Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[jordanLoL]

Under Nord tradition, Ulfric did not commit a crime. So naturally those that do not fully understand old Nord traditions would cry foul on the spot, especially when The High King is involved. Ulfric may lust for the Throne but who else in Skyrim is better fit to lead? Torygg, who failed in defending himself? The young and inexperienced Elisif? The indecisive and fearful Balgruuf? Ulfric is the only Jarl in Skyrim that is fit to lead, and does not seem to fear the current events.

 

Meanwhile, The Thalmor are openly killing and torturing believed worshipers of Talos, The Empire is rotting from the inside out, and the Dragons along with The World Eater have returned. Based on the current situation in Skyrim, Ulfric's actions are not condemning. He did use a shout in combat though, which is considered to be naughty, unless you're Dragonborn. However, speaking to Ulfric about the incident reveals that he still believes the Thu'um should not be used lightly.

 

Skyrim needs a true leader, not someone that just makes educated decisions. A true leader that will act, will ultimately be the best solution for Skyrim.

 

i disagree, i think Balgruuf would be a better high king then Ulric, he's not indecisive (he justs likes to look at the possibility and their consequences before doing something hasty.) As for being fearful (i call it paroinia) it keeps a jarl alive and alert.

 

Balgruuf would make a good high king. However, his stance with the Imperials does not sit right with me. He accepts the perks and benefits from the Imperials while they allow the Thalmor to kill and torture worshipers of Talos, which makes up a pretty big portion of Skyrim. This would not stop if he was elected high king, Ulfric would probably send patrols of his own to make sure there aren't any Thalmor left.

 

But there's another thread to debate about that subject.

Edited June 8, 2012 by jordanLoL

[robanybody2000]

It certainly seems to me that Ulfric lost honor by using a Shout, whether it tore Torygg apart or just disarmed him.

 

 

I don't see it the same way. When you strip Torygg and Ulfric down to their night shirts, Ulfric still has the shout, Just as he still has massive wrists and wide shoulders.

 

I've been writing philosophical essays and technical manuals, and so forth, for over forty years. Am I dishonourable because I use my "shouts" to disarm people less literate on this forum?

 

I come back around to the idea of dual standards here. The greybeards are being disingenuous...to make you feel justified.

 

Because if you want to disallow Ulfric's shout, you have to disallow magic. What if Ulfric had been a mage instead of a warrior?

 

And you have to disallow the Dragonborn from exercising his Thuum against those not similarly endowed as well. The whole red herring, and self-congratulatory excuse, that it is alright to use shouts on bandits and other folks we don't like is just that--an excuse.

 

If it's fair for the Dragonborn, it's got to be fair for anyone else who has the dedication, perseverance and strength to master the skill. From where I stand, anything else is hypocritical and self-serving.

 

If massive wrists and wide shoulders why not a "no shout" match? Ulfric got nothing to worry right?

And you don't disarm nobody less literate because you have only one view of the options above and you stick to it no matter what arguments you are presented with by shear point that you've been writing philosophical essays and tecnical manuals. (before corecting my gramar note that english is not my first language).

Edited June 8, 2012 by robanybody2000

[fraquar]

Ulfric shouting down Torygg was a strategic move not a tactical one.

[Michio2013]

Balgruff didn't need to make a decision at that point and he would be a better high king than Ulfric and torygg combined. It's simple, he will act when necessary (as demonstrated by the battle of whiterun) but unless he must, he will not make a decision that would risk harming his people, as he said, I stand for whiterun, not some petty brawl of jarls.

[MacSuibhne]

(before corecting my gramar note that english is not my first language).

 

 

No offense but if English is not your first language and you will not bother to read posts thoroughly, then you leave yourself at as much a disadvantage as Torygg was to Ulfric.

 

I addressed this issue in a recent post

So why did he use it? Think about it with an objective, open mind...drawing on what we do know.

 

Ulfric is a romantic. He never intended to become a Greybeard. He trained with them for the same reason he trained with a sword--it is part of the old Nord Tradition. Shouts are also part of the ancient Nord warrior code.

 

Ulfric wants to bring Skyrim back to it's roots. He was making a statement when he challenged Torygg. And another when he used a disarming shout...weapons in a warrior's arsenal.

 

Ulfric's duel with Torygg was neither illegal nor unfair.

 

Nor inconsistent with the world he lives in.

 

In the eyes of those who support the Empire...or just hate Ulfric...nothing Ulfric could have done would have made the duel fair or legal.

 

The fact that Torygg was the final arbiter of what is legal, is summarily dismissed. The fact that Torygg was weak and ineffectual and his judgement suspect, unimportant. In a nearly hysterical rush to judgement, cries of "unfair" and "murder"...without any presumption of innocence, ring out.

 

Even the issue of Torygg's relative youth and inexperience becomes a rallying cry for Imperials and sycophants and a reason to castigate Ulfric. As if Ulfric is going to wait another ten or fifteen years...or another thirty...until Torygg grows up enough to challenge.

 

And that right there is why Ulfric killed Torygg. It has been thirty years since the WGC. Thirty years of roaming Thalmor patrols. thirty years of religious persecution and oppression at the hands of a power that the Empire did not lose to.

 

Skyrim cannot wait another 30 years while a young King settles into the kind of smug complacency that has characterized the Empire since the WGC.

 

For that matter, the Empire itself cannot afford to wait another thirty years.

 

My point of view is is not locked into the Stormcloak's side. It is locked into dismissing hearsay and slander and rumour-mongering and gossip...and defending and embracing the Code of Hammurabi--a 2000 year old document from which we get our Presumption of Innocence.

Edited June 8, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[Deleted4666244User]

Balgruff only sided with the Empire because a certain Shout-during-duel-user Jarl decided to Send the guy an axe that basically says "Join us or DIE!!" if Jarl Ulfric sent a letter then maybe things would have been better. FACE IT!!! Ulfric is a bully who did not get what he wanted from the school kids (markarth) and now he expanded to the rest of the community (Skyrim as a whole). then again if he gently explained to Torygg that Skyrim should break away from the Empire, the game would not be happening so...

[MacSuibhne]

Face it yourself...Titus Mead is a Thalmor thrall and Tullius, Elisif, Torygg, et al, are stooges and lackeys. And they've been feeding off the spirit and life blood of Skyrim for the last thirty years.

 

neener, neener, neener....

 

:laugh:

[fraquar]

The other way to look at it was Balgruuf was perfectly content to just drink wine and eat grapes and hope the war bypasses him - not sure I'd want that kind of leadership in charge of the whole of Skyrim.

 

If I didn't know any better I'd say Balgruuf was from Darkwater Crossing......

[Michio2013]

He did care, he just saw the civil war as not yet affecting whiterun and thus not something he should involve his soldiers and civilians in unnecessarily. When he did need to choose, he saw that neither side was truly "good" or "pure" and thus sided with the group that would most benifit his people.

 

That sounds like a good leader to me.

[fraquar]

Sounds like the Isolationists in the US during the early stages of WWII too. The Brits would have loved Wendell Willke - because by the time he finally came on board the war would be essentially over and the US wouldn't have any allies left.

 

The "if it's not in my backyard I don't care - just keep it out of my backyard" approach to leadership - by Jarl Balgruuf.

Edited June 8, 2012 by fraquar