Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[fraquar]

I can't even fathom the shockwaves that would have reverberated throughout Skyrim if EITHER party to that duel would have resorted to magic to resolve a challenge to the throne for a kingdom that by and large distrusts magic as far as it can throw it.

[SubjectProphet]

To settle this:

 

The thu'um is not magic, it is an ancient power the Nord's once used and shouldn't be considered an illegal weapon in a duel between two nordic leaders.

 

 

Ulfric had full rights to use the shout, just as Nordic tradition yields. I believe I've cleared it up already.

[BrettM]

The Constitution of the United States of America is yet another...for those of us who don't regard it as "outdated" or passe'.

Here's the thing, though: the Constitution has changed. The amendment process is part of the tradition to keep it from becoming outdated, so there are amendments that have negated parts of the original Constitution. Could a poll worker, for example, bar anyone from casting a ballot because they aren't a white male landowner? That's the traditional criteria for having a vote in the U.S., right? Yet any poll worker trying to pull such a stunt would rightfully be regarded as a criminal, to say the least.

 

The Constitution is a fine tradition, but you have to take it as a whole. You don't get to pick and choose the parts that suit you. Ulfric ignored the "amendments" to the traditions, which seems very hard to justify.

 

If you believe Falk Firebeard, Ulfric did not need to kill Torygg to organize a rebellion against the Empire. He could have persuaded Torygg to support it. If this is true, then the only reason Ulfric could have had for challenging Torygg is his own lust for power. In some cultures, in and out of the game, this is a legitimate way to advance, as distasteful as it may seem to modern sensibilities. But is that really the case in the culture of Skyrim? I don't think so. It looks like a big step backward to me, as Skyrim moved beyond such things long ago.

 

It's beyond me why Torygg even accepted the challenge instead of saying "We don't do that any more and haven't done it for 2,000 years. Take a hike." However, given that he accepted the challenge, it seems ridiculous to brand the outcome as murder. But not being murder doesn't mean it was right or even in proper accord with Nord tradition as it has evolved.

[landy8]

The Constitution is a fine tradition, but you have to take it as a whole. You don't get to pick and choose the parts that suit you. Ulfric ignored the "amendments" to the traditions, which seems very hard to justify.

 

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something... When did he do it?

We all know that the right of challenge exists in Skyrim, but I've never seen (or heared about) any set of rules for the challenge fight.

 

If you believe Falk Firebeard, Ulfric did not need to kill Torygg to organize a rebellion against the Empire. He could have persuaded Torygg to support it. If this is true, then the only reason Ulfric could have had for challenging Torygg is his own lust for power.

 

And wouldn't his attempt "to persuade Torygg" be caused by his "lust for power"?

Like MacSuibhne wrote above, people who dislike Ulfric have a lot of emotional sentences but few logical reasons. "MURDER IS BAD!!!" That's the main one. Yes, I agree, murder IS bad. In our world. In our modern world. But it wasn't so bad in the recent past (recent when comared to the history of Tamriel with its millenia-old civilizations). It is used as a legitimate political method even now (killing that old bearded guy was also a murder after all). And it's certainly not so bad in Tamriel, and especially, in Skyrim. In the end of the Legion's side of Civil War line Tullius commands you to kill Ulfric, for example. And don't forget the public executions!

 

In some cultures, in and out of the game, this is a legitimate way to advance, as distasteful as it may seem to modern sensibilities. But is that really the case in the culture of Skyrim? I don't think so. It looks like a big step backward to me, as Skyrim moved beyond such things long ago.

 

I disagree. Only a pair of centuries ago (and it's nothing compared to the tamrielic timescale) murder was a legitimate way to advance in the Imperial organizations in a nearby province of Morrowind. Divines, even in the Legion! You could reach the highest rank only by killing the active Legion commander. And, BTW, he ordered you to collect some heavily enchanted artificial equipment before challenging you. In modern Skyrim you receive a bounty for killing some bandits. Killing, mind you, not dragging to the court. A band of werewolf fighters is a respected organization, and a man can be beheaded in public for letting someone exit the city.

