Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[BrettM]

What do you mean? Torigg betraied Ulfric after retaking the Reach from the Forsworn, by promising him free worship of Talos.

No, that wasn't Torygg who did that. The Jarl of Markarth at the time (Igmund's father, IIRC) made that promise and then broke it under pressure from the Empire. I don't think Torygg was even High King yet when that happened.

 

The problem with Ulfric citing "tradition" is that those traditions have not been in effect for a couple of thousand years.

 

Jurgen Windcaller ended the use of the Voice in battle before the end of the First Era, and he got the agreement of every Tongue in existence at that time. Since then, the only Tongues in existence have been the Graybeards, who follow the Way of the Voice, and those who are dragonborn, like Tiber Septim, who are not bound by the rules. That is the current tradition and has been the tradition for around 2,000 years.

 

Ulfric had originally trained to become a Graybeard. They surely would not have taught him a single Word unless he pledged to follow the Way of the Voice as a member of their Order. So he violated his own oath as well as 2,000 years of the "new" tradition.

 

As for the tradition of jarls challenging one another, that also seems to have ended back in the First Era with the Wars of Succession. Those wars were a bad period in Skyrim's history and changes were made to the Moot to hopefully prevent them from ever happening again. As far as we know, no jarl has had to meet the challenge of another jarl since then. As Alvor tells us, "Jarls killing jarls brings back the bad old days." So, again, the tradition of combat challenges ended over 2,000 years ago and the "new" tradition forbids it.

 

Ulfric is trying to justify his action by turning back the clock to the early First Era. Would any of us like to live by all the traditions of even 100 years ago in our own world, much less those of 2,000 years ago? All cultures have traditional practices -- such as slavery -- that were ended for good reasons, and citing "tradition" is not an acceptable excuse for reviving those practices. Ulfric was way out of line on this. Even if he was right to advocate and start a rebellion against the Empire, he was wrong in dueling the High King and would have been just as wrong even if the match had been equal and fair.

[landy8]

I think the initial question was:

"Was Ulfric right to kill the High King?"

 

I've learned much about US, German, English and some other countries' history from this topic (I know the base historical facts, of course, but living in neither of the mentioned countries I learned something new about the POV of their citizens), but what does it have to do with the initial question? (BTW, about England and US defeating Germany in the WWII: do you remember what flag was on the top of Reichstag when that war ended?)

 

As for the initial question... While I don's think murder is a right thing to do anything, I never forget that Tamriel is not the modern Earth with all our humanism and pacifism crap (that even we often conveniently forget about). In Tamriel killing your opponent is a normal way to prove your point. And not only in Skyrim. Let's not forget Morrowind where killing your opponent was a normal way to advance in ranks. In Great House Telvanni, for example. In Fighters and Mages Guilds you had to kill their leaders to take their places - and that guilds were imperial organizations.

 

So... Was Ulfric right to kill the High King?

I think, yes, he was!

 

I've completed the Civil War line on Stormcloaks' side several times. Tried an Imperial side once. Still have a bad feeling about it. Like I did something very wrong. BTW, on the Stormcloaks' side you have to kill general Tullius in the end (and even that is optional), but Elisif is spared and even remains a jarl.

 

About Ulfric starting the Civil War:

Nation that refuses to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers will soon start to pay with the lives of its civilians.

 

And about Ulfric's racism:

I've already written it somewhere before. When I was playing a Bosmer thief, I asked Ulfric himself about that "Skyrim for Nords" issue. I was not even a Stormcloak that time. And Ulfric himself told me that this war is not Nords vs. everyone else, but people who want to live as they will and worship whom they will vs. people who betray their gods and support the slavers (meaning the Aldmeri Dominion). Truth is, every race of Tamriel has... difficult relations (at least) with some other races. But I think the only real racists of Skyrim time are Thalmor. Only they openly speak of Altmeri as a master race. As for Ulfric... The fact that he told me all that instead of ordering his guards to throw out that annoying Bosmer girl speaks for itself. The real racist would do just that... or throw that little wood elf to the torture chamber. He doesn't even have one in his prison. Unlike the Thalmor who have a cute torture chamber right in their embassy.

[MacSuibhne]

If you look at RL history...most Traditions last and remain viable in archaic cultures for literally centuries. The world doesn't change as rapidly in such societies as it does now. Nor, would people wish it to.

 

We ourselves live by Traditions that go back, in some instances, thousands of years--some of our legal code (the presumption of innocence, for example) can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi (roughly 1770 B.C.). The Magna Carta, is another example...although not as old.

 

The Constitution of the United States of America is yet another...for those of us who don't regard it as "outdated" or passe'.

Edited May 23, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[MacSuibhne]

Much has been made of whether or not it was a fair fight. The fact is, that even if you define"fair" so that it favours your own POV, no fight is ever fair. That's why someone wins and someone loses.

 

Postulate two antagonists...one is a 180 pounds and a bit soft from too much easy living, the other is 220 pounds of hard muscle. Is it a fair fight? Of course it's not. Should the opponents call a truce until they can equalize their body masses?

 

Postulate one person having trained since he was a lad in martial arts, the other has barely enough skills to know which end of a sword is sharp. Is it a fair fight?

 

Postulate two opponents equally skilled and equally conditioned...but one is a bit of a dullard and the other is canny. Is it a fair fight?

 

One is six foot tall and has a reach advantage over his opponent of five inches...maybe they can agree to let the shorter individual use a longer weapon?

 

The Thuum (and the wit to use it) is an advantage...like being trained to use a sword since you were seven years old. Like having a reach advantage that lets you strike from a greater distance.

