I will give Ulfric credit

[eltucu]

Or it's what Tullis, an imperial general, honestly believes but you as a player know is wrong.

I don't think so, he doesn't actually knows what the player knows.

 

Though yeah, saying something about it would have been a very good choice. Like:

 

Tullius: "This is exactly what they wanted, don't you realize!?"

 

Dovahkiin: "Well no, I read a document from their intelligence that says that they don't want the war to end, that's why they tried to intercept Ulfric's execution in the first place."

 

Tullius: "Oooooh, now it makes sense!*

 

Dovahkiin: "Good for you!" *cuts Tullius's throat*

 

Anyway i referred as an oversight the fact that we have these conflicting accounts. Not because they're conflicting (conflicting opinions is good for the story!) , but because one particular opinion is delivered in a overly dramatic moment. So it doesn't looks like it was made like that for the sake of making Tullius a deeper character that thinks "they" want Ulfric to win for whatever unexplained reasons, but just for the sake of trowing that cliched line in a dramatic part of the game before the execution of an important character.

 

Tullius: "Don't you see? This is what they wanted all along!"

 

Dovahkiin: "OMG, now I understand EVERYTHING! You're my father and Ulfric is my lost twin sister!"

 

See?

[trukittn]

Ulfric thinks he's fighting for Skyrim, but right now what's best for Skyrim is the empire. The thalmor are the real treat. Without Skyrim's warriors The Empire will surely fall. Not having access to their resources or anything.

 

Might be the Emperor shoulda thought of that before he made nice with the Thalmor and sold Skyrim's traditions and a large piece of Hammerfell to them in order to keep his throne.

 

It's for reasons like this that I'll never be joining the Empire in Skyrim. Even on my very first playthrough where I mindlessly followed Hadvar, there was no way I could justify joining them after everything I learned on my way to Solitude. It certainly wasn't the Empire of the previous game, that was made clear.

 

I know there are those who think a united Empire is all that can beat the Thalmor line, but even if its generals don't think so, it'd be a stretch for me to think that the Empire isn't with the Thalmor now. I think the Dominion is already halfway to becoming the New World Order even. Valenwood, Summerset Isles, Elseweyr (now Anequina and Pelletine again) have already bent knee to them, and with the white-gold concordant, its easy to believe that Cyrodiil did as well. Hammerfell rejected this treaty - the same that Ulfric is now rebelling against, and left the Empire already. So really, is there any Empire left to speak of? And who are you truly joining if you pick their side?

 

Anyway, I do think its disappointing that you can't bring up to either leader the information you found in that dossier, though. It would have been great to hear Ulfric's reaction, or even his recount of what happened that day, and I imagine bringing the info to Tullius would produce an interesting result as well.

Edited May 7, 2012 by trukittn

[Lunder]

I agree with "trukittn" (wtf's up with your name?)

 

Hammerfell was able to defeat the Thalmor on it's own - why should Skyrim not be able to do so? with the Aid of a DawnBreaker wielding Dragonborn who now is "Leader of the Dragons" and the new Alduin.

Titus Mede is not the true Emperor why should skyrim Serve an Empire to weak to defend itself?

 

Loyalty from the servants only works when it's repaid with Respect & Kindness from it's liege. The Empire repaid Skyrim's sacrifice (to reclaim the Capitol) by banning it's nr. 1# religion and taxing it's people.

 

When the Romans won great battles they were rewarded with no taxes for 20 -> 100 years, so the farmers who lost their sons wouldn't starve & the people would feel that they also gained something

 

Titus Mede the second of his name. "Rewarded" his subjects by surrendering 1 third of the Empire's land to the Thalmor (Hammerfell which was able to defend itself perfectly fine) and raising taxes.

 

The Empire needs a Revolution a war of succession-rights. The Empire of Men must always be led by one with the Dragonblood

[mothergoose729]

It was wonderful how no matter which side you picked, you are being an a**hole. This is quentessential bethesda writing. In morrowind, no matter what you did you were essentially advancing someone else's interest (usually someone best described as a dick). Vivek the "good guy" was a self righteous power hungry a**hole who tricked your in a previous life and now rules benevolently, although ineffectually and in complete isolation, over the people. As the neravarine, you were less than saintly in your part in the ware against the dwemer and what not. Its all a mixed bag, which makes for more interesting characters and deeper plots.

 

If you are a "good" character, you probably don't participate in the war at all. But that isn't very satisfying is it? Kind of have to pick your poison then.

 

I roleplay my character as someone who is attempting to make up for thier past atrocities (as a vampire/werewolf/thief/assassin he has a few wrongs to right), and he just happens to choose the side of the empire without actually having though much about the larger consequences.

[Lunder]

I don't think either side is Supporting evil.. The Empire could be repaired if you aided them? -maybe - and the Stormcloaks could create a new Empire with someone else in the lead

[Stemin]

If you guys are going to argue for 23 pages about this stuff, I wish you'd get some basic things straight:

 

First off, why are you guys assuming your character is innocent regardless of his associations? The only thing you know about your character is what Ralof told you. You were supposedly captured trying to cross the border, "same as us." He says. You could have spent the last 20 years as part of the dark brotherhood for all you know, prior to the game start. You don't even know what "the list" is. People assume it's a list of criminals. Maybe it's only a list of KNOWN outlaws. The whole opening should not be regarded as evidence either way, IMO. You don't know squat about your character anymore than you knew why the Hero of Kvatch was in prison.

 

Second... the duel thing. Does it matter? The dual was a Nordic tradition. NOT Imperial law. Got that? Tradition. Not law. Not legal. No debate. It was against the empires laws. That's part of the problem. The Jarl's are all part of the empire, but they still run around trying to pretend their this separate country. That's how all this crap got started. In other words, no matter how fair you think the dual was, it was still illegal.

