for disagreeing with you.

After you've repeated yourself 500 times and used the same argument, ignoring every sense of logic, I get annoyed. I believe that is reasonable, no?

 

I don't know why I have to keep repeating this to you or why you keep ignoring it, but I address it as a possibility. A possibility based on historical precedence. I address that it can happen, not that it will happen. It's a possibility.

Now you know my feeling!

Oh, and my point is simple: 3 is better than 1. Ulfric would rather try to defend his country, than unite and fight the Thalmor. I struggle to see the benefit.

I don't see the Legion being better or more logical than the Stormcloaks; both sides have their own strengths and flaws. I simply see the Stormcloak route as the one willing to deal with the Thalmor.

 

And there we both state opinions. Discussing thoose gets us nowhere. Let's leave it at that.

 

Broken? Ulfric refused to abide by the Empire after they sold him out to the Thalmor, he refused to do what the Thalmor demanded of him. He wants to see Skyrim independent of Thalmor control, and is focused on defeating them. Saying that Ulfric will join the Thalmor is nothing but assumption, one that has no basis in the narrative. It's disingenuous of you to say otherwise.

 

Torture, my friend. If you have been tortured, you are broken. Ulfric is broken with torture. If they got their hand on him, he would most likely join them over getting tortured again. As we all know about torture:

- You are never the same before and after.

- Everybody talks.

 

There's also a difference between fact and assumption; thinking that the Empire will take on the Dominion again is an assumption, not a fact.

Which is fine. However, each assumption I give, you give another in return. It goes both ways. Thinking that the Stormcloak will win against the Dominion is an assumption, not a fact.

 

Do you know what the definition of murder is? It's the "the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being," which means the killing must be against the law in order for it to be murder. The challenge was legal and part of Nord custom, so it can't be murder when Torygg accepted the challenge.

 

I challenge you to a sword duel. I take out my minigun. What do you call that? A fair and clean duel?

Or perhaps, I challenge you to duel: Knowing you will say yes, knowing I am a better swordsman and I pull out a minigun. It's all fine, since you said yes.

 

 

Or, you could try to maintain your composure and we can discuss this like adults, instead of being upset that I disagree with your point of view.

You wouldn't put that as being a hypocrit? You say I am insulting, which I will disagree on, but you subtly put it that I am not mature?

 

I am not upset, far from it. However, I do get irritated when somebody goes beyond all logic, and repeat the same thing over and over -- while quoting the answer to it. I am not sure if you know how it used to be in the ancient times, here in the North, or how soldiers over the world used to think. But "Pride" is something important, together with "Honor". Nords got both, and Tullius even stated it when you join the Imperials "Nord and their pride". With that, we can draw that they believe honor and pride to be very important. Suddently we see that Torryg could not refuse, because it would ashame his name and all future children of his, and he would be branded "coward". Knowing that, we see that Ulfric took advantage over that. That iself is fairly OK on my part, however: Him knowing he was the better, yet he used the shout and he did all this for no good reason. If Skyrim didn't want to stand alone and fight the Thalmor, why should they be forced too?

[Lachdonin]

 

There's also a difference between fact and assumption; thinking that the Empire will take on the Dominion again is an assumption, not a fact.

 

I feel this one statement is something that needs to be addressed, and has not been properly doneso up until now. Everything else has, several times, but this concept of 'assumptions' seems to be the sticking point of the whole arguement.

 

Yes, the idea that the Empire will take the fight to the Thalmor and the Domminion again is an assumption. In the same vein, the idea that Ulfric won't just execute everyone who didn't fight for him (Something which he has a history of doing, i might add) if he take spower is an assumption.

 

In order to support an assumption, one must have evidence to present. In regards to the Empire fighting against the Thalmor again, we have, among others, the following sources.

 

1; Tullius says so

2; Balgruf says so

3; Rikke says so

4; Several in game books say so

5; The Thalmor say so

 

There is more evidence to support the Empire VS Thalmor conflict than to argue against it. Of which, we have...

 

1; Ulfric says so

2; The supposition that Thalmor agents in Imperial lands indicates they Imperials have lost the will to fight

 

Ignore the rampant evidence present in the game if you want, but if you choose to do so be prepared to have people call you out, personally, on it. Nothing we predict, in any capacity, is concrete fact. They are ALL assumptions. Bethesda could choose to have the Domminion completely wiped out by the Sload for all we know. In that case, the Empire never goes to war with them again, but would that invalidate the fact the Empire INTENDED to go to war?