 

It's beyond me why Torygg even accepted the challenge instead of saying "We don't do that any more and haven't done it for 2,000 years. Take a hike."

 

And to this I agree completely! If you lack the skill to survive - use your position's leverage.It's beyond me why Thorygg haven't ordered some of his thanes to fight for him! Or some housekarl. Where was their "I am your sword and your shield" motto?

 

However, given that he accepted the challenge, it seems ridiculous to brand the outcome as murder. But not being murder doesn't mean it was right or even in proper accord with Nord tradition as it has evolved.

 

Sorry, but I think you're contradicting yourself here. The right of challenge IS a proper Skyrim tradition. The challenge is followed by fight, and fight is followed by death. So the question is not: "Was Ulfric right to kill Thorygg in a fight?" The question is: "Was Ulfric right to challenge Thorygg?" And I think he was.

[robanybody2000]

"people who dislike Ulfric have a lot of emotional sentences but few logical reasons"

 

Speak for yourself and try not insulting to many people with your posts. I don't care much for Ulfric, and i consider myself a logical person as i do accept the things that have a solid background. As for emotional sentences weren't you the one complaning about Brynjolf chasing you arround to join the Thieves Guild? (a thing that would be VERY beneficial for a character, seeing how "cruel" Skyrim is)

 

You don't have any background if you suppport Ulfric by saying "People who dislike Ulfric are...", and to go as far as calling a real person ilogical base on an characterization of a fictional character wont win you a debate, you'll just force people to back out of it.

Edited May 24, 2012 by robanybody2000

[landy8]

"people who dislike Ulfric have a lot of emotional sentences but few logical reasons"

 

Speak for yourself and try not insulting to many people with your posts. I don't care much for Ulfric, and i consider myself a logical person as i do accept the things that have a solid background. As for emotional sentences weren't you the one complaning about Brynjolf chasing you arround to join the Thieves Guild? (a thing that would be VERY beneficial for a character seeing how "cruel" Skyrim is)

 

I don't think it's cruel, I think it's annoying.

About the emotional sentences - it's not my opinion, I was quoting another person, but I'm sorry to agree!

 

And I always speak for myself.

[BrettM]

The Constitution is a fine tradition, but you have to take it as a whole. You don't get to pick and choose the parts that suit you. Ulfric ignored the "amendments" to the traditions, which seems very hard to justify.

 

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something... When did he do it?

We all know that the right of challenge exists in Skyrim, but I've never seen (or heared about) any set of rules for the challenge fight.

Ignoring the dragonborn, who are not subject to normal rules, there is certainly one rule in modern Skyrim: the Voice is not to be used in combat. Using the Voice for purposes of conquest is deemed an abuse of the power.

 

Once there were Tongues serving in the armies of Skyrim. Once there were jarls, like Olaf One-Eye, who were Tongues. That was the tradition. Now there are not because Jurgen Windcaller came along and convinced his fellow Tongues at that time to adopt the Way of the Voice, which is why the only Tongues in Skyrim for 2,000 years have been the Graybeards. That was the "amendment" to the tradition that Ulfric ignored because it didn't suit him.

 

Ulfric knows this rule and most certainly pledged to follow it while he was studying to become a Graybeard or they never would have taught him to use the Voice. He broke that pledge.

 

Furthermore, I don't see how we know that the right of challenge exists in Skyrim other than through the claims of Ulfric and his supporters. I haven't seen a single example of it in the history books. Until the death of King Borgas, the dynasty of Ysgrammor and his heirs was unbroken and, as far as we know, unchallenged. After Borgas's death came the War of Succession in which the jarls fought among themselves for the high throne. This was considered a Bad Thing, even at the time, which is why the Pact of Chieftains came about.

 

Where among all that does anyone see any right for one jarl to challenge another, much less the High King himself, for the right to rule? Where did this supposed "tradition" come from? If it was ever a tradition at all, the Pact of Chieftains certainly amended it. In which case Ulfric again ignored an "amendment" that didn't suit him.

