Ulfric used the "Disarm" Shout on the High King!

[breakwind]

how it used to be does not really matter to me. currently the Jarls rule their holds individually, and the High King is just a Vassal for Imperial rule. that is how it has been for Centuries and how i personally feel it should be as imperial soldiers, if both them and Stormcloak soldiers are the same level/training would kill the Stormcloaks due to the imperials having better gear...

 

 

Yeah...plus the Imperials are healthier because they only drink milk :whistling:

[Deleted4666244User]

how it used to be does not really matter to me. currently the Jarls rule their holds individually, and the High King is just a Vassal for Imperial rule. that is how it has been for Centuries and how i personally feel it should be as imperial soldiers, if both them and Stormcloak soldiers are the same level/training would kill the Stormcloaks due to the imperials having better gear...

 

 

Yeah...plus the Imperials are healthier because they only drink milk :whistling:

 

WHAT DID YOU SAY?!?!? lol just kidding

[Relativelybest]

You can't rely on the observers of the duel to accurately state how Ulfric shouted,

 

Then who the hell can you rely on? Everyone in the whole damn game have their own opinion on what happened and there is no reason to trust the word of one faction more than the other.

 

At least eyewitnesses saw it happen, as opposed to knowing about it via rumors and hearsay.

 

What they see as "Torygg being shouted to pieces" in their quite obviously irrational state was in all liklihood no more than a simple disarm shout or the weakest Unrelenting Force. Ulfric's voice isn't anything special. At best he can stagger someone who wasn't a mere boy, and possibly throw down someone like Torygg. But he couldn't shout a wad of dirt to pieces, very much less a man.

 

One of said witnesses was Sybele Stentor, who had been the court wizard of Solitude for over 20 years.

 

If there's anyone I'd trust to be able to tell the differance between a "harmless disarm spell" and "blasting someone to death", it would be a goddamned professional magician.

 

Ulfric was there at the duel too, remember.

 

Sure, but he's the guy who's accused of murder and high treason. He of all people should be considered an unreliable witness.

 

Since Ulfric says he knocked Torygg down, I think we can be sure he used Unrelenting Force. What would he have to gain from lying about it? I have seen him use Disarm against Rikke in one play through, so I know he knows it, but Disarm doesn't knock you down, though it may stagger you a bit. I have also seen him use Unrelenting Force against Rikke in other play throughs, and against Tullius with my one character who sided with the Empire.

 

It seems highly unlikely that he knows any Shouts aside from those two, much less one that can tear someone apart. He studied with the Graybeards for 10 years, and Arngeir says it takes years for an ordinary person to master a single Shout. The tale of Ulfric shouting Torygg apart just lacks any credibility, even coming from eye witnesses to the duel, much less those who are reporting it second-hand.

 

Of course Ulfric didn't literally shout Torygg to pieces. I think we can all agree that is an obvious exaggeration.

 

I'm just saying, in no way does the Disarm shout match the description of what happened. It must have been Unrelenting Force.

[MacSuibhne]

You can't rely on the observers of the duel to accurately state how Ulfric shouted,

 

Then who the hell can you rely on? Everyone in the whole damn game have their own opinion on what happened and there is no reason to trust the word of one faction more than the other.

 

There is a hierarchy of credibility that shakes out something like this:

 

At the bottom is biased opinion based entirely on emotions. Something like "Ulfric is a damn murderer. Isn't Elisyf beautiful."

 

Next is, biased opinion based on circumstantial evidence: "Ulfric hates grey people because he has not given us a lower tax rates than everyone else and appears more interested in gaining independence for Skyrim than in cleaning up the area where we have lived for 150 years seemingly without access to brooms or paint."

 

Neither of these are credible. Just because we hear it from the mouths of people we identify with or want to like doesn't make it true. It's opinion, pure and simple. There are a lot of people...players and non-players alike...who are all too willing to accept the easy way out--and that's precisely what having such a low standard of truth is...it relieves a person of the responsibility to think.

 

Next is the opinions of people who have "heard it on the grapevine" from third parties who may or may not be biased and who may or may not have actually witnessed an event from a distance closer than the limits of unassisted vision. An example of this might be "Ulfric literally shouted Torygg to pieces." With perhaps the added enticement to belief of "My brother heard it from a guard."

 

Then there's the people who actually did witness an event but who have already declared their loyalty. Everyone in Torygg's court fits into this category. There is no more reason to take their version of events as gospel than to take Ulfric's version entirely at face value...even though he was there in a far more immediate and involved manner than anyone else except Torygg...may Talos rest his soul. Because their loyalties are already set, their testimony has to be suspect. It serves their purposes to make sure that their interpretation of events gains primacy.

 

Then, closer to actual evidence is the Lore. This is probably the closest we can get to empirical truth but like the Bear of Markarth and The Scourge of the Grey Quarter by Frilgeth Horse-Breaker, there is material that needs an open and yet cautious mind to evaluate. We question Arrianus because he wasn't involved...he's writing a tract to curry favour with his Imperial masters. Igmund, also an Imperial, was there and his evidence, being first hand, is more credible than Arrianus' opinion. The Thalmor dossier, while not in dispute on its face also has to be regarded with some suspicion simply because of its source.

 

Finally...the most credible evidence for any accusation, or decision, or even as a basis for speculating...and the only standard which is ultimately verifiable and anywhere near irrefutable, no matter what we want to believe...is that a player witnesses an event first hand. And can document who and where so that others may verify it themselves. The harassing of Dunmer by Galmor's brother is a good example. However, if we have any claim or pretense to fairness and/or honour we cannot interpolate such events more broadly than their immediate context and actual participants. Galmor's brother is a bigot but that doesn't make Galmor a bigot and to suggest it does is to deliberately slander.

 

In the end, it's only common sense but all the more difficult if the observer is not really and truly open to any possibility as long as it can be objectively supported.

[Zinnorokkrah]

Or you could, you know, ask Torygg yourself when you're in Sovengarde :P

[MacSuibhne]

Or you could, you know, ask Torygg yourself when you're in Sovengarde :P

 

We all know what Torygg said....it's in the Lore. Having died and gone to Nord heaven doesn't seem to have transformed him much, however. What he says is still his opinion...his interpretation of events.

 

If someone were to say that Torygg had gone to Nord hell, it would be entirely appropriate and irrefutable for someone else to say "Nonsense, I spoke to him in Solvengarde." That's an eyewitness account.

 

But Torygg's side of the story...while interesting...is no more credible than Ulfric's side of the story. Both sides have elements of truth to them but neither is likely to be the whole truth.

[imperistan]

One of said witnesses was Sybele Stentor, who had been the court wizard of Solitude for over 20 years.

 

If there's anyone I'd trust to be able to tell the differance between a "harmless disarm spell" and "blasting someone to death", it would be a goddamned professional magician.

 

Being a mage doesn't spare you from irrationality, nor does it automatically include you in on the inner workings of a magical power thats largely unknown to damn near everyone except in legend and song. The most basic of Thu'um will still rock the house, so unless you knew the Thu'um yourself (which Stentor most certainly didn't) or were privy to being around it enough to recognize the different power levels (which she most certainly wasn't. Few have in the past several thousand years) you wouldn't know the difference between a fairly minor thing like the first word of Disarm and something as terrible as Fus Ro Dah or Yol Tor Shoor. All you would hear and see is some major magic going on and a terrible, thunderous sound.

 

Throw in the irrationality of seeing someone like Torygg (Who they all clearly had affection for in some way) die to it and the fact that he died so easily to it (Due more to his own weakness than the strength of Ulfric's voice) then you have what we have in Torygg's former court. A bunch of shaken, irrational people.

[Kraeten]

One of said witnesses was Sybele Stentor, who had been the court wizard of Solitude for over 20 years.

 

If there's anyone I'd trust to be able to tell the differance between a "harmless disarm spell" and "blasting someone to death", it would be a goddamned professional magician.

 

I would also like to add, that Sybele Stentor's experience could stretch back a few lifetimes for all we know. She is a vampire after all.

[robanybody2000]

@Mac: "Next is the opinions of people who have "heard it on the grapevine" from third parties who may or may not be biased and who may or may not have actually witnessed an event from a distance closer than the limits of unassisted vision. An example of this might be "Ulfric literally shouted Torygg to pieces." With perhaps the added enticement to belief of "My brother heard it from a guard.""

 

Theese are the lines wich Toryg tells the player personaly in Sovngarde:

 

"When Ulfric Stormcloak, with savage Shout, sent me here, my sole regret was fair Elisif, left forlorn and weeping."

"I faced him fearlessly - my fate inescapable, yet my honor is unstained - can Ulfric say the same?"

 

So far we know Ulfric used A shout, all witnesses are not reliable and Ulfrig and Toryg are out of the question, since Toryg clearly doesn't know the meaning of shouts and Ulfric could be lying.

And about the honor part opinions, in Skyrim are divided almost 50-50.

 

As for the lore...

 

"4E 201 — Torygg, the High King of Skyrim, is killed by Ulfric Stormcloak at Solitude." from the UESP. It says "Killed" (the words duel or murder don't appear so they pretty much leava that to the player's concious.

 

The books from the game are as reliabel as the witnesses. Depends who wrote them (Imperial or Stormcloack supporter)

[MacSuibhne]

@Mac: "Next is the opinions of people who have "heard it on the grapevine" from third parties who may or may not be biased and who may or may not have actually witnessed an event from a distance closer than the limits of unassisted vision. An example of this might be "Ulfric literally shouted Torygg to pieces." With perhaps the added enticement to belief of "My brother heard it from a guard.""

 

Theese are the lines wich Toryg tells the player personaly in Sovngarde:

 

"When Ulfric Stormcloak, with savage Shout, sent me here, my sole regret was fair Elisif, left forlorn and weeping."

"I faced him fearlessly - my fate inescapable, yet my honor is unstained - can Ulfric say the same?"

 

So far we know Ulfric used A shout, all witnesses are not reliable and Ulfrig and Toryg are out of the question, since Toryg clearly doesn't know the meaning of shouts and Ulfric could be lying.

And about the honor part opinions, in Skyrim are divided almost 50-50.

 

As for the lore...

 

"4E 201 — Torygg, the High King of Skyrim, is killed by Ulfric Stormcloak at Solitude." from the UESP. It says "Killed" (the words duel or murder don't appear so they pretty much leava that to the player's concious.

 

The books from the game are as reliabel as the witnesses. Depends who wrote them (Imperial or Stormcloack supporter)

 

You're starting to catch on...but some of the Lore is background that has been written by the developers of the game to flesh out the story. There's a lot of Lore there and it does not all derive from books. Parenthetically, I warned against trusting books that were obviously one-side in my evidentiary suggestions above. I'm sure you must have caught that so your point is moot.