 

You yourself argue on the basis that Ulfric is better for Skyrim than the Empire, and to your credit you ahve presented arguements and evidence in support of that. However, even then your arguement is based on assumptions, because you simply cannot know what will happen in the future. You cannot, therefor, be dissmissive of the assumptive arguements of others, unless you are equally dismissive of your own. There are no 'Facts', only evidence and assumption.

[LobselVith66]

 

Yet you put that in a context where age goes hand in hand with leadership.

 

In Nord custom, it does. Torygg's refusal to accept the challenge issued by Ulfric would have called into question his ability to rule as High King, and called for a new Moot. I already addressed this to you before.

 

 

After you've repeated yourself 500 times and used the same argument, ignoring every sense of logic, I get annoyed. I believe that is reasonable, no?

 

You mean you seem to misconstrue what I say, and I need to point out what I actually said to correct it?

 

 

Now you know my feeling!

Oh, and my point is simple: 3 is better than 1. Ulfric would rather try to defend his country, than unite and fight the Thalmor. I struggle to see the benefit.

 

That would contradict what Ulfric says at the conclusion of the civil war. Ulfric says that he is focused on the Thalmor as the primary enemy.

 

 

Torture, my friend. If you have been tortured, you are broken. Ulfric is broken with torture. If they got their hand on him, he would most likely join them over getting tortured again. As we all know about torture:

- You are never the same before and after.

- Everybody talks.

 

Considering that he was captured during the Great War, and the Thalmor had him arrested after he regained control of Markarth on behalf of the Empire, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

 

Which is fine. However, each assumption I give, you give another in return. It goes both ways. Thinking that the Stormcloak will win against the Dominion is an assumption, not a fact.

 

You say I repeat myself, but you keep ignoring what I state and forcing me to point out what I've previously stated: I address that the possibility for an independent Skyrim to stand on its own exists, and that it's possible for them to hold their own against the Thalmor as an independent nation.

 

 

I challenge you to a sword duel. I take out my minigun. What do you call that? A fair and clean duel?

Or perhaps, I challenge you to duel: Knowing you will say yes, knowing I am a better swordsman and I pull out a minigun. It's all fine, since you said yes.

 

Everyone knew that Ulfric could use the Voice; this is addressed when Jarl Igmund is explaining how Ulfric won back control of Markarth from the Reachmen. This wasn't a surprise to Torygg that Ulfric had such an ability at his disposal.

 

 

You wouldn't put that as being a hypocrit? You say I am insulting, which I will disagree on, but you subtly put it that I am not mature?

 

I'm addressing that you should focus on the issues at hand, and not on losing your temper.

 

 

I am not upset, far from it. However, I do get irritated when somebody goes beyond all logic, and repeat the same thing over and over -- while quoting the answer to it.

 

When you seem to misconstrue what I've said, I'm going to correct it and point out what I actually stated previously.

 

 

I am not sure if you know how it used to be in the ancient times, here in the North, or how soldiers over the world used to think. But "Pride" is something important, together with "Honor". Nords got both, and Tullius even stated it when you join the Imperials "Nord and their pride". With that, we can draw that they believe honor and pride to be very important. Suddently we see that Torryg could not refuse, because it would ashame his name and all future children of his, and he would be branded "coward". Knowing that, we see that Ulfric took advantage over that. That iself is fairly OK on my part, however: Him knowing he was the better, yet he used the shout and he did all this for no good reason. If Skyrim didn't want to stand alone and fight the Thalmor, why should they be forced too?

 

Clearly, Ulfric isn't alone in wanting to deal with the Thalmor and stand independent of the Empire. Even Nord members of the Legion point out that their family often disagrees with their choice to stand with the Legion. Also, Torygg made his choice. If he wasn't capable of fighting Ulfric, he didn't have to fight him. It was his choice to accept the challenge, and his choice lead to his death. He knew the risks that came with the role of High King, and took the position regardless.

[LobselVith66]

 

I feel this one statement is something that needs to be addressed, and has not been properly doneso up until now. Everything else has, several times, but this concept of 'assumptions' seems to be the sticking point of the whole arguement.

 

Yes, the idea that the Empire will take the fight to the Thalmor and the Domminion again is an assumption. In the same vein, the idea that Ulfric won't just execute everyone who didn't fight for him (Something which he has a history of doing, i might add) if he take spower is an assumption.

