Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[MacSuibhne]

I think he's simply hitting the same point I hit before. Where we get so involved in having to repeat arguments and counter arguments, all the while trying to get everyone to debate with the same level of seriousness (and real objectivity for that matter) that he puts into it, that we just start getting fed up and end up teetering on the edge of just telling everyone that their idiots and need to go away if they won't even bother to argue properly. (note that this I'm just being descriptive. I'm not actually calling anyone an idiot)

 

Thank you.

 

It is frustrating...although after a time we have to realize that it's the nature of a thread such as this.

 

I don't know why a person has to step back and explain that the use of the word "you"...in some contexts...is generic and not aimed at anyone. It's obvious and clear to anyone who has spoken or written the English language for any length of time.

 

Just as obvious, IMO, is that such usage differs significantly from an ad hominem attack.

 

But there are people who frequent these forums who are so self-absorbed that everything turns personal right from the get-go. You can't really have an intelligent discussion with such people not only because they've got their defensive barriers manned and ready but because nothing is good enough to make them stop and think.

 

You can provide them with a clear and concise definition for a word such as...oh say "hearsay" for example...from one of the most respected sources in the world, and it goes unremarked and unnoticed.

 

You can provide a clear and cogent argument as to why, in a fair and democratic society, the presumption of innocence trumps hearsay and any accusations that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And that consistent with that principle is the requirement that the burden of proof lies with the accuser...not with the defendant.

 

And it's all for naught. It goes over the head like a swallow on the breeze.

 

And so you get people who are too certain that other opinions and other perspectives are not important, or who are simply too lazy to read the topic...to consider all sides. And who, no matter how many times you prove your point and support it with essential data from verifiable sources, will will come back time and again with the same old cant. As if you'd never said anything at all.

 

Because in their minds, you haven't. In their minds, even if you did, it wasn't important enough to give any consideration to. For such folk, there are no other arguments or perspectives...only their own. For them, "everyone" is them...only them.

 

I salute you for your patience. It's remarkable, really.

 

Having said all that...and stipulating that my remarks were made to Imperistan only...I have to recognize that others...some of them just as I described...will read this post and possibly be offended.

 

To them I offer my apology for any offense I may have given--past or present.

Edited June 28, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[MacSuibhne]

I'm also not convinced he's even that good at leading, or for that matter, recruiting an army. Trials to see if one is fit to fight some great odds alone are good for heroic fiction, but real armies don't win by personal martial prowess. They win by cohesion and acting as a unit

 

You realize, of course that Skyrim is the fantasy, the "fiction."

 

In real life the Holmganga (challenge) existed both for the benefit of the challenger and the challenged. It determined a leader's character and put it on display for all to see. It was a challenge of bravery, determination, confidence, heart, and the ability to make quick and yet reasonable decisions. All these were (and are) required for a military leader. And the King, as Imperistan has made clear over and over again (and as is supported by historical data), more often than not fought at the head of his armies...usually in the shield wall. His people looked to him to lead in the most effective and common political process known at the time--war.

 

In that context, to "lead" is not just the ability to put forth proposals...no matter how reasonable they sound to you. It is the ability to make people believe...such that they will even die for those ideas...and you.

 

I have tried to point this out before (repeatedly)--it is a mistake to judge Skyrim, Skyrim's society and culture, or its people, by 21st century standards. To do so, only further isolates you from the context that informs the game. For example...and to the point...if Nord culture is modeled after 10th century Norse culture, it is myopic to censure it for not adhering to, or recognizing, modern sensibilities. Instead of playing a 10th century Nordic hero (or Redguard or what have you) you end up playing a pampered 21st century fantasist in a world you cannot...maybe simply do not wish to...understand--a stranger in a strange land, as who should say.

Edited June 29, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[Freyrgjurd]

Wow, that's a lot of pages to read. A lot of opinions and facts / assumptions.

This is my first time posting here, as well playing a game of the Elder Scrolls line; be patient.

 

As I can see, and sided with both sides, there is a rift of information that you NEED to know, but it's only available through extensive lore reading; I'm getting used to it.

Ulfric is a passionate character. Tullius is a puppet.

 

I don't really know the point of discussing racism, since if we look at our history, we were pretty damn good ones (we as in man kind).

The fact is the end goal. The situation is harsh and in the ''old times'' context, the end justifies the means.

 

After the wars is over, the Thalmor dealt with, then we can this about racism. I'm not saying it's not important; just isn't important right now.

 

Opinions aside, I think that people take debates of fiction too deep into the heart, as if it was defending some reality cause.

 

I don't mean offense to anyone, just putting my opinion on the table. :)

[MacSuibhne]

Wow, that's a lot of pages to read. A lot of opinions and facts / assumptions.

This is my first time posting here, as well playing a game of the Elder Scrolls line; be patient.

 

As I can see, and sided with both sides, there is a rift of information that you NEED to know, but it's only available through extensive lore reading; I'm getting used to it.

Ulfric is a passionate character. Tullius is a puppet.

 

I don't really know the point of discussing racism, since if we look at our history, we were pretty damn good ones (we as in man kind).

The fact is the end goal. The situation is harsh and in the ''old times'' context, the end justifies the means.

 

After the wars is over, the Thalmor dealt with, then we can this about racism. I'm not saying it's not important; just isn't important right now.

 

Opinions aside, I think that people take debates of fiction too deep into the heart, as if it was defending some reality cause.

 

I don't mean offense to anyone, just putting my opinion on the table. :)

 

 

I salute you for actually reading through the topic. I doubt less than 20% have...heck, I doubt less that 20% rigourously read the post that they are ostensibly responding to.

 

There may be no "right" answer, no "right side". That would certainly square with Bethesda's penchant for moral ambiguity. But there is a wrong answer--it is to ignore the Lore; ignore the conflicting in-game opinions in favour of one side or the other; rely on hearsay rather than verifiable facts; abrogate any presumption of innocence; and to impose contemporary assumptions and sensibilities on the story and the characters.

Edited June 29, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[Deleted4666244User]

Supporters of Both sides are biased. if you do no want to ignore any of them, it would be best not to participate in the war to begin with...

 

Right Answer=peace treaty in favor of neither side

Edited June 29, 2012 by Guest

[Freyrgjurd]

@MacSuibhne

 

I find these kind of topics an amusing reading material. I can learn more about the lore and find more opinions to make a good base for an assumption or an idea.

Ignoring the lore is unwise; it's like ignoring our history (such thing is done everyday by youngsters like me) and saying something that already had been proved wrong... or something like that.

 

@warden310

 

The peace treaty is actually in favor of the people. They stop being dragged out of home and dying in battles.

I'm curious about what would happen if the Thalmor stay at the table now... Want to see if Tullius gives here some hard ass or is just a puppet, like I think.

 

Going to explore that side of the history.

[JoeAboveAverage]

No, it was not right for Ulfric to kill the High King. Why? Because if it was right then I (a dragonborn nord) should be allowed to challenge Ulfric and after killing him become Jarl of Windhelm and have a claim to being High King (by virtue winning the duel verse the man who won the duel against the previous high king).

 

I should then be able to marry Elisif (as the man who avenged her husband death) and be named Jarl of Solitude and gain a second claim to being named High King. Given that I am dragonborn that should reinforce my claim to being High King and I should be acknowledged as such by the people of Skyrim.

 

Further, I should be able to assert to the Blades that because I am dragonborn they should recognize me as Emperor. In any event I should be allowed to assert my right to be Emperor based on the fact that I am dragonborn and the pervious emperors were of the dragonborn.

 

But I can do none of the above, so it follows that Ulfric is nothing but a murderer.

[Freyrgjurd]

No, it was not right for Ulfric to kill the High King. Why? Because if it was right then I (a dragonborn nord) should be allowed to challenge Ulfric and after killing him become Jarl of Windhelm and have a claim to being High King (by virtue winning the duel verse the man who won the duel against the previous high king).

 

I should then be able to marry Elisif (as the man who avenged her husband death) and be named Jarl of Solitude and gain a second claim to being named High King. Given that I am dragonborn that should reinforce my claim to being High King and I should be acknowledged as such by the people of Skyrim.

 

Further, I should be able to assert to the Blades that because I am dragonborn they should recognize me as Emperor. In any event I should be allowed to assert my right to be Emperor based on the fact that I am dragonborn and the pervious emperors were of the dragonborn.

 

But I can do none of the above, so it follows that Ulfric is nothing but a murderer.

 

Maybe you can't because Beth didn't put it into the game ?

But, nice chain of events, regardless. ~o.o

[imperistan]

No, it was not right for Ulfric to kill the High King. Why? Because if it was right then I (a dragonborn nord) should be allowed to challenge Ulfric and after killing him become Jarl of Windhelm and have a claim to being High King (by virtue winning the duel verse the man who won the duel against the previous high king).

 

Restrictions in gameplay (and an extremely un-fleshed out world) don't represent the real scope of abilities.

 

Just because you can't do it in the game doesn't mean anything to what you could do in lore.

[MacSuibhne]

... Edited June 30, 2012 by MacSuibhne