 

And for the guy claiming that "The Bear of Markarth" isn't reliable because it contradicts what the Jarl of Markarth tells you... would that be the same "honorable" Jarl who made a deal with Ulric and then backed out of it when the boss showed up? (the empire). The same "honorable" Jarl who went on his own and hired mercenaries to get his hold back instead of waiting for Imperial support? Sounds like someone I'd believe over a historian.

 

But please, do continue.

[RedRavyn]

@ Stemin: I completely agree with you on your points #2 and #3. Whether the Stormcloaks and roughly half of native Nords believe it or not, Skyrim is still part of the Empire and Imperial laws have to hold sway. Now, we don't know that dueling is illegal, although based upon my feelings about how the Empire might have evolved over the last 200 years since the Oblivion Crisis, I very much doubt that it would be. Who knows for sure, though? I'm not aware of any "lore" regarding this issue one way or the other.

 

I think what is probably most likely, though, is that Imperial authorities took exception about the fact that Ulfric removed one of their puppets from power. Now that would hit more closely to "home" than just breaking some petty anti-dueling law.

 

As for the veracity of written documents, most certainly. We can't trust any of the "published" references within the game. Anyone who reads most of the books we can find in-game is already aware that many of them contain conflicting information. This isn't an error on the part of the developers, either. It simply makes sense from an historical perspective. After all, it was Jorn of the Bard's College who said "We sing tales of kings, queens and their politics, 'tis true. But do you know who really makes history? The person who writes it." I think this pretty much underlines just how much stock we can place with an in-game book.

 

I will have to disagree with you on your first point, though. The game leaves it up to the Player to decide why his character is in Skyrim. This is known as "role-playing". The developers didn't give us a back-story because they expected us to make up our own, so we do, indeed, know more about our character than what Ralof said. He was grasping at straws. Each and every Player who actually role-plays in this game, rather than just pushing a "toon" around with the keyboard and mouse (or controller) is in total charge of his character's back-story and agenda. So, yes, we CAN make assumptions, and those assumptions will be Truth because they are part and parcel of the role-playing aspect of this game. There's precious little else of it in the game. Don't try to pretend that this tiny bit doesn't exist.

[MacSuibhne]

I haven't been playing very long and I didn't play any of the previous games. But I have been kind of following this discussion here and elsewhere simply because I'm trying to make up my own mind.

 

But I will say this...and probably to a largely indifferent audience...anytime you bring your own preconceptions, especially from the milieu that you actually live in, into a scenario or a context that stands apart from your own, you undermine your own ability to immerse yourself in the role.

 

It's like an historian "interpreting" written accounts because they disagree with his own world view. Instead of history it ends up being fantasy. (Of course fantasy is what this game is predicate on but conflating world views...whether they be reality and fantasy or fantasy compounding fantasy...just leaves a person unable to see anything clearly.)

 

So far, I have neither seen nor heard anything to support the notion that Ulfric is racist. Or even that the Nords, in general, are racist. It is something that people are bringing to the game because they are concerned about racism in modern day society. For me it doesn't make any sense to do that. Kind of like moving to Montana to escape all the problems of Southern California and then finding fault with Billings because it is not more like LA.

 

Everytime I go to Windhelm I loiter in the Palace of the Kings and listen to Ulfric...just listen. I like him more the more I hear him.

Edited May 13, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[Stemin]

I will have to disagree with you on your first point, though. The game leaves it up to the Player to decide why his character is in Skyrim. This is known as "role-playing". The developers didn't give us a back-story because they expected us to make up our own, so we do, indeed, know more about our character than what Ralof said. He was grasping at straws. Each and every Player who actually role-plays in this game, rather than just pushing a "toon" around with the keyboard and mouse (or controller) is in total charge of his character's back-story and agenda. So, yes, we CAN make assumptions, and those assumptions will be Truth because they are part and parcel of the role-playing aspect of this game. There's precious little else of it in the game. Don't try to pretend that this tiny bit doesn't exist.

 

You're half right on that. Yeah. You can attribute whatever you want to your character as part of your role play. What you cannot do is use it as a basis for your argument. If you're going to argue on behalf of your character's behavior and whether or not he deserves to be punished, executed, whatever. You cannot just use "he's innocent" as your basis for argument because not everyone has the same backstory for their character that you do. You can only use the in game facts that are consistent. Any attempt to do otherwise is completely illogical.

 

You can't argue your position as being right with the basis that you can create your own facts. I mean you can, just don't expect me to take you seriously.

[RedRavyn]

@ Stemin: The only fact regarding your arrest at the beginning of the game is that you were arrested and there are no official charges against you. The Empire is a country run by Law. The Captain who decided that you are going to be executed, even though there is no evidence of any crime overstepped her bounds -- to the point at which, were I her superior, I would have had her stripped of rank and possibly kicked out of the Legion.

 

So you can't really argue innocence or guilt for the starting character. There are no in-game facts to point to either. Therefore, I am quite justified in arguing that my position regarding this is absolutely correct. You can't claim Skyrim is a role-playing game (which Bethesda does) without leaving the role-playing up to the Player, and not to some set of non-existent facts that might contribute to an equally non-existent back-story.

 

I've said it elsewhere, though. You're free to play the game however you wish. I'm free to play it however I wish. This isn't some game where you have to just push a toon around with no thought of your character's motivations, agenda, or history. Since the game, itself, gives you nothing to go on you have to make it up, and whatever you make up for your own character in your own game is a matter of fact within your game, and not a matter of conjecture for other people who might not agree with your decisions. Role-playing is a very personal thing. Some people don't do it at all. Some people do it all the time. Both approaches are valid, so, like I've said -- whatever floats your boat, but your water is not my water.