 

You mean, according to the factually inaccurate Book of Markarth that is addressed as being inaccurate by the pro-Legion Jarl of Markarth - Igmund - when he provides the real story behind what happened that contradicts a book written by a scholar who wasn't privy to what actually happened, unlike Jarl Igmund?

 

 

In order to support an assumption, one must have evidence to present. In regards to the Empire fighting against the Thalmor again, we have, among others, the following sources.

 

1; Tullius says so

2; Balgruf says so

3; Rikke says so

4; Several in game books say so

5; The Thalmor say so

 

In other words, four characters have an opinion, and we have Justiciars who aren't actually in charge of the Dominion who, similarly, have an opinion. Would the Empire fight back against the Dominion if they tried to invade again? I think it's likely. Is the Empire willing to fight the Thalmor of their own initiative, or anytime soon? I don't see the evidence for it. Rid Skyrim of the Thalmor now, or leave them be and maybe the Empire will deal with them in the future.

 

 

There is more evidence to support the Empire VS Thalmor conflict than to argue against it. Of which, we have...

 

1; Ulfric says so

2; The supposition that Thalmor agents in Imperial lands indicates they Imperials have lost the will to fight

 

Ignore the rampant evidence present in the game if you want, but if you choose to do so be prepared to have people call you out, personally, on it.

 

This boils down to characters having opinions about what may happen, about what they think, nothing that actually stipulates what will happen. Again, I don't think anyone disputed that characters have opinions about the Empire or the Thalmor.

 

 

Nothing we predict, in any capacity, is concrete fact. They are ALL assumptions. Bethesda could choose to have the Domminion completely wiped out by the Sload for all we know. In that case, the Empire never goes to war with them again, but would that invalidate the fact the Empire INTENDED to go to war?

 

The problem is, there's no evidence that the Empire intends any such thing. All you've done is point out that some characters have opinions about what will happen, about what may happen, about why they think the Empire is the best option for Skyrim. Where is the actual evidence that the Empire intends to go to war with the Dominion, when the civil war started when the Empire arrested Ulfric rather than go to war with the Dominion to support their deal with Ulfric to return Markarth to Legion territory in exchange for religious freedom? Ulfric's conflict with the Empire is over their refusal to fight back against the Thalmor, and their willingness to concede to the Dominion.

 

 

You yourself argue on the basis that Ulfric is better for Skyrim than the Empire, and to your credit you ahve presented arguements and evidence in support of that. However, even then your arguement is based on assumptions, because you simply cannot know what will happen in the future. You cannot, therefor, be dissmissive of the assumptive arguements of others, unless you are equally dismissive of your own. There are no 'Facts', only evidence and assumption.

 

I've addressed certain issues as possibilities already. I've made the point of pointing out that they are possibilities, not facts. Repeatedly.

[Lachdonin]

Everyone knew that Ulfric could use the Voice; this is addressed when Jarl Igmund is explaining how Ulfric won back control of Markarth from the Reachmen. This wasn't a surprise to Torygg that Ulfric had such an ability at his disposal.

 

If i walk into a room carrying a gun, challenge someone to a formal duel (Assuming the rules for a formal duel involve swords) and then procede to shoot said person, sould it be considered unfair? Everyone knew i had a gun.

 

Clearly, Ulfric isn't alone in wanting to deal with the Thalmor and stand independent of the Empire. Even Nord members of the Legion point out that their family often disagrees with their choice to stand with the Legion. Also, Torygg made his choice. If he wasn't capable of fighting Ulfric, he didn't have to fight him. It was his choice to accept the challenge, and his choice lead to his death. He knew the risks that came with the role of High King, and took the position regardless.

 

This point deals greatly with the idea of coersion. You seem to support the idea that coersion does nto happen until you are physically prevented from choosing an option, and all options chosen therin are of free will, regardless of other factors.

 

To illistrate the point, assume you are being held at gunpoint and the attacker demands your wallet. By your arguement, if you hand over your wallet, you are doing so of your own free will, despite the fact there is a threat arrayed against you should you choose NOT to hand it over. By your argumentation, the only way you are coersed into handing over your wallet if is the attacker takes it, physically, himself, either after shooting you or by reaching into your pocket.

 

Admitedly, this is a fully acceptable philosophical outlook. I dissagree with it on a philosophical level, but its one of those debates which has persisted for thousands of years, and we will NOT resolve it here.