Edited May 24, 2012 by BrettM

[MacSuibhne]

"people who dislike Ulfric have a lot of emotional sentences but few logical reasons"

 

You don't have any background if you suppport Ulfric by saying "People who dislike Ulfric are...", and to go as far as calling a real person ilogical base on an characterization of a fictional character wont win you a debate, you'll just force people to back out of it.

 

I don't know who said that originally nor why you have it in quotes, but it is true none the less. Words like "scumbag", "pr*ck" and "racist" are emotionally tainted from the get-go. To deny that is simply disingenuous.

 

"Racist", in particular, is a word that...if experience can teach us anything (and history is a record of the "experiences" of the human race)...has no meaning or context in the world and the archaic culture that is Skyrim. It leaks into the dialog from the excess of feeling and emotion that is associated with it in this world.

 

Most of us don't care if you (a generic you) don't like Ulfric. Nor are we particularly concerned with the emotional baggage that you bring to your own sojourn in Skyrim.

 

But it's irritating, boring, pathetic, and, in my view, inappropriate to have this kind of vaudevillian histrionics shoved down the throats of the rest of us. If only because the sole reason to raise these emotional issues seems to be to create confrontation and dissension. But also because there is no unequivocal evidence to support the idea that the game developers intended that we make such attenuated interpretations.

 

For example, a good deal of what passes for "evidence" seems to be more along the lines of what Ulfric doesn't do (or "wiser" people think he should do), than what he actually does. Or speculation on what his "true" motives (even for doing the "right" thing such as declaring that he doesn't want to be high king) might be.

 

And, again, in my estimation, such interpretations appear at least a little hypocritical in the face of an equally intense disregard for the issues of appeasement and religious persecutions, and the genocidally racist intentions of the Thalmor, on the part of many of the same people who so unrestrainedly castigate Ulfric--issues that the developers at Bethesda incontrovertibly did write into the game.

Edited May 24, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[MacSuibhne]

 

Furthermore, I don't see how we know that the right of challenge exists in Skyrim other than through the claims of Ulfric and his supporters.

 

Torygg was High King...the final word on all things regarding Skyrim...and yet he accepts the gauntlet. What does that suggest?

 

Either he is acknowledging the legitimacy of Ulfric's challenge, with all that implies for both his own future and the future of the Empire, or he is so stupid and incompetent that all his decisions...past, present and future...must be questioned, and, by default, he deserved to be replaced.

Edited May 24, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[landy8]

Ignoring the dragonborn, who are not subject to normal rules, there is certainly one rule in modern Skyrim: the Voice is not to be used in combat. Using the Voice for purposes of conquest is deemed an abuse of the power.

 

Ulfric used the Voice "for purposes of conques" only once - when he took Markarth from the Forsworn. Tell me he was wrong!

As for the Graybeards - Ulfric was not a Graybeard and never intended to be one. He just recieved a training to use some Shouts. If Thorygg was a real High King, and not just a... man who thought the Legion can protect him from everything, he would receive some training himself.

 

Furthermore, I don't see how we know that the right of challenge exists in Skyrim other than through the claims of Ulfric and his supporters. I haven't seen a single example of it in the history books. Until the death of King Borgas, the dynasty of Ysgrammor and his heirs was unbroken and, as far as we know, unchallenged. After Borgas's death came the War of Succession in which the jarls fought among themselves for the high throne. This was considered a Bad Thing, even at the time, which is why the Pact of Chieftains came about.

 

Where among all that does anyone see any right for one jarl to challenge another, much less the High King himself, for the right to rule? Where did this supposed "tradition" come from? If it was ever a tradition at all, the Pact of Chieftains certainly amended it. In which case Ulfric again ignored an "amendment" that didn't suit him.

 

Thorygg's wife, court sorceress, and a number of other characters never objected the challenge itself. Besides, would it be illegitimate, Thorygg could simply order his guards to throw that brute away... or to prison.