 

Like having Dragon blood.

 

Those who take the position that Ulfric using the shout to disarm (not kill) his opponent was not "fair", ought not play as a Dragonborn--it's not honourable or "fair" to have such an advantage. (I haven't spent a single perk on magic, almost never use magic, and yet am about to be named the Arch-mage of the Mage's College. Does that make any sense?) Nor should they use magic against opponents that don't have "equal access."

 

It's not fair...or honourable.

 

As if that mattered...

 

For those who care about such things.

Edited May 23, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[MacSuibhne]

I think the initial question was:

 

As for the initial question... While I don's think murder is a right thing to do anything, I never forget that Tamriel is not the modern Earth with all our humanism and pacifism crap (that even we often conveniently forget about). In Tamriel killing your opponent is a normal way to prove your point. And not only in Skyrim. Let's not forget Morrowind where killing your opponent was a normal way to advance in ranks. In Great House Telvanni, for example. In Fighters and Mages Guilds you had to kill their leaders to take their places - and that guilds were imperial organizations.

 

So... Was Ulfric right to kill the High King?

I think, yes, he was!

 

I've completed the Civil War line on Stormcloaks' side several times. Tried an Imperial side once. Still have a bad feeling about it. Like I did something very wrong. BTW, on the Stormcloaks' side you have to kill general Tullius in the end (and even that is optional), but Elisif is spared and even remains a jarl.

 

About Ulfric starting the Civil War:

Nation that refuses to sacrifice the lives of its soldiers will soon start to pay with the lives of its civilians.

 

And about Ulfric's racism:

I've already written it somewhere before. When I was playing a Bosmer thief, I asked Ulfric himself about that "Skyrim for Nords" issue. I was not even a Stormcloak that time. And Ulfric himself told me that this war is not Nords vs. everyone else, but people who want to live as they will and worship whom they will vs. people who betray their gods and support the slavers (meaning the Aldmeri Dominion). Truth is, every race of Tamriel has... difficult relations (at least) with some other races. But I think the only real racists of Skyrim time are Thalmor. Only they openly speak of Altmeri as a master race. As for Ulfric... The fact that he told me all that instead of ordering his guards to throw out that annoying Bosmer girl speaks for itself. The real racist would do just that... or throw that little wood elf to the torture chamber. He doesn't even have one in his prison. Unlike the Thalmor who have a cute torture chamber right in their embassy.

 

 

+1

 

quoted for sagacity...

Edited May 23, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[landy8]

And again

I think the initial question was:

"Was Ulfric right to kill the High King?"

 

As for the duel being fair of unfair... If ther is some kind of Duel Code, unfair duel is the one that breaks the rules of that Code. Is there any Duel Code in Skyrim? I haven't seen one yet. Only old Kodlak of the Companions mutters something about the "weak and dishonorable sneaking", but Aela remains a Companion despite her archery skills.

 

So, did Ulfric break any Code? No! There's no Duel Code in Skyrim. So I think that duel was as fair as any.

[landy8]

Concerning the duels: the only attempt to make some kind of a Duel Code was in Daggerfall. At least, there was a book with the duel rules. But the only time I took part in a duel my opponent was armed with a longsword (supposedly steel) and I was armed with an ebony dagger. Guess yourself was that duel fair or not. At least, noone objected.

 

In Morrowind official duels (ones performed in the Vivec's Arena) had only two rules:

1. Don't harm anyone except your opponent.

2. Anything goes.

 

In Oblivion I don't remember any fight being called "duel".

 

Besides, I don't remember the fight of Ulfric vs. Thorygg being called "duel". It was a fight. And I think the fights in Skyrim are quite fair: you try to kill your opponent by any means at your disposal and he does the same.

Is a physical strength a good measure of someone's rule legitimacy? Well, regarding the rules mentioned above... If Thorygg was physically weak, he could study magic. Mage is as good as what he knows, like old Urag says. I survived a number of fights when the Draugr Deathlords disarmed me with a shout. BTW, disarming shout is uneffective against a mage - spells can't be dropped.

 

And finally. Was Thorygg a Nord? Did he know he can be challenged? Yes to both, isn't it?

Then why hasn't he done anything to ensure his safety?!

I think, Thorygg wasn't a weak ruler - he was a careless one. And that's worse.

The rules that allow a jarl (or even a king) to be challenged by other jarl may not be that good, but a wise man doesn't complain about the bad rules - he thinks how to live and prosper by the rules that exist.

[MacSuibhne]

a wise man doesn't complain about the rules - he thinks how to live and prosper by the rules that exist.

 

FTFY :thumbsup:

Edited May 23, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[robanybody2000]

Yep. i've killed people for much less than that in Skyrim, usin everything from poisons, shouts, magick....and noone made me high king or anything. can't even chalange Ulfric to a fight :|.

 

Oh... and landy8, you surely mistake thieves for wise man. (if wise man were to prosper by bad rules there wont be anyone left to change the rules)

Edited May 23, 2012 by robanybody2000

[landy8]

Oh... and landy8, you surely mistake thieves for wise man. (if wise man were to prosper by bad rules there wont be anyone left to change the rules)

 

Excuse me... Do you mean that every person living and trying to prosper by the existing rules is a thief? I'm 36 and I've never tried to change the rules (laws and traditions) of my country, I just lived and tried to live better. So am I a thief?

In other words, are the revolutioneers the only non-thieves?

 

I was trying to say that wise man makes some preparations to solve the possible problems, gets some training if he can be challenged, for example, but Thorygg did nothing to prevent the situation that finally killed him.

Edited May 23, 2012 by landy8