Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[imperistan]

And what time was this?

 

You're right that there aren't really any examples of it. But I was going off more of how the challenge is considered to be an ancient tradition going back to when Skyrim was still independent, and it was around that same time that the Thu'um was still regularly used by the Nords.

 

"Most if not all Nords have some talent for the thu'um, but it takes particular talent and many, many years of study and training to become a Tongue." I suspect that the ancient Tongues were a tightly-knit order that spent much time in secluded training and study, much like the modern Greybeards.

 

The proof is right there. You don't have to be a master of the voice to utilize it in personal battles. Just look at Ulfric. It was his level of skill with the voice that many Nord warriors would have had.

 

What makes you think that the use of the thu'um had already started to wane by the time of Jurgen Windcaller?

 

I should have said that it had begun to wane right at the same time of Windcallers apparent "epiphany". Windcallers philosophy ended the general spread of the Voice among Nords, and once all the independent tongues died out the Greybeards would have ended up being the only source for the teaching of the voice.

 

What makes you think the Way of the Voice is simply pacifism?

 

Because it is regularly employed as a way of keeping it from being used by anyone for any other reason than to sit on a mountain top. Never have the Greybeards sallied out to help defend Skyrim, nor have they ever (so far as we know) taught anyone the voice so they could go on to defend the good in the world. Only the Dragonborn has receieved anything close to that, and even then you could tell that Arngeir didn't want to. He gets upset when you learn of Dragonrend (when he should have told you about it in the first place) and they clearly had no intentions of doing anything more than what they did. The combined voices of the Greybeards could easily help curb the Dragon invasion, if not put a fairly decent end to it once Alduin is dead, but the Greybeards do nothing.

 

That is what makes the philosophy irrationally pacifistic. To quote Spider-man, with great power comes great responsibility. Standing by and doing nothing while people suffer, when you have the power to change that for the better, is not acting responsibly.

 

He claimed that the defeat at Red Mountain was a punishment from the gods for misuse of the gift that Kynareth gave them.

 

Because Nords always exaggerate and honestly, I have great doubts that the Eight had anything to do with the Battle of Red Mountain. I believe that the combined Chimer/Dwemer army defeated them on their own merits. Divine intervention just doesn't fit with the actual reality of that battle for me.

 

But we really don't know either way. We don't and can't know if there really was any divine intervention at Red Mountain, so we already have to be wary of claims otherwise that don't undeniably prove it (Windcallers word isn't proof), and because Nords tend to exaggerate a lot, particularly when they lose, we must either ignore that fact or recognize that it too also casts doubt on Windcallers motives at the time.

 

(Note: That I insist that Windcaller was, in fact, just saving face, is more out of my contempt for him than any purely logical conclusion. I hold contempt for Windcaller in much the same way as I do for Ulfric)

 

That was not honorable combat but was just a coward commiting murder.

 

1. No it wasn't.

 

2. Plenty of mortals can stand up to the Thu'um (and especially Ulfric's skill with it. HIs voice is nothing special) if they are strong enough. Perhaps not to a fully powered Fus Ro Dah, but they wouldn't be ripped apart by Fus.

 

3. Its lolzy to say that Ulfric was planning on slaying Torygg way back when he was a very young man just going to the Greybeards, when the Great War hadn't happened yet and Torygg was not yet king.

 

Ulfric states himself that he knew Torvygg did not stand a chance and we all know though a Shout does not necessarily kill an opponent, it does leave them staggered, unguarded, weakened, or etc... and open to attack....not exactly a fair fight on equal ground for an official challenge.

 

It wouldn't have been a "fair" fight regardless.

 

Answer, to go overkill and show everyone how powerful he is "LOOK AT ME, I CAN USE THE VOICE. TO PROVE IT, I WILL KILL TORYGG AFTER I DISARM HIM WITH A SHOUT"

 

It was more than that, which I'm sure you would know if you spared the sensationalism.

 

maybe Ulfric was right that Torygg was not the best candidate for high king, but he was wrong in trying to break away from the Empire and splitting Skyrim Asunder with his putrid civil war.

 

The Empire needs to die (read the thread if you need an explanation) and Skyrim stays divided on the actions of the Imperials. Ulfric already made his statement that things need to change (as they most certainly need to), and it was the Empires will to either go in line with that (which they desperately need to if they want to survive another 30 years) or say no. And saying no means that the Stormcloaks have to fight. Thats how these things work.

[MacSuibhne]

 

How determinedly do we cling to our preconceived notions regarding the subject of our fanboy crushes? You've been shown verifiable evidence repeatedly throughout this thread. I'm actually thinking of an episode of "the Boondocks," at this point, and the little boy convinced his favorite pop star should be found not guilty of urinating on an underaged girl despite the videotaped recording signed by the pop star, and the girl in question bragging about being the man's urinal. We've provided links to websites showing the lore, quotes from numerous characters ingame, and references to examples from our own world, as well as from previous games in the series. You've yet to provide any of that. Nor have you answered the previous challenges from post #382:

 

 

I don't like arguing with teen-agers (and note that "arguing" is the critical word there)...I've said as much. But against my better judgement I am going to address your post in the wildly optimistic hope that you will actually read it and comprehend it.

 

First, the word "you" can be either singular or plural. It can be associated with a specific person or it can be used to refer to a generic or unidentifiable "you"...in much the same way we say "they" not meaning any particular they. To the extent that you think everytime someone says "you" in a conversation it is referring to you specifically, you reveal your self-centered and egotistical perspective.

 

All the so called evidence that you have provided, to this date, strikes me as hearsay. I know that you do not accept the definition of "hearsay" as provided by the Concise Oxford Dictionary...apparently preferring the Archone Dictionary of Solipsistic Sophistry...but most of the "evidence" is prima facia worthless to any fair, mature human being.

 

It is more akin to someone from this board PMing me to tell me that they saw Archone giving candy to kids at the edge of the schoolyard. Such information might be reason enough to look more closely into the matter. It might be reason enough to keep a close watch on you for a while. But it would not be a reason...at least not in a just and mature society...to go about denouncing you as a pedophile.

 

Nor would it be reason enough...in a fair and mature society...to ask you or your friends and family to prove that you are innocent of the charge, short of a grand jury, or real, empirically substantiated evidence.

 

An extreme analogy perhaps but one that makes the point about evidence fairly cogently.

 

Or...

 

Not wanting to draw this into a political conversation, the Treyvon Martin situation from real life is another...maybe a bit more to the point. When the story first broke it was portrayed as a case of white-on-black bigotry and racism. The headlines and the drama queens immediately screamed "Racism!"...in much the same way that the drama queens in this debate scream "racism" or "murder" or "scumbag", yada yada, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

 

I'm not going to judge the case or comment on the rights and wrongs of it, esp. without a lot more verifiable information--that's for a fair trial (to the extent that one can even be held), and the judge himself, to decide.

 

But I will point out that George Zimmerman is, himself, a grey elf. Yet the media and those already decided (or themselves bigoted) remain convinced that it is a crime of white on black racism...he's guilty period. Don't confuse me with the facts. Guilty by association. Trial by innuendo.

 

And nevermind the photographic evidence that Zimmerman was in a scuffle shortly before his arrest.

 

Here it is, in all its ugliness--mob mentality, a trial in the media, guilt by association. And the accusations against Ulfric for being a racist are exactly parallel to the two above examples drawn from real life.

 

Personally I deplore that kind of lazy and itself bigoted thinking.

 

I don't need to prove or even cite an an example of Ulfric renouncing bigotry. It's not been proven. Neither the man nor his friends and family need...nor should they be compelled...to prove his innocence. Not in a fair and mature society. Not to fair and mature people.

 

And if you had a shred of objectivity, the best your hearsay evidence would offer is the impulse to investigate further. And in investigating further you might...were you objective enough to comprehend and absorb it....stumble upon the fact that the Dunmer came to Skyrim, and Windhelm, as penniless slavers and refugees, one hundred and fifty years ago...where they were offered more than just a bowl of soup and a road map--"don't let the door hit you in the butt." They were offered accommodations in the Snow Quarter and haven't left or made improvements in 150 years. And it doesn't have to be anything as insidious as racism, especially when you consider the fact that according to the Lore the Dunmer are clannish and distrustful of others and other races.

 

And so it goes...not only with regard to the racism charge, but every other charge laid at Ulfric's feet.

 

 

Bear in mind that if you can't provide an example of the second, you will be shown as having engaged in the very same behavior you claim to lament: accusation and condemnation without trail, without verifiable evidence.

