lWolfkillerl Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Imperial look: Ulfric approached the thron and challenged the High King. It was accepted, and Ulfric shouted, almost ripping him apart. The shout killed the High King. Stormcloak and actual events: Ulfric challenged the High King, and used a shout to disarm Toryg. Ulfric actually killed him with his axe, no shout or special magic. If a leader can't defend himself, how can he defend his people or his land? Toryg was slain by a Jarl, which proves he was not fit at all for the throne. In doing so, Ulfric had a valid claim to the throne, and could call the moot even though wanted for treason by the Empire. Toryg also only wanted to impress the High Queen, Elisif. Why try to impress when you lead a land? It made no sense. Ulfric wanted Skyrim to be free from the AD. He wanted the slavery to end. So those are three simple reasons. Ulfric killed Toryg, which proves he was unfit for the crown, and didn't deserve to be High King. A nord king should be powerful, and able to survive a battle. If he fell to a lesser, he can't survive every battle he had to face. Toryg's death only proved that he was unfit for the throne, and Ulfric was the one who made that point. He was right to kill Toryg, 'nuff said.What people are forgetting is that without the empire you'll all be the AD's little B****es. Killing Ulfric was wrong, He could have helped in a second great war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 http://www.antifeministtech.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/picarddoublefacepalm.jpg I'm not explaining why Wolfkiller is wrong. Someone else can do it this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modder3434 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Did it ever occur to anyone that Bethesda intenly made each side have its own pros and cons so we would debate this subject till the horse has fully decayed into the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I've been thinking about the point often raised (including by myself) that Ulfric could have persuaded Torygg to go along with a revolution. Why didn't Ulfric take this approach, since he was probably well aware of Torygg's regard for him as it seemed to be common knowledge? It occurs to me that Ulfric had already been burned once in a similar way, resulting in some trust issues. He had an agreement with Jarl Igmund and that agreement was broken because Igmund didn't have the spine to back it under pressure at the risk of his throne. How could he be sure that Torygg wouldn't end up going back on his word as the Thalmor and Empire tightened the screws? Regarding Ulfric and the Greybeards, I can't imagine that being a Greybeard is indentured servitude, any more than being a Catholic priest is. It must be possible to renounce one's vows. However, if a priest renounces his vows, he is then obligated not to perform holy offices. He can't give communion, he can't hear confession, he can't give last rites, etc. I would think the equivalent for someone vowed to the Way of the Voice would be to stop using the Voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Did it ever occur to anyone that Bethesda intenly made each side have its own pros and cons so we would debate this subject till the horse has fully decayed into the ground? You're about the 123123123'rd person to try to and make this point. And it still has about zero relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modder3434 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Did it ever occur to anyone that Bethesda intenly made each side have its own pros and cons so we would debate this subject till the horse has fully decayed into the ground? You're about the 123123123'rd person to try to and make this point. And it still has about zero relevance. well the pro-imperials arn't backing down and neither are the pro-stormcloaks, so why not agree to disagree. trying to analyze why x happened when y was a better option is not important because that decision has already been made. And even trying to debate who is right and who is wrong won't work since no one is giving any slack on the issue of empire vs. stromcloaks. this is the thread that never ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Did it ever occur to anyone that Bethesda intenly made each side have its own pros and cons so we would debate this subject till the horse has fully decayed into the ground? You're about the 123123123'rd person to try to and make this point. And it still has about zero relevance. well the pro-imperials arn't backing down and neither are the pro-stormcloaks, so why not agree to disagree. trying to analyze why x happened when y was a better option is not important because that decision has already been made. And even trying to debate who is right and who is wrong won't work since no one is giving any slack on the issue of empire vs. stromcloaks. this is the thread that never ends. Because agreeing to disagree defeats the point of the debate. And actually this thread (and other current ones) have actually made a lot of progress. But that's only because there weren't so many one-off posters who come in, post once, and then don't come back. The people who actually stayed and engaged in an actual debate (not a spewing of opinions without actually responding to anyone) have made a lot of progress. At this point, the debate here has leaned towards the Stormcloaks favor and has been in that position for a couple days now. When you get a lot of people who post like the former, the discussion will look like its going nowhere when in reality those that post like the latter are moving forward. As I said earlier (or perhaps in another topic, I don't remember), Skyrim brought on a LOT of people to the series, and as such, the forums. Not everyone that's posted in this debate (not just this topic, but the debate itself on the forums here) was the sort that was actually committed to seriously debating the issue. Hell, most of the people who play Skyrim now would look at this debate and just scoff and call "NERDS!". So don't take the debate at face value. You have to start from the beginning and follow those people who are actually taking it seriously, and ignore all others. Thats where you'll see the progress, not in the random utterances of the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraeten Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) I've been thinking about the point often raised (including by myself) that Ulfric could have persuaded Torygg to go along with a revolution. Why didn't Ulfric take this approach, since he was probably well aware of Torygg's regard for him as it seemed to be common knowledge? It occurs to me that Ulfric had already been burned once in a similar way, resulting in some trust issues. He had an agreement with Jarl Igmund and that agreement was broken because Igmund didn't have the spine to back it under pressure at the risk of his throne. How could he be sure that Torygg wouldn't end up going back on his word as the Thalmor and Empire tightened the screws? Very good points there. And that's one more argument in favor of the Imperials scrapped. I'd probably feel a bit discouraged right now if not for the fact I favor the Stormcloaks. :D Edited June 12, 2012 by Kraeten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakwind Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 There are more twists and turns surrounding this subject than there are for the debate of the moon landings :tongue: Skyrim tugs at moral dilemmas throughout the game. From the Redguard woman in Whiterun (name escapes me) to the pesty jester Keeper, and killing Paathurnax through to this threads subject. Did Ulfric have the right? Legally according to Nordic custom...yes. Did Ulfric have the moral highground using a shout to defeat his High King? I would say not. Shouts were uncommon, and hadn't been used in battle much for a long time. The Graybeards know more on that history, if you can bear to listen to their Way Of the Voice sermons. Torygg would more than likely not know any shouts...and I look upon the event as an assasination more than a duel...like taking a machine gun to a knife fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) To echo what Imperistan was saying (if I read him right)...when people come into a discussion such as this...esp. when they jump in in the middle...the very least they owe the others already here is to read what has gone before. It's a matter of respect. Yes, it's a daunting task, sometimes. But if expressing an opinion...especially one so freighted with emotion and so devoid of evidence or facts...is so urgent and so important that familiarizing oneself with the context is just not in the cards, why then there's always the option of starting a new thread. I don't know how you can frame it another way but to say it's trolling and nothing short. Edited June 12, 2012 by MacSuibhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts