vteam Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 So I got to do season unending for the MQ since I haven't done any civil war quest yet. My question is let's say I gave Markarth to Ulfric or vice versa in Season Unending, is the Jarl going to change? So if I decided to give Markarth to Ulfric and the Jarl changed and then I start Civil War quest and sided with the imperials, how would that affect the game? Basically I don't really understand how the MQ quest Season Unending and the Civil War Quest affects the changing of Jarls. Would there be a Hold with no Jarl under certain circumstances? Has anyone else tried to do that? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemin Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I dunno, I could never get that one to trigger. I think after you do so many missions you don't get the option. But I DO know that UESP and/or wikia have very detailed instructions on the consequences of each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robanybody2000 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) The Imperial-controlled holds will not need to be conquered if taken from the Imperials during Season Unending. So if you traded The Reach for The Rift and plan to join the Stormcloacks, you'll have to re-conquer the Rift as for the Reach remains under stormcloack control. Keepeng it short, YES the trades from Season Unending have consequences even if only easthetics, meaning that the fact that it will be a diferent yarl and have to conquer a diferent area if joining the civil war. Also you will be able to purchase proprety without doing the extra quests. Edit: If you play a lawfull character it will be frustrating beacause Riften will have Maven Blackbriar as jarl and Markart will have a Silver-Blood. Edited May 30, 2012 by robanybody2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Edit: If you play a lawfull character it will be frustrating beacause Riften will have Maven Blackbriar as jarl and Markart will have a Silver-Blood.I find it just as frustrating if the Stormcloaks win. Laila may still be jarl, but her steward is still in Maven's pocket and Laila is either clueless or corrupt herself. The Black Briars are clearly the power in Riften in all cases, and I can't see how Maven being on the throne makes anything worse. Igmund may still be jarl, but the city guards are still under Thonar's control and Igmund is either clueless or deliberately turning a blind eye towards Silver-Blood activities. How exactly is it that Thonar can get you a pardon from Igmund if you kill Madenach? The Silver-Bloods are clearly the power in Markarth in all cases, and I can't see how having Thongvor on the throne makes anything worse. Riften and Markarth are frustrating no matter who wins. Falkreath is frustrating if the Empire wins, but is better if the Stormcloaks win. Winterhold and Dawnstar are somewhat frustrating if the Stormcloaks win, but are better if the Empire wins. Ultimately, neither side seems to make any difference in the average quality of rulers in Skyrim. Neither side really has the right to decide who will be jarl in a particular hold, but they both do it, and both make their selections based on support for their side rather than the best interests of the people of the hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vteam Posted June 1, 2012 Author Share Posted June 1, 2012 Hmm.. ok, so that means it's possible for the Jarls to change multiple times I guess. Wonder how that affects quests. Anyway, just done Season Unending and it was a huge waste of time. Wonder why the devs put it in, should have made it an option in the civil war quest in that it is possible for both sides to come to a truce. As a game, Skyrim seems to reflect closely with real-life situations in that there's not really who's in the right or who's in the wrong, just a matter of perspective. But I would have liked the 'good' and 'evil' part to be more clear-cut than this. As others have mentioned, it is frustrating when playing a lawful character and yet are forced to support decisions which are counter to the character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 "Season Unending" is a way of limiting the interaction between the two quest lines. Without it, Bethesda would have had to script for the situation where the jarl of Whiterun changed between getting his permission to set a trap and actually springing the trap. Putting the war on hold makes things simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemin Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Hmm.. ok, so that means it's possible for the Jarls to change multiple times I guess. Wonder how that affects quests. I don't know about multiple times, but for example.. winterhold. There's a quest for thane where you have to find the helm of winterhold (I think that's what it's called). If you start it before the civil war, the old thane gives you the quest... if you side with the imperials and swap thanes without completing the quest... when you get back to winterhold you're awarded thaneship but if you don't return the helm to the old thane (who now resides in windhelm), it stays in your inventory as a quest item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted1600859User Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Ok so this may be a silly question, but I'm just looking for a little clarification if anyone has followed this route . . . If I haven't even picked a side in the civil war quest line, then while I progress through the main quest I will hit season unending, which will call for a truce and possible exchange of holds etc., and as the wiki says 'will be unable to complete civil war quests until the conclusion of the main quest' or something like that. But after the main quest is finished, I should be able to pick a side and do the civil war as usual right? I know some of the holds may be different but the truce will end after the MQ? I'm just being picky and trying to hold off on doing the civil war til the very end, I like having variety in the guards I smash around Skyrim. Thanks for any insight if anyone has played the MQ through before the civil war and tested this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettM Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Yes, it is possible to complete the main quest before ever starting the civil war. I've done it that way on a couple of characters. After the truce you are able to capture a dragon, which leads directly into the last stage of the MQ. So, when you're done, the truce can be broken as soon as you pick a side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stemin Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Yes, it is possible to complete the main quest before ever starting the civil war. I've done it that way on a couple of characters. After the truce you are able to capture a dragon, which leads directly into the last stage of the MQ. So, when you're done, the truce can be broken as soon as you pick a side. Wait... so if I don't pick a side, and I do the main quest I'll get Season Unending to pop up and I'll get to do the whole peace talks thing, but then after the main quest I can do the civil war? I wish I had known this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts