Who are the "Good Guys" in this war?

[MacSuibhne]

Has anyone actually heard Ulfric or any of his generals say "Skyrim is for the Nords"? Or is this just a variation on the "racist" allegations/BS?

 

Human beings have, if not a right, a natural expectation that communities and nations will coalesce around common Traditions, culture and beliefs. Shared histories--all human relationships...from small to large...are informed and sustained by shared history. Even geographical boundaries--a "homeland", in other words.

 

Every modern nation started that way. Most cling to that basic idea/ideal.

 

It doesn't make it racist nor even necessarily discriminatory.

[BrettM]

@fraquar: It depends on the non-Nord.

 

Sure, many of them are students, traders, refugees, and other transients who have no reason to pick a side. Others, however, have put down roots and made Skyrim their home, sometimes for generations. They have started families, own businesses, and so forth. Those have just as much reason as any Nord to support whichever side they believe gives the best chance against the Dominion.

 

There may be others as well who have good reason to pick a side even if they plan to return to their own provinces eventually. A Thalmor-hating Bosmer or Khajiit, for example, might see support for either the Empire or Skyrim as being the best way to get the Dominion out of Valenwood/Elsweyr in the long run. A Dunmer or Argonian might want either a strong Empire or strong Skyrim as a bulwark to keep the Dominion out of Morrowind/Argonia, which surely the Thalmor are not planning to neglect even if they aren't ready to try for a takeover just yet. A Redguard might have taken his family out of Hammerfell after the Concordat, thinking to protect them, while a Breton might have simply wanted to put some distance between himself and the fighting on either side of High Rock. Both of them might now realize that there is no running away from the Thalmor problem in the long run. (These make pretty good motives to explain why a non-Nord character was crossing into Skyrim, unfortunately ending up in the trap set for Ulfric.)

 

In short, some non-Nords may realize that the civil war isn't just about Nords and Imperials, but has broader implications that affect them as well.

 

@MacSuibhne: I've never heard Ulfric say that, only assorted bandits and Ulfric detractors. What Ulfric actually says is the Skyrim is for the sons and daughters of Skyrim, and that if you consider Skyrim a home that you're willing to fight for, then you are one of those sons/daughters regardless of your race.

Edited June 5, 2012 by BrettM

[Deleted4666244User]

not voting because it depends on what kind of Character I am role playing

1. Noble warrior valuing Strength and Honor-i would side with the Stormcloaks
   
2. Sly and stealthy rogue-Empire for purely business reasons
   
3. Wise mage-neither side, just want to read my books in peace.
   

Edited June 5, 2012 by Guest

[kibblesticks]

Has anyone actually heard Ulfric or any of his generals say "Skyrim is for the Nords"? Or is this just a variation on the "racist" allegations/BS?

Please please please stop with the angry use of the words "allegation" and "BS". For starters, stating that other people's ideas and opinions are "BS" is, if nothing else, against forum rules on profanity. It's also very rude..

 

Note: You're pretty much the only person for the last few pages to even mention "racism". Pretty rich for someone who moans about other people misrepresenting comments to score points... I mentioned the stormcloaks being a slightly racist army in my very first post but corrected myself immediately in my following post.

 

And to answer your point, no, as BrettM pointed out he doesn't say specifically that Skyrim is only for Nords, but the common saying "sons and daughters of Skyrim" definately gives off that conotation. Yes, he may explain it in a different way when you actually meet him, but to the casual listener that saying comes off as very nationalist thinking.

 

Human beings ...

 

It doesn't make it racist nor even necessarily discriminatory.

 

I'm saying the rebellion would get far more support if they made their cause more about fighting the Thalmor and less about national identity or pride. Again, I never said they were racist so please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 

@BrettM,

 

In short, some non-Nords may realize that the civil war isn't just about Nords and Imperials, but has broader implications that affect them as well.

 

I agree, I think the rebellion should put more effort into attracting these various refugees and political prisoners and using their various positions, skills and knowledge to further their aims and strengthen international relations.

[Deleted4666244User]

everyone thinks about the WGC as a cop-out, which it may be but look at it this way: if you were in his position would you want to be hated by millions of civilians because you drafted their son/daughter/wife/husband/whatever and ordered them to their death? or hated for taking the "easy way out" and protecting your people in the process?

[MacSuibhne]

 

Please please please stop with the angry use of the words "allegation" and "BS". For starters, stating that other people's ideas and opinions are "BS" is, if nothing else, against forum rules on profanity. It's also very rude.

 

"Sorry. Cant do that."

 

The way I write and speak is consistent with my dislike of rumour-mongering, third-party hearsay and scurrilous, unsubstantiated accusations.

 

I believe "allegations" is the correct word...the most precise word...the closest to describing the behavior I am referring to. And although I have seen worse on these forums than "BS", I could, if you like, edit the post to say..."baseless, sophomoric baloney."

 

I have not been warned by a moderator. Maybe I deserve it (I don't think so). But unless you're a moderator, all I can do is regret that you're not happy with my choice of words. Oh well.

 

But that said, I suspect it is just another one of those clever ploys that people who don't have a good logical argument use to divert attention away from the issue at hand.

 

What in the world do you think is implied., no, what in the world do you think people...already fatigued/bludgeoned by repeated accusations of racism (and it is disingenuous to claim that there is not an implied slander of those who disagree)...think when the "Skyrim is for the Nords" baloney is thrown out there? Do you care? I wonder.

 

I wonder because I asked for evidence that Ulfric or his Generals were making these kinds of statements.

 

And, for some reason, you feel compelled to distort the issue into something else.

 

If the answer to my question is "no", then everything suggested and implied by the "Syrim is for the Nords" thesis comes down to hearsay. Slander and Libel with no basis in evidence.

 

You're pretty much the only person for the last few pages to even mention "racism".

 

 

A moot point...unless you believe you're the only person of importance in this discussion. I don't keep score of who says what. Or what their age or gender is. It's words on the screen...ideas in the ether. That said, you can't run from the issue of unsubstantiated charges of racism. Whether it was you or your buddy...it's out there, it is an integral part of this discussion.

 

I associate with some pretty hard core historians on occasion...although I am not one myself. But one thing I have learned from them---"if there is no verified and substantive documentation, it didn't happen." Everything else is fantasy and/or wishful thinking. Hearsay is not enough. Whining from disgruntled NPC's is not enough.

 

Go back the the major thesis that runs through all of my posts here: Let Ulfric's actions speak for themselves. Let the Stormcloaks actions speak for themselves. Let the Empire's actions speak for themselves. Let the Thalmor's actions speak for themselves.

 

Evidence.

 

And the presumption of innocence...until proven otherwise.

Edited June 6, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[CaptainRC]

As I pointed out in my post in the "Saint or Sinner" forum, I play the game with a simpler mindset, as all this analysis that's going on tend to make too much animosity. Usually, I start the main quest first. After killing the first dragon, Jarl Balgruf makes me his Thane. Later on, I go to Windhelm to invite Ulfric to the truce negotiations and overhear Ulfric and his general planning to take Whiterun. So after killing Alduin, I side with the Empire... not out of any great love for it (they DID try to execute me)... but out of respect for the only two people in all of Skyrim (other than the Greybeards) on EITHER side to show me any amount of human decency: Hadvar and Jarl Balgruf. After all, what kind of Thane would I be if I let the Stormcloaks take Whiterun and depose Jarl Balgruf? As for Ralof while on the cart... well, when he speaks, it sounds to me like a recruitment pitch rather than any real compassion, so I don't really listen to him. Even Delphine, who proports to be helping you, sounds like a manipulative little b****, and the only reason I go along with her is that killing Alduin is in my best interests.

 

Anyway, I consider this all a moot point, since the game has not run its course yet. This is only the beginning. The next chapter in the Dragonborn's story is coming out soon on Dawnguard. And if it continues in its logical conclusion, there will be a future DLC out about the Dragonborn's final destiny... which I believe it will be the Dragonborn leading the charge against the true enemies in this whole affair... the Thalmor and the Aldmeri Dominion.

 

And in the course of that, he will probably wind up either reuniting the Empire... or become the next Tiber Septim and build a new one...

 

... or he could wind up with his own little kingdom like the Champion of Cyrodiil did. I could be wrong. But my point is... let's wait until we get the ENTIRE story told before we decide who really is "the bad guys."

Edited June 6, 2012 by CaptainRC

[modder3434]

thier really is no go od guys and bad guys. yes the thalmor are eviil and self-centered , but the war itself is between the empire and the stormcloaks, and out of these two factions i have to say neither is good or evil they are just their. both have the same end goal ( kick the crap out of the thalmor) but they disagree on the means. Empire (united we stand), and Stormcloaks (independent power of the provencies!)

 

personally the empire strategy is more sound.

[breakwind]

My personal view is that I wish I could kill them all and let Talos sort them out. Both leaders come across as self rightous pigs whose heads would look good decorating a pike in front of one of my houses. But as you have to take one side or the other if you want to complete the quest, I pick the Imperials. Now...a war against the Thalmor, thats something I would enjoy

[MacSuibhne]

It seems to me that most of the allegations made against Ulfric and the Stormcloaks are "cover" for the unease that people feel about "switching horses in the middle of a stream."

 

When we sweep away the distractions and all the chaff, what we hear most is "The Stormcloaks can't win." "The Empire is stronger." "The Empire is best for the long term."

 

Even when each of those and similar statements are analyzed in light of what we do know, and are debunked or at least called into question, people prefer the devil they know-- "as all experience hath shewn, mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable...". IOW, people prefer the status quo to the unknown future that Ulfric and the Stormcloaks represent.

 

For me, that's as sad as it gets.

 

I am just finishing a book called "Count to a Trillion" by John C. Wright. In it is a paragraph/quote that I thought perfectly illustrates the ethical conundrum faced by the player in this game...

 

Before us is the unknown....The option to be all-knowing is not open to us.

 

Our options are to act as if the unknown will bring us evil, which is the response called fear; or to act as if the unknown will bring us good, which is the response called hope.

 

The first response is certainly self-fulfilling; the second may be.

John C. Wright, Count to a Trillion

Edited June 6, 2012 by MacSuibhne