Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[imperistan]

hey, wouldn't killing Torygg, who was not only high king, but also the Jarl of Solitude, not make Ulfric Jarl of Solitude as well? if so why even fight the civil war? he owns the HQ of the empire in Skyrim can't he just kick them out? oh that's right, ULFRIC IS NOT HIGH KING BECAUSE TRADITION MEANS SQUAT IN A PROVINCE OF THE EMPIRE!

 

(going off of the line "when the Jarls start killing each other, then the empire takes notice")

 

You don't understand the point of revolutions do you?

[Deleted4666244User]

hey, wouldn't killing Torygg, who was not only high king, but also the Jarl of Solitude, not make Ulfric Jarl of Solitude as well? if so why even fight the civil war? he owns the HQ of the empire in Skyrim can't he just kick them out? oh that's right, ULFRIC IS NOT HIGH KING BECAUSE TRADITION MEANS SQUAT IN A PROVINCE OF THE EMPIRE!

 

(going off of the line "when the Jarls start killing each other, then the empire takes notice")

 

You don't understand the point of revolutions do you?

 

I understand the point of revolution (note you Are saying that Ulfric is not high king until he killed Toryg and that the revolution is to validate it). i am arguing the tradition of ascension by ancient tradition over becoming high king by tradition of trial by combat

 

the book Skyrim's rule states and i quote "The High King or Queen typically inherits the throne by birth and rules for life or until abdication. In the event that no direct heir to the throne exists, a specially convened council of all the Jarls, called the Moot, meet with the express purpose of choosing Skyrim's High King.

 

The High King swears fealty to the Emperor, and as Solitude is the city most directly influenced by Imperial culture and politics, the Jarl of Solitude has served as High King for generations. The Moot, therefore, is more formality and theater than anything else.

 

Originally, the High King was based in Windhelm, as it was the first capital city established by Ysgramor in late Merethic Era, power has also shifted to Winterhold sometime in the First Era."

 

at some point post-first era, the throne of high king was moved to Solitude. Since then, the Jarl of Solitude has served as the High king, especially in recent years. Ulfric needs to be voted in, as he was not born into it. nowhere do i see in there that one can just walk up to the high king, kill him in a "duel" and become high king. maybe that was how it was in the past, but right now, killing Torygg was just Ulfrib being a bully, in my eyes.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Guest

[Deleted4666244User]

before any of you say anything, i know that ANCIENT nord tradition stated that if the high king is bested in battle, his defeater becomes the high king, but that only gave Ulfric a Claim to the throne, Elisif's claim is more legitimate (she is the Jarl of Solitude, and Torygg's widow) i say that trumps ancient tradition, that may not be in use anymore, any day.

 

i do not want to argue with you Imperistan, but Elisif has just as legitimate a claim to the throne as Ulfric does, but all the stormcloaks out there seem to 'conveniently' forget that.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Guest

[imperistan]

i am arguing the tradition of ascension by ancient tradition over becoming high king by tradition of trial by combat

 

The Trial by combat is meant to depose the High King and his family.

 

As I've said elsewhere, you don't duel a High King for his throne just so his wife or his sons or whoever else in the line of ascension can take it. There is no point in it and these duels NEVER would have been created to serve that purpose. If that purpose needs to be had, a simple and clear assassination is in order. Not a trial by combat.

 

the book Skyrim's rule states and i quote "The High King or Queen typically inherits the throne by birth and rules for life or until abdication. In the event that no direct heir to the throne exists, a specially convened council of all the Jarls, called the Moot, meet with the express purpose of choosing Skyrim's High King

 

I don't see where the High King's death = The High Queen has a claim to his throne.

 

And no, by tradition the Jarl of Solitude doesn't just become High King. Nor does the Jarl of Windhelm. That is a concept created by the Empire installing puppet kings.

 

. Ulfric needs to be voted in, as he was not born into it.

 

ITP: There isn't an impending Moot and much of the Civil War questlines aren't devoted to building up your chosen claimants claim to the throne.

 

but right now, killing Torygg was just Ulfrib being a bully, in my eyes.

 

What are you, 7 or something?

[Moraelin]

Well, all people have their faults. Maybe not saintly, but the Stormcloaks do want freedom from the Empire. Right and wrong just depends on your loyalties.

 

Edit: Moraelin, my statements weren't directed at you or anything you said. It was mainly an idea for everyone because I have noticed that Ulfric is accused of being racist a lot. So sorry if you though I was quoting you. Just happens that I read your response and I decided to give my own ideas on the subject.

 

But yea, I always knock that racist drunk guy out when I first visit Windhelm. I think that Nords in general are pretty racist, and maybe, being that he is a Nord too, Ulfric probably does allow a lot of racism. This attitude is meant to fit the storyline to show that the people in that side of Skyrim are sick of outsiders, which would seem likely during a rebellion.

 

Ah, we're on a public thread and on a public board, so I don't really go along the lines of who was answering to whom. After all, if I wanted a private conversation, I'd send personal messages :P

 

It just seemed a good point and frame to clarify my position, since anything short of being full-tilt Ulfric fanboy gets mis-represented a lot by those two as some kind of siding with the Nazis and being against FREEDOM (or at least not caring about it), and all that nonsense. Complete with quote-mining actual victims of the Nazis and other such BS. It's like the election year astroturfing spilling into this board, except about Ulfric. Weirdly enough.

 

That said, I have nothing against realism. Yes, a LOT of people are racist, the vast majority of them without even realizing it, and the middle ages were racist as heck. Just ask the Moors in Spain, or the gypsies in most of Europe, and so on. Slight differences in skin hue -- European stock has brown eumelanin in the skin, everyone else has black eumelanin -- were enough to brand someone as some sub-human to be avoided. Being just as white caucasian stock, but the barely perceptibly "wrong" skin hue was enough to brand one a gypsy, no matter what. Heck, a bunch of English as late as the 19'th century even managed to come up with some BS "proof" that the Irish are the missing link between apes and blacks. I kid you not. (Though in practice it's an example of how you can redefine a religion issue -- the Irish were predominantly Catholic, while the English were Protestants -- into a race issue, once you've established that discriminating by religion is no longer cool, but discriminating by race is still fine.)

 

So, yes, the Nords and their leader being racist is just about par for the course for the middle ages.

 

I also have no fundamental problem with Ulfric being a bit of an anti-hero. He's not even the worst out there. At some point, clear good-vs-evil choices and heroes-vs-villains started to go out of fashion, and now all conflicts and choices apparently have to be grey-vs-grey. Which kinda resulted in a choice to the bottom, with some "heroes" out there being more properly "villains" and only counting as a "hero" because people confuse "hero" and "protagonist". Even from Bethesda we had such choices as in The Pitt, as basically having to choose between being ok with leaving some people in slavery in a plague-ridden slave camp, or murdering a baby. So, yes, Ulfric ain't the worst.

 

I would kinda prefer a good ol' good-vs-evil story myself, to be honest. It was easier to justify one's choices when it was about fighting the evil usurper Jaggar Tharn and ridding the world of his evil. But, for better or wose, Bethesda now seems to be all about offering such choices where neither is right, and in some cases both are wrong. Bioware does it too these days. So, yeah, we have to choose between a bunch of xenophobes and an Empire which is anything but great any more. Bummer.

 

In the end, all I've been saying is basically just agreeing with that first line you wrote: there is no clear right vs clear wrong. What's a little more right or a little more wrong is relative, and leaves plenty of room for personal preferences, loyalties, self-interest considerations, etc.

[Moraelin]

I don't think you have a clue what "equal right" means. Yes, they SHOULD have an equal right. But when one side is forbidden from living in that rest of the city at all, no, that's not an equal right to live there.

 

Please show me the acres of land within the city walls that are just sitting there, unused, ready for houses to be built, untouched only because the Dunmer can't touch it. OH WAIT! There isn't any! Zomg.

 

AGAIN: there is a free house in the city before you even enter it. Or have you forgotten already? You don't need whole acres for it to be discrimination.

 

Here's a massive hint: Everyone in Tamriel is racist. You're accusing racists of being racist against racists. You can't judge whats right in this universe by whats right in ours. They are not the same and in a general time line of social developmen Tamriel is still A THOUSAND YEARS behind our own world, and thats if in a thousand years anything actually changes.

 

Maybe. But then I don't have to side with those that are racist against ME.

 

Sorry, dude, you don't get to put conditions as to who has to say it in game to be canon. If it's in the game, it IS canon, unless disproven by something else from the game.

 

You're the one accusing Ulfric. Its your burden to prove it. All I see in the game is a bunch of lazy Dunmer whining that they aren't having their asses wiped by Ulfric personally. I can prove that by citing the acres of farmland in Skyrim not being used by any of these Dunmer and the fact that after 200 years the Dunmer have done little if anything to fix their own plight. Black people in the US didn't just sit around and wait for whites to give them everything. They worked their asses off to make life better for themselves.

 

So, we can add not understanding the burden of proof to the list of how you fail logic? Having or not having the burden of proof doesn't mean you can simply override everything by an argument from personal incredulity fallacy. Your refusing to believe what's stated in the game isn't skepticism, it's a textbook fallacy.

 

Second, "burden of proof" is basically a mis-nomer. It's not a burden to offer as much as a some random guy arbitrarily sets the bar, but basically to support an alternative more than the other one.

 

The fact is that the balance of information has a bunch of people saying that that discrimination is real, and NONE saying that it ain't. Given that that's all the information in the game, that more than meets the burden of proof.

 

Being skeptical doesn't mean using personal incredulity to override the information. You can poke holes in the argument offered, but "holes" are poked by actually offering information of your own, not by just refusing to believe anything that doesn't agree with you. Again, the argument from personal incredulity is a textbook fallacy for a reason.

 

So, again, you're just illogical. Whop-de-do, now that's a surprise after this thread ;)

 

It'd be nice if you'd stop being a hypocrite for once and actually support your assertions with facts, not emotionally charged BS that you like to spew just because you got caught up in the emotionally charged whining of the Dunmer.

 

Again, your being unable understand logic doesn't make me hypocritical, it still just makes you illogical. You don't get to arbitrarily decree that I should believe your fallacy-ridden nonsense. Yes, I get it that it would make your life easier if you could abitrarily decree that everyone has to believe your nonsense, but that's not how it works.

 

Puffing up and doing that kind of brow-beating doesn't make you right, it just adds an Argumentum ad baculum fallacy to how much you fail logic.

 

It doesn't take 200 years to have a population like what we see in the Grey Quarter (presuming that the current population is indicative of the general population that has existed over the years) to get back to a state similar to what it was before they became refugees.

 

Again, that's nonsense for anyone who knows any history. The gypsies in Europe were still kept poor after more centuries than that, for example.

 

Also, nice that you quote the only two Dunmer in the Grey Quarter that are holding down substantial jobs.

 

Yet they too are discriminated against. QED.

 

Plus, if you're going to play the card that there are a couple of NPCs wandering around -- as if any game accurately represents that kind of thing -- I'll point you that the Nord quarters also have people wandering around, and not being shown as doing any work ever, and nobody moves THEM into the ghetto. I.e., even among those who aren't shown working, the same discrimination still exists.

 

Replace that nonsense with any real RL race to see why it is racist. Try saying "nobody is keeping the Jews here" or "the blacks in South Africa were just poor because they're lazy" with a straight face, and virtually nobody would say it ISN'T racist.

 

Those peoples situations were also vastly different from the Dunmer. You can't use examples like that when they aren't even related to what you're talking about.

 

Because the same arguments have been done about those too. Blacks, native Indians, Irish, etc were routinely presented as being just too lazy, in the same kind of circular logic BS. (Why are they poor? Because they're lazy. How do we know they're lazy? Because they're poor.) So, yes, it is related in that aspect.

 

So are you going to get over yourself (and off your high horse) and actually disprove anything or are you just going to sit there and skirt around the issue. If you want to win against me in this argument, destroy my points with facts that I cannot dispute. Assert your claims with indisputable evidence. You have yet do this and are continually skirting the issue just so you can sit there and preach against racism. We get it, racism is bad. Come back when thats relevant to the universe were arguing about, and feel free to get off your soap box any time.

 

Feel free to start using logic any time. Especially since you mentioned the burden of proof earlier, you don't get to be right until someone disproves your unsupported nonsense. You get to support it properly first.

 

Yet again, you skirt around the issue. Stop being such a wart and dispute it. Don't preach, DEBATE. Tell me what there is wrong with that source. Let me bold some things for you:

 

Dearie, support your points and get lost. I'm not interested in a he-said she-said debate. Either you can support your nonsense, or you don't have anything worth my debating.

 

And bolding the same thing again still won't help, as long as you still haven't offered a sound argument that contains it. You don't get to be right just for having one true quote, when everything else you built around it as a load of fallacious nonsense.

 

As long as the road from that quote to what you pretend to support with it goes through just your postulating a bunch of details about "self-govern" that not only aren't supported by anything from the game OR any RL medieval regime, but actually go against both, you just don't have an argument worth debating. There's a big gap between that quote and the conclusion.

 

It's like if I came and said "Einstein said that E=mc^², therefore my imaginary cat exists. Because c means cat! And you have to believe me unless you're a hypocrite, because, look, I HAVE A VALID QUOTE FROM EINSTEIN." It doesn't work that way. Until you show how your conclusion is sufficiently proven by that quote, you still don't have an argument.

 

Congrats, you explained why one man wants to stay in Windhelm. I asked for why the entire populace insists on it.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it doesn't work that way. For better or worse, that is the information we HAVE, and it's the normal reason in RL too. Unless there is any indication that that's an atypical opinion among the Dunmer, you don't get to basically pull an argument from ignorance unless someone questions every single Dunmer.

 

That's blatantly bogus, for anyone who knows any history. I already gave you the Warsaw Ghetto as an example that didn't actually have any rights against Germans going in or out.

 

:wallbash: You quote history yet you don't even know why the Warsaw Ghetto was the way it was. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't just clearly looking crap up on the internet as he goes.

 

The Warsaw Ghetto was the way it was because the Germans weren't going to give the Jews anything real there. They never intended to. The administration of the Ghetto was just a puppet for the Nazis. This isn't the case with the Grey Quarter.

 

And I'm not going to even get into how the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto weren't ******* refugees fleeing a natural disaster and being given free reign to find a place to live in Poland. They were victims of a hostile invading force that forced them from their homes and herded them into the ghetto like rats.

 

Don't presume to tell me what I know or don't know. Yes, that's the general point of ghettos, you know?

 

In fact, it's still you who doesn't seem to get it. The whole discrimination done against Jews and Moors and Gypsies historically was partially justified EXACTLY by the idea that they're foreigners who took refuge there a long time ago. So, you know, the same BS you use against the Dunmer.

 

Also it being done by a foreign invader is fully irrrelevant. There are plenty of examples of persecution by the regime at home. E.g., all Jews and Gypsies in Germany weren't persecuted by a foreign invader, but by the German government. At the time the pastor you quoted earlier thought he should have spoken out, there were no other Jews being persecuted than the local German Jews, and they were persecuted by the German Government. At that point, by making the second class citizens. It doesn't make it any less of a discrimination if it's not a foreign invader.

[Deleted4666244User]

i am arguing the tradition of ascension by ancient tradition over becoming high king by tradition of trial by combat

 

The Trial by combat is meant to depose the High King and his family.

 

As I've said elsewhere, you don't duel a High King for his throne just so his wife or his sons or whoever else in the line of ascension can take it. There is no point in it and these duels NEVER would have been created to serve that purpose. If that purpose needs to be had, a simple and clear assassination is in order. Not a trial by combat.

 

the book Skyrim's rule states and i quote "The High King or Queen typically inherits the throne by birth and rules for life or until abdication. In the event that no direct heir to the throne exists, a specially convened council of all the Jarls, called the Moot, meet with the express purpose of choosing Skyrim's High King

 

I don't see where the High King's death = The High Queen has a claim to his throne.

 

And no, by tradition the Jarl of Solitude doesn't just become High King. Nor does the Jarl of Windhelm. That is a concept created by the Empire installing puppet kings.

 

. Ulfric needs to be voted in, as he was not born into it.

 

ITP: There isn't an impending Moot and much of the Civil War questlines aren't devoted to building up your chosen claimants claim to the throne.

 

but right now, killing Torygg was just Ulfrib being a bully, in my eyes.

 

What are you, 7 or something?

 

my question was legitimate, if ulfric had a real claim to the throne, The elisif would not be the Jarl of Solitude either...Becaus he also killed the Jarl of Solitude in a duel (Torygg was not just high king) :wallbash:

 

why do you guys think Ulfric is trying to Replace the other Jarls, or the empire? it is because they know the other side is holding their leader back. If the other Jarls agree with the candidate, it validates their claim and invalidates the other one's, pure and simple. that is why Ulfric started the Civil war, Tradition did not give him the throne because a majority of the Jarls belong to the empire and as such believe that Elisif is the rightful high queen. Elisif is not high queen because of Ulfric and his "tradition" converting some of the Jarls to his side.

 

tradition does not matter if the Jarls agree with someone else as it is stated in Skyrim's rule "if there is no heir, a moot is convened to choose the next one" it does not matter if he has tradition, if the other Jarls side with Elisif he is thrown to the back of the line, again. it is all about the Jarls, not tradition, because if s, the Elisif would have no claim whatsoever, but she does so what does Ulfric's "tradition" mean if the majority of the Jarls do not agree with him in the first place.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Guest

[Archone]

Um... as an actual Jew, I'd like to point out something...

 

...Godwin's law was invoked quite a few posts ago. Shouldn't this discussion be closed now?

[jordanLoL]

i am arguing the tradition of ascension by ancient tradition over becoming high king by tradition of trial by combat

 

The Trial by combat is meant to depose the High King and his family.

 

As I've said elsewhere, you don't duel a High King for his throne just so his wife or his sons or whoever else in the line of ascension can take it. There is no point in it and these duels NEVER would have been created to serve that purpose. If that purpose needs to be had, a simple and clear assassination is in order. Not a trial by combat.

 

the book Skyrim's rule states and i quote "The High King or Queen typically inherits the throne by birth and rules for life or until abdication. In the event that no direct heir to the throne exists, a specially convened council of all the Jarls, called the Moot, meet with the express purpose of choosing Skyrim's High King

 

I don't see where the High King's death = The High Queen has a claim to his throne.

 

And no, by tradition the Jarl of Solitude doesn't just become High King. Nor does the Jarl of Windhelm. That is a concept created by the Empire installing puppet kings.

 

. Ulfric needs to be voted in, as he was not born into it.

 

ITP: There isn't an impending Moot and much of the Civil War questlines aren't devoted to building up your chosen claimants claim to the throne.

 

but right now, killing Torygg was just Ulfrib being a bully, in my eyes.

 

What are you, 7 or something?

 

my question was legitimate, if ulfric had a real claim to the throne, The elisif would not be the Jarl of Solitude either...Becaus he also killed the Jarl of Solitude in a duel (Torygg was not just high king) :wallbash:

 

why do you guys think Ulfric is trying to Replace the other Jarls, or the empire? it is because they know the other side is holding their leader back. If the other Jarls agree with the candidate, it validates their claim and invalidates the other one's, pure and simple. that is why Ulfric started the Civil war, Tradition did not give him the throne because a majority of the Jarls belong to the empire and as such believe that Elisif is the rightful high queen. Elisif is not high queen because of Ulfric and his "tradition" converting some of the Jarls to his side.

 

tradition does not matter if the Jarls agree with someone else as it is stated in Skyrim's rule "if there is no heir, a moot is convened to choose the next one" it does not matter if he has tradition, if the other Jarls side with Elisif he is thrown to the back of the line, again. it is all about the Jarls, not tradition, because if s, the Elisif would have no claim whatsoever, but she does so what does Ulfric's "tradition" mean if the majority of the Jarls do not agree with him in the first place.

 

Ulfric has to play that way because the Empire is doing exactly the same thing. Do you really believe the Empire will allow a High King to be elected that they can't fully manipulate? With Skyrim being torn and an impending Thalmor threat, they don't really have any other option.

[imperistan]

AGAIN: there is a free house in the city before you even enter it. Or have you forgotten already? You don't need whole acres for it to be discrimination.

 

I can't even respond to your post. You just sit there and skirt around the issue rather than actually arguing. Like I said, prove me wrong. Don't sit there and pull up a bunch of irrelevant crap, trying to argue how I should be arguing.

 

If you think you're in the right, then argue. Don't sit there and try to undermine because you can't face the argument directly.

 

And I'm not even getting into you're blatant ignorance of what a ghetto is and ignoring of facts straight out of the game.

 

 

my question was legitimate, if ulfric had a real claim to the throne, The elisif would not be the Jarl of Solitude either...Becaus he also killed the Jarl of Solitude in a duel (Torygg was not just high king)

 

Still don't get it. I really don't want to have to beat it into you with a rock. I really, really don't.

 

...Godwin's law was invoked quite a few posts ago. Shouldn't this discussion be closed now?

 

That law only applies when no real, legitimate, and relevant comparison can be made with the Nazi's, like comparing Ulfric with Hitler. Not when the Thalmor ARE a clear and obvious parallel to how the Nazi's operated.