Who are the "Good Guys" in this war?

[Relativelybest]

This thread is kinda tldr, so I'm going to skip the discussion and just post my impression from playing the game. Apologies if I bring up stuff that's already been discussed. I'm also going to ignore wether or not the Empire was justified in signing the White Gold Concordiate because, frankly, I don't think it's very important: It happened, and what matters is how it affected the situation in Skyrim and how the various parties involved decided to deal with it.

 

Oh, and I'm going to have to take the various accounts from the NPC at face value, because if I start assuming either faction is lying it's impossible to pick a side based on reasoning. So, I'm pretty much assuming everyone on either side seriously believes what they are telling me.

 

That said: As I see it, both sides seem to fight with good intentions and neither are genuinely good guys or bad guys. This is obviously something Bethesda did intentionally to make the conflict seem realistic and making chosing a side a less obvious choice. If I had to choose, though, I'd say the Stormcloaks seem to be the more short-sighted side of the conflict. Their agenda seems mostly powered by misguided patriotism and pride, which makes for good songs but often bad politics. More importantly, they also seem to be the faction that has caused the most direct harm to Skyrim over-all.

 

Leaving aside the whole "Is Ulfric a racist?" question, I do assume that he really believes that he's fighting for a good cause. That does not necessarily mean his ambitions are entirely noble and selfless, however, nor does it excuse the consequences of those actions. Now, from what I understand, he didn't actually start the rebellion because the Thalmor were torturing Skyrim citizens but because the Nords weren't allowed to openly worship Talos. "Openly" being the key word here: Apparently the Imperials never had any intentions of seriously enforcing the White Gold Concordiate - in fact it's heavily implied that people on the imperial side still worship Talos in secret, and at least one imperial all but told me: "No but seriously, the Thalmor are the real enemy here and we're just biding our time." But then Ulfric used the White Gold Concordiate as a cause to start an uprising which in turn forced the Imperials to crack down on the Talos worshippers and allow the Thalmor to run the show.

 

So, the fact that people are being dragged out of their beds by Thalmor agents is kinda sorta Ulfric's fault, because he and his faction couldn't leave well enough alone: they wanted to worship Talos openly and they wanted to do it right now. In doing so, they likely screwed over a lot of Talos worshippers who had most not actually signed up for being tortured or killed for the Stormcloak cause.

 

Then there's the "murder" of the High King. An okay, sure, technically speaking it was a legit Nord duel of honor. But Skyrim was still an Imperial provice which mean they sorta have to play by the Empire's rules as well. And there is just no way the Empire could have possibly ignored that the high king was killed by a political extremist at the worst possible time, Nord traditions be damned. And here's the thing: Ulfric must have goddamned known that. In addition, the people who actually witnessed the duel confirm that Torygg was completely outclassed to the point of it really being more of an execution rather than a duel, and that Ulfric had pretty much decided that the High King was going to die.

 

So all in all, it kinda sorta seems like Ulfric started the whole civil war deliberatelly. And even assuming he does have Skyrim's best interest in mind, it still seems like a short-sighted and emotional act of nationalistic pride that ultimately got a ton of innocent people killed. I don't like it. It all seems too calculated; like Ulfric considered all those people to be acceptable sacrifices for a Skyrim under his rule.

 

I actually haven't talked that much with Tullius but from what I've seen of him, he appears to be a man who is basically just trying to do his job. Which makes sense - as the military governor his mission is not to judge wether banning Talos worship was right or wrong, but rather to try to maintain order in what is still a provice of the Empire. Unlike Ulfric he has actual superiors to answer to, so it's no wonder he keeps complaining about the Nords and their damn traditions. As for Elisif, sure, she basically does what the Empire tells her to, but that's kinda what she's supposed to do because, again, Imperial provice. And sure, she's inexperienced and possibly not ready to be Jarl, let alone High Queen, but then again she's only in that position to begin with because Ulfric went and killed her husband. In fact, that's another thing Ulfric should have and probably did realize. He probably hoped she wouldn't be a serious competitor for the throne at all.

 

That's really what ultimately nudges me towards the Imperial side: It just seems that a lot of what's gone wrong, including some of the stuff the Stormcloaks are complaining about, can be traced back to Ulfric Stormcloak starting the rebellion to begin with. On the other hand, I can't recall ever getting the impression that anything Ulfric did has actually made things better for anyone. It all boils down to this question: At the end of the day, do you think Ulfric's goal is really worth all this bloodshed and suffering?

 

Personally, I say no, not really. To me, the consequenses are more important than the intentions. Though if you do think the Stormcloaks are right, I won't call you wrong for thinking so, because it's really not supposed to be a question with a clear answer. It's supposed to be a really tough call.

 

Heck, if anything, it's the ones who do think the choice is obvious I'd worry about.

[sukeban]

@Relativelybest

 

I think that yours is an eminently fair-minded and accurate description of the situation. I'd agree with you on most of your points made, but would perhaps emphasize a few of them slightly differently.

 

I'd agree with you that the Concordat signing is, at the time of Skyrim, water under the bridge. There is the argument to be made that both sides were equally exhausted after Titus Mede's epic counter-attack to end the Great war, and that they could/should have signed a treaty on even footing, but... that was thirty years ago and all those actors are dead. Can't hold anybody alive in Skyrim responsible for any of that.

 

My nominal siding with the Stormcloaks stems more or less from my dislike of Elisif and the whole notion of Skyrim being a "client state" of the Empire, with no actual input into its own internal affairs due to the fact that its leaders are/were bought-aid-paid-for Imperial lackeys. You can see this at various times as you interact with her, especially in the Potema cave quest, that she is quite obviously in way over her depth being Jarl/potential High Queen, yet her attitude to govern is so entitled, that she has really done something or earned the position somehow, that somehow she is more qualified to rule than any other geek on the street. What Skyrim precisely doesn't need, with the Thalmor threat looming on the horizon, is a weak Jarl who flip-flops in the breeze of insider opinion as though she were a kite on a tether.

 

Then there is also Ulfric's duel to think about. In ancient Skyrim custom, Ulfric's actions entirely legal and, likely in the eyes of Ysgramor, honorable. Torygg accepted Ulfric's challenge as an equal, a brave, if foolish act that I respect Torygg for. Had he refused, Ulfric would have been within his rights to convene the Moot and call for a new election of High King. So Torygg, seeking to preserve his throne, accepted the challenge. I suppose it comes down to one's opinion on the use of the Th'uum (sp) in combat as to whether or not you think the duel was conducted fairly. I would say this though, that The Voice was, from the very beginning (cut-scenes on top of the Throat of the World) a weapon of the Nords to wield against their enemies. They used it against the dragons and they used it against the Dunmer. It wasn't until after they were defeated by the Dunmer that that Jurgen Wind-Caller started up what amounts to his cult up at High Hrothgar. In my eyes, the Greybeards are the exception rather than the rule. Ulfric was not bound to follow their prescriptions. He had an additional tool to use in battle with Torygg. This was not exactly a secret to Torygg, as Ulfric was already famous for the Markarth Incident where he "shouted the Forsworn from the walls."

 

In my eyes then, his slaying of Torygg was not anything approaching murder, but an honorable challenge, in the Old Way, of a weak High King. Skyrim is not the only Imperial province to allow duels to the death either, as they are mentioned in several in-game books and, in Morrowind, one of the larger quest chains ends in such a duel.

 

I think that you are right about the calculated nature of Ulfric's challenge, that he had every intention of killing the Torygg rather than attempting to persuade him to join his side. That, I can't back Ulfric on, as I think it clearly displays his ambitions to become the ruler of Skyrim, with Skyrim's liberation being but a convenient coincidental outcome or the means to Ulfric's desired end. Which is why I agree in principle with the Stormcloak's desire for self-rule, but have great reservations about Ulfric as a leader.

 

IMO, if Ulfric were a true Skyrim patriot, he would have asked Torygg for his aid in a) first issuing a proclamation to the Empire that they would no longer be respecting the Concordat and would worship Talos openly again, and b) if that was met with Imperial hostility, that they would fight the Empire as a unified province, with Torygg as High King and Ulfric as some sort of Chief Adviser and High Warlord. It is even stated in-game that Torygg greatly respected Ulfric and that they were friends, that Torygg likely would have gone along with Ulfric had he but asked him to do so. Torygg, as you point out, also secretly worshipped Talos, making him a natural ally.

 

This failure to even ask is, in my estimation, the greatest outrage of the Civil War. Had Ulfric done so and had Torygg agreed with him, so many lives might have been saved. But, as you say, Ulfric had ulterior motives and is ambitious, ruthless, and conniving. Which is why I hold that the Stormcloak cause is true, but with enormous reservations about its leader.

Edited June 19, 2012 by sukeban

[fraquar]

Are we suggesting that Torygg had the nads to tell the Emperor to shove it - and all Ulfric had to do was say pretty please? Ha!

 

Damn, I needed a good laugh today.

[MacSuibhne]

Torygg was instrumental in violating the promise made to Ulfric that Talos worship would be allowed--the Thalmor threatened Torygg and the Empire, and he/they capitulated. In the wake of which,Torygg's "sworn man"--Jarl Igmond--had Ulfric arrested...with a more than reasonable certainly of Torygg's knowledge and, at least tacit, approval.

 

Why would Ulfric...who according to the Lore was incensed by both the betrayal and the arrest...have any reason to trust Torygg to either behave honourably or keep a promise to provide aid or throw in with him (Ulfric), propaganda originating in Torygg's erstwhile court notwithstanding?

 

Beyond that, the moot is not the electoral college. It has no business nor authority in these kinds of disputes. In ancient Norse cultures (after which the Nord culture is reputedly modeled) a challenge to the High King was fundamentally a challenge of his fitness to lead...it could not be decided by any other means than proving that you were fit to lead. A trial by arms in all cases...unless the High Kings agrees to step aside.

Edited June 19, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[tetradite]

Heck, if anything, it's the ones who do think the choice is obvious I'd worry about.

 

Agreed with your whole post, but especially this.

[fraquar]

Actually, the choice is pretty obvious unless you are playing a Nord.

[tetradite]

Actually, the choice is pretty obvious unless you are playing a Nord.

 

I know what you mean but I don't entirely agree - Stormcloaks obviously become less appealing to a non-Nord, but that doesn't make the Empire by default a good choice for a non-Nord.

 

I've yet to join either side, because they are both so unpalatable to me. They are both "bad" choices to me.

[sukeban]

As we can't exactly ask him about the matter, I would say that neither of you (nor I, for that matter) could have known what Torygg might have said re: Ulfric's request to secede. Sure, Torygg had hitherto been nothing if not an Imperial toady, but hey, if he truly did count Ulfric as a friend or viewed him as some sort of an elder statesman sort of figure, who is to say what he might have done? By all accounts Ulfric enters the Blue Palace on routine business, as a friend to the High King. His challenge is viewed as a surprise and preemptive of further discussion. I would submit that Ulfric should have at least asked Torygg to go along with him before he issued his challenge. That he did otherwise absolutely betrays his consuming desire to become High King himself, a goal that he places over his professed objective of freeing Skyrim.

 

I'm also pretty sure that Torygg was totally not High King at the time of the Markarth Incident. Just sayin. In-game, he is referenced as being "just a boy." The Incident was 25 years ago. I'm going to go ahead and say that Torygg's father was in charge then.

 

The Moot was formed after some bitter civil war in Skyrim's ancient times to resolve the question of legitimacy for Skyrim's rulers. In the old, bloodstained times, yes, the High King was nothing but a glorified warlord, able to rule only so long as he could defend his claim through his personal force of arms. Then there was that devastating civil war and the all the jarls decided, essentially, that enough was enough. So the Moot was established precisely as a sort of electoral college for choosing Skyrim's High King. I'm pretty sure that the practice of dueling was still allowed, but that it was curtailed heavily because Jarls had less of a cause to be disgruntled with the choice of High King, as they themselves elected him.

 

The Moot seems like a fine insitution and it probs saved Skyrim much bloodshed over the years. The problem with the Moot came with the advent of the Empire and how it undermined the Moot's authority to actually independently choose the High King. Imperial coins flooded into the coffers of their "client Jarls" (like Balgruuf), effectively "buying" their vote in the Moot for their hand-picked candidate for High King (historically the Jarl of Solitude). In this way did the Moot become an instrument for enforcing the Imperial agenda in Skyrim and guaranteeing submissive High Kings and Jarls. But it did not begin as this way.

 

Imperial law seems to have "outlawed" the practice of duels after it absorbed Skyrim. This, I would venture, was an attempt to solidify their control over the province, as all of their hard-bought work might have been undone had some principled Jarl come along to militarily challenge their handpicked, submissive High King. Imperial law then trumped local Nordic custom, not for purposes of "civilization," but for the purpose of guaranteeing the reign of their candidates even if they were domestically unpopular.

Edited June 19, 2012 by sukeban

[MacSuibhne]

In Nordic Lore the Moot's only purpose is to ensure a smooth transition to the next High King should the present one die without an heir.

 

They have nothing to say with regard to which laws are passed or which laws are invalidated except as the High King wishes to curry their support and favour. They are not a legislative body.

 

Theoretically, if Torygg had had an heir, the Moot would not even have been consulted. He/she would have been declared High King Apparent on the spot and Elisyf would have been regent.

 

In real life--in Gotaland--this system of challenges and moots either produced immediate resolution of all conflict or civil war depending on prior allegiances and/or surviving heirs.

 

PS...I don't think you should believe the tavern bards singing about how the end of all war is just around the corner. It's naive at best. The reality...in Skyrim and all of Tamriel...is not even close.

 

Especially not with the Thalmor determined to wipe out all non-mer on Tamriel and the Empire their willing Igor.

Edited June 19, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[fraquar]

Nobody, certainly not a young High King is gonna make an open declaration in defiance of the Empire (and their bedmates the Thalmor) without all the Jarl's being on board. That pretty much says lets prepare for war.

 

We do know the Thalmor aren't gonna stand for that, and we do know the Empires recent backbone problems when it comes to standing behind it's member nations.