 

Says you...frankly, I don't recall having ever said that specifically. Or if I did, it may have been an observation aimed at all the Imperial apologists who make excuses for Imperial indifference to the Thalmor patrols and the summary executions that they carry out in the basement of their embassy. All the people who claim that it's a small price to pay to avoid Thalmor pique. In my view, those who make that case are complicit...not unlike white Americans who defended the internment of Japanese-Americans--citizens of the USA--in WWII. And in that complicity they bear a share of the guilt for the injustice that was done.

 

And if I did indeed make such a semantically world-shaking accusation...well, old son, how do you like it?

Edited July 6, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[Deleted4666244User]

 

The Empire needs to die (read the thread if you need an explanation) and Skyrim stays divided on the actions of the Imperials. Ulfric already made his statement that things need to change (as they most certainly need to), and it was the Empires will to either go in line with that (which they desperately need to if they want to survive another 30 years) or say no. And saying no means that the Stormcloaks have to fight. Thats how these things work.

 

sometimes what someone wants, is not what he needs, so ask yourself this: what is that Skyrim NEEDS; Safety and Security, or Religious freedom?

 

what i am saying is, that Looking at Rikke and Torygg, i see no reason why supporting the empire is bad, as both of them worshiped Talos, and were not turned into the Thalmor. i think Skyrim does not need religious freedom if it reduces non-Nords to basically Second-class citizens.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Guest

[MacSuibhne]

sometimes what someone wants, is not what he needs, so ask yourself this: what is that Skyrim NEEDS; Safety and Security, or Religious freedom?

 

It needs to feel like it has some measure of self-determination. It needs to not feel like it is a sacrificial pawn in an Imperial game of temporizing and capitulation.

 

And if the Empire wants its help in some pie-in-the-sky, once and future re-match with the AD, Skyrim needs to feel like it is a valued partner whose sons and daughters will not be indifferently or even cavalierly thrown away to mollify the Thalmor...who, if the Empire had any legitimacy at all, would not be allowed to patrol in Skyrim or take and torture and execute people for their religious beliefs without any recourse to the laws of Skyrim or judicial representation, in the first place.

 

Skyrim needs to stand on its feet, not kneel to an oppressor and its vassal state.

 

More importantly, it needs the Empire to assume an upright, instead of bent over, position, as well. No matter what Imperial apologists say, it's hard...maybe impossible...to wield a sword when you're clutching your ankles.

 

As Benjamin Franklin said..."Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Edited July 5, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[Deleted4666244User]

sometimes what someone wants, is not what he needs, so ask yourself this: what is that Skyrim NEEDS; Safety and Security, or Religious freedom?

 

It needs to feel like it has some measure of self-determination. It needs to not feel like it is a sacrificial pawn in an Imperial game of temporizing and capitulation.

 

And if the Empire wants its help in some pie-in-the-sky, once and future re-match with the AD, Skyrim needs to feel like it is a valued partner whose sons and daughters will not be indifferently or even cavalierly thrown away to mollify the Thalmor...who, if the Empire had any legitimacy at all, would not be allowed to patrol in Skyrim or take and torture and execute people for their religious beliefs without any recourse to the laws of Skyrim or judicial representation, in the first place.

 

Skyrim needs to stand on its feet, not kneel to an oppressor and its vassal state.

 

More importantly, it needs the Empire to assume an upright, instead of bent over, position, as well. No matter what Imperial apologists say, it's hard...maybe impossible...to wield a sword when you're clutching your ankles.

 

As Benjamin Franklin said..."Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

 

Mac, take a look at the setting, it is a medieval setting fantasy game, i think we can drop old Ben Franklin since he did not come about until the american revolution era.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Guest

[StayFrosty05]

I believe Mac was talking about things the game have for you to do. As of again, every single person has it's play style, but you can see that if you follow the game's trending, you'll do those things.

Yes. The game seems bound and determined to encourage characters to follow dark paths. You have to skip a lot of quests to avoid the worst of those things, and you practically have to skip most of the game to avoid all of them. Even tiny things may offer only two wrong choices, though there is clearly a better choice that would be the natural thing to do in Real Life. Like Mac, I find this very frustrating.

 

 

More than that...when faced with choices that embody ambiguity (and make no mistake Beth deliberately designed the game with lots of ambiguity) too many choose what's easy and what appeals to their own sense of self-congratulation; deliberately ignoring what little hard hard evidence we do have and avoiding all pretense of analytical thinking.

 

It is easy to listen only to the gossip of disgruntled NPC's. No digging, no interminable efforts to hear the other side, no having to think about it or maybe even do a little research. No pretense of fairness.

 

It is easy to brand ...accuse, condemn and dismiss...Ulfric and the Stormcloaks as racists (too easy, if you think about it). It is something we see and identify in our real lives (to the extent that we have real lives) and it immediately marks us as the "good guys" because we're not racist...heck, we're vigilantly and eternally on the look-out for those that are.

 

It's almost Jacobean in its zealotry. But amusing for all of that simply because so many would apparently rather be aligned with a faceless, soulless, dead-in-the-water, drone bureaucracy than a struggle for independence and self-determination led, as all such struggles historically are, by someone of extraordinary vision...and, perhaps, probably, extraordinary flaws, as well.

 

And while this is not a popular thesis here (in fact, it is nearly anathema to many, apparently) at some level there is a test of character going on that I believe Bethesda intentionally set up. How avidly do we embrace the dark side? (who's to tell us "no"? The game gives us a license to act without external restraint and thereby forces us to find limits within ourselves...such as there is, if any)

 

How rabidly do we join in the mob mentality of accusation and condemnation without trial, without verifiable evidence?

 

How readily to we take the easy way out, without thought or reason or logic? Are we sheep or...

 

It's all too easy to extol a standard of ethics...or morality or behaviour...for others; harder...much harder, apparently...to apply to our ownselves.

 

And it's all too familiar, as well.

 

Ulfric is no more bigoted (racist) than the rest of the Skyrim community with a very minor number of exceptions (or Tamriel from what I hear....I haven't played Morrowind)...and information given in the game is sketchy at best if really existent at all....My first couple of games I searched for every shred of information I could find in regards to the Stormcloaks and Imperials in an effort to make a better informed and thoroughly examined decision, it was a futile effort.....siding on either side is done with very little in game evidence to support either side....Thus the futility of this ongoing thread debate also.

 

As for:

 

"And while this is not a popular thesis here (in fact, it is nearly anathema to many, apparently) at some level there is a test of character going on that I believe Bethesda intentionally set up. How avidly do we embrace the dark side? (who's to tell us "no"? The game gives us a license to act without external restraint and thereby forces us to find limits within ourselves...such as there is, if any)"

 

I whole heartedly agree with this statement...considering the all too common reasons people often do cite for their 'good' behavior being a fear of retribution from some divine power or the law....it doesn't engender much faith in the general population to consider their behavior and motivations beyond their own well being under their own volition's. A subject I have passionate views on, but this is not the time and place for my soap box.

 

Watching this thread though preferring to say little, as there is no real debate going on, only too much self congratulating, arrogance, personal insults, one-up-manship, disrespect, etc...too little reasonable discussion...Mac your arguments would be much more compelling and interesting if you weren't so busy concentrating on your own ego and focused all that energy into a solid well worded debate instead.

[Deleted4666244User]

for those thinking that freedoms are better than security, ask yourself this: is the right of safety less important that the religious freedoms that the Stormcloaks want?

[imperistan]

sometimes what someone wants, is not what he needs, so ask yourself this: what is that Skyrim NEEDS; Safety and Security, or Religious freedom?

 

Its not about Skyrim. Its about mankind, and mankind is doomed to extinction if the Empire is allowed to act as it has been over the past 30 years any longer. The Civil War and Skyrims independence is just a red herring to the greater issue, but it also happens to be the only real launching point possible now for the solution to that greater problem.

 

Mac, take a look at the setting, it is a medieval setting fantasy game, i think we can drop old Ben Franklin since he did not come about until the american revolution era.

 

The time frame it showed up in doesn't negate the worth behind wisdom. Franklin's words apply regardless.

[StayFrosty05]

 

 

 

Ulfric states himself that he knew Torvygg did not stand a chance and we all know though a Shout does not necessarily kill an opponent, it does leave them staggered, unguarded, weakened, or etc... and open to attack....not exactly a fair fight on equal ground for an official challenge.

 

It wouldn't have been a "fair" fight regardless.

 

 

 

This is true...though it would be much like an expert in knife throwing bringing a gun to knife fight with a novice...compounding an already unbalanced confrontation, 'overkill' as such...That leaves the question as to why Ulfric chose to display his ability in such an unnecessary situation.

Edited July 6, 2012 by StayFrosty05

[imperistan]

He used the Thu'um to make the point that he was a truer High-King than Torygg was. Not only was he a real warrior, but he was more in tune with his people's culture than Torygg, an Imperial puppet, was.