Deleted4666244User Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) i am sorry Mac, but can you point out a MEDIEVAL example of your thought that religious freedom beats all citizens being safe from bandits. i see the game and notice that the game has a medieval feel to it. anyways, i feel that the empire is the safest option right now, at least for my Dawnguard characters. A better question is can you find any instance in medieval times where people stopped a war and allowed themselves to be persecuted religiously even though they hadn't been defeated in battle? once again that is a more modern day issue, back then most people were on the same page religiously. i can think of the crusades, but that was them wanting to claim the holy land for themselves and not religious persecution. here is how i see siding with the empire is at least a good idea: The Thalmor do not want an imperial victory as much as the don't want a stormcloak victory, if not more so. A revitalized Empire with an army of angry Nords at her side my begin to see that it is time to fight back, break the WGC and tell the thalmor "GET THE HELL OUT AND GET READY FOR A FIGHT!" this would also get the attention of the Redguards, who would ask to join the fight. seeing a united and revitalized Empire with Imperial battle mages/soldiers, Nordic Warriors, Breton Mages/Witch hunters/Spell swords and Redguard Fighters would make them Desperate and force all Bosmer, Khajiit, and Altmer capable of holding a sword to fight. This would cause unrest and convince Valenwood and Elsweyr to revolt and end up in the arms of the Empire, destroying all Aldmeri Dominion presence on Mainland Tamriel. Edited July 7, 2012 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sukeban Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 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. I must volunteer, I have serious reservations about this comment, mang. I am definitely not for ethnic bigotry nor racism, but to alienate an entire people from their from their own historical homeland so's that a foreign people may inhabit it instead... I simply cannot get on board with that. As a foreigner, I would never presume to waltz into another country and demand things from that government. If that government, for whatever reason, didn't approve of allowing a "subversive, young American element" to live within their borders; hey, that is their prerogative, it is their land and I cannot seek to barge my way in as an unwanted annoyance. I lived in China for a piece and experienced nothing but awesomeness and affection, but I would have never presumed to call for a "regime change" should I have been met with hostility and told to leave. China is for the Chinese... and for me, if I conduct myself properly and in accordance with Chinese law. If I was not down with that, well, I had a country of my own to return to. Your position is that of moral absolutism run amok, that if another country violates my own sense of right and wrong, that I am justified in calling down the righteous thunder (American warplanes/Imperial Legion) to bring them into compliance. I am not a militant moral relativist, so I won't say that "anything goes" in another country even if it is "their custom." Perhaps if Skyrim practiced the cannibalism of Dark Elves, I would be more receptive to calls for Imperial regulation, but as it stands, I hardly think that getting discriminated against in a foreign nation is grounds to send in the Marines. Is it desirable, heck no, but is it their right, as a sovereign and ancient people, to not necessarily embrace me, as a foreigner, with open arms, absolutely. I have great sympathy for the Dark Elves, but fundamentally they are guests in a foreign land, much as I was. It is not as though they are the original inhabitants of Skyrim and the Nords just invaded and started mistreating them one terrible day. Morrowind still exists if they find the situation truly intolerable. Having played Morrowind, I can tell you that Dark Elves were infinitely worse in terms of discrimination than Skryim's Nords could ever hope to be. And they straight up owned slaves, a la the American South. Both sides are at fault for the situation in Windhelm, but ultimately the Dark Elves are guests in the homeland of the Nords. In my eyes, that means that the Nords get the final say in terms of what goes down in their own homeland. That is, until that day that they start cannibalizing the Dark Elves. Then we may revisit this topic and the Empire may invade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robanybody2000 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) I don't think you can call it "racism" what is happening between Dunmers and Nords. They had a dispute that dates from the First Era (fourth century) when Vrage the Gifted conquered Morrowind and later in the same Era they were driven back during King Borgas i think. So it is a lot older feud than thought. Edited July 7, 2012 by robanybody2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) i am sorry Mac, but can you point out a MEDIEVAL example of your thought that religious freedom beats all citizens being safe from bandits. Is freedom a noble aspiration? Is it only for some people and not for others? Is the desire for freedom keyed to a certain level of technological development? Is it limited to people with the ability to write it out with pen and paper, or enter it into a word processor? The Magna Carta was at least partly about religious freedom. In January 1215, the barons made an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and they demanded that King John (who was himself embroiled in a conflict with the Pope) confirm the Charter of Liberties.(Wikipedia) More importantly... What do you call it when a man can be ripped from the bosom of his family and tortured and executed without trial; when your father, brother, son or daughter...neighbor...can be dragged away in the middle of the night without any appeal to the laws of the land or justice? What do you call it when a man's life can be taken from him because of what he thinks...and believes? When his dreams, aspirations, and future can be stolen from him at the whim of people who consider themselves above the law? Is that not banditry? Is that not thuggery? And what do you call it when your (putative) government looks the other way? When it even actively aids the "bandits"? Do you call that "safety"? Freedom is not a laundry list to be sorted into separate loads...some things needing bleach, some needing delicate care. Freedom is axiomatic. It is canonical. An article of faith...almost a religious precept. If you take away one freedom, all freedoms are threatened. Maybe not today but ultimately...unequivocally, inescapably. If you deprive one man of freedom, you threaten the freedom of all. What do you call it when friends and neighbors look away because it's not happening to them...or those they love? "Ask not for whom the bell tolls...it tolls for thee." Edited July 7, 2012 by MacSuibhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted4666244User Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) Mac, thanks for posting that, but the Magna Carta had most of it repealed by the 19th century and all Ulfric seems to be wanting is open Talos worship back. that seems to be all the sotrmcloaks want. i do not see a single thing besides the Thalmor taking people away, that would seem a problem. now before you go and say that the Thalmor are running the empire think or are the empire afraid of the repercussions of breaking the WGC? i do not see any reason, other that Ulfric wanted to, when he killed the high king (i think Skyrim was fine under Torygg) then Ulfric says something about him getting imprisoned and duels/kills the boy. Edited July 7, 2012 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) look Mac and all stormcloak supporters, i cannot truly side with the stormcloaks because all i see them doing is causing instability right now. IF Ulfric wanted to help his people he'd have tried peaceful solutions or even talk to the empire before breaking away or if he has to make a deal that Skyrim may come back into the empire if they end the stupid peace with the Thalmor and, oh forget it, i can never be reasonable with you guys!!!! No...it's OK. You don't have to justify yourself for siding with the Imperials. In fact, it's when people try...mostly by questioning other peoples choices...that the problems begin. If you can support your POV and want to try in a forum such as this, by all means have at it. If you cannot, well, that doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong but it does mean that you ought to re-think your involvement in such threads. If you can't be reasonable perhaps it's because you don't have good reasons...or reasons that you can really, viscerally, believe in. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I see you edited your post...too late! But to address your issues--first you asked me for a "MEDIEVAL example of your thought that religious freedom beats all citizens being safe from bandits". (emphasis mine0 I tried to address that issue for you despite my conviction that it was moot. Beyond that... The Magna Carta is considered the founding document of English liberties and hence American liberties. The influence of Magna Carta can be seen in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Article 21 from the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 reads:"That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/magna-carta.htm And again from the Wikipedia: Many later attempts to draft constitutional forms of government, including the United States Constitution, trace their lineage back to this source document. The British dominions, Australia and New Zealand,[87] Canada[88] (except Quebec), and formerly Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, all looked back to Magna Carta in their law, and the Charter impacted generally on the states that evolved from the British Empire. Again, making the repeals essentially beside the point in the context of this discussion and your assertion. Edited July 7, 2012 by MacSuibhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted4666244User Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 look Mac and all stormcloak supporters, i cannot truly side with the stormcloaks because all i see them doing is causing instability right now. IF Ulfric wanted to help his people he'd have tried peaceful solutions or even talk to the empire before breaking away or if he has to make a deal that Skyrim may come back into the empire if they end the stupid peace with the Thalmor and, oh forget it, i can never be reasonable with you guys!!!! No...it's OK. You don't have to justify yourself for siding with the Imperials. In fact, it's when people try...mostly by questioning other peoples choices...that the problems begin. If you can support your POV and want to try in a forum such as this, by all means have at it. If you cannot, well, that doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong but it does mean that you ought to re-think your involvement in such threads. If you can't be reasonable perhaps it's because you don't have good reasons...or reasons that you can really, viscerally, believe in. i am not questioning anyone's personal choice, it is just that i personally cannot stand for religious freedom when it runs the risk of the non-natives being treated as second class citizens and having to protect themselves from bandits by hiring nord mercenaries who care only about the gold or fighting for themselves when they cannot rely on their government which seems so bent on focusing on honor and the nordic way that non-nords look like wimps who do not need protection because the do not "deserve" it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted4666244User Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 also has anyone thought that siding with the Stormcloaks makes one a hypocrite, y'know with the Forsworn and all (they can't worship their own gods, but the nords want to worship theirs)? also wouldn't living what a god represents=worship? if so, then every nordic warrior is guilty of it. empire and stormcloak alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 i am not questioning anyone's personal choice, it is just that i personally cannot stand for religious freedom when it runs the risk Yes, you and others have made that point repeatedly. The problem is you can make the same point about any kind of freedom. Until you can retreat no more and have zero freedom. And I've been around these forums (plural) enough to know that these kinds of threads generally start innocently enough (although given the inevitable outcome one has to suspect ulterior motives) and quickly proceed to "don't join the Stormcloaks because Ulfric is a racist (or scumbag, douche-bag...fill in your favorite pejorative)" or "Ulfric only wants to be High King" or "Ulfric murdered Torygg." Etc., ad infinitum ad nauseum. Aside from the fact that implicit in these assertions is a guilt by association that is aimed directly at anyone who perceives the right and the logic and the justice in Ulfric's actions, it is arrogant and disrespectful to expect others to blithely ignore the hidden agenda. But even that might be alright...a basis for mature and respectful conversation...except that they are all emotionally driven charges that cannot be substantiated. And when it is shown that they cannot be substantiated, those making such assertions get even more entrenched and start quibbling about the way things are said rather than what is being said. Some going so far as to reject long accepted commonalities of language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Ulfric HAS talked with the Empire. In fact, he made a deal with them. And then the Empire broke that deal and threw him into jail. Can anyone really blame him for concluding that the Empire will not negotiate in good faith and that revolution is the only option remaining? As for being safe from bandits, that is not the reason that the Legion is in Skyrim. Name one instance in which the Imps ever took on any bandits or any of the other problems (vampires, necromancers, etc.) with which we must constantly deal in all holds, Imperial or Stormcloak. Suppressing banditry and the like is the responsibility of the jarls and always has been, not a responsibility of the Empire. The Empire keeps no one in Skyrim safe from bandits, so this is not a good reason for supporting them. The fight isn't about religious freedom in the abstract. The Stormcloaks aren't fighting so that all may worship as they please. They are fighting for their OWN freedom to follow their OWN faith, and true adherents of any religion have always put this first and foremost over other considerations. Did the early Christians deny their religion to obtain safety? Being thrown into arenas full of hungry lions doesn't sound very safe to me! Would we tell slaves not to fight against their oppressors because those oppressors keep everyone safe from bandits? Would we tell them that the rights of everyone else to safety from bandits trumps their right to be free of slavery? If not, then why is it wrong for the Stormcloaks to resist oppression without considering the costs to others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts