Something I think we haven't noticed about the Stormcloak/Imperial

[ClonePatrol]

 

So, I just played through No One Escapes Cidhna Mine, and something occured to me - if the Stormcloak aligned Nords deserve their own independant kingdom in their own ancestral land where they are free to practice their own religion, doesn't the same thing apply to the Forsworn?

 

If we're talking strictly about principle, then yes. Once we factor in that the Forsworn have degenerated into bloodthirsty primitive tribesmen...eh not so much.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Forsworn were the Reachmen before Ulfric came along and ousted them for Jarl Igmund (or maybe they've been around longer, no earlier than when their land was first taken from them though). Their society may seem primitive (I prefer the term simplistic as primitive carries negative connotations), but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it if that's the way they're happy to live (many of the Bosmer of Valenwood are supposed to enjoy a similar lifestyle aren't they? And some that still walk out Earth however few there are remaining). Technically they had a very similar choice to the Stormcloaks, give up their culture at the whims of their new conquerors and leaders, or refuse and fight back.

 

Even if they were open to taking on some aspects of Tamriel's modern society (they did capture and hold Markarth for a couple years rather than burning it to the ground, that should be telling), it's hard to keep up such a life style when you've been ejected from civilization by someone who wants all your land (and wealth in the form of silver mines). They're not so much bloodthirsty as out for revenge against those who stole their land, and the PC being non-native to the area can easily get caught up in it all even if they were to support them.

 

It is this incongruity that led me to Markarth, the capital city of the Reach, in search of answers. There, I met one of the native peoples, an old woman who preferred to not be named in my writings. She told me of her family's long history. How she believes they originally came from High Rock, home of the Bretons (which would explain the similar faces and stature of the two peoples). How the Nords came and took their lands, their gods, and their culture from them. When asked about the Forsworn, the old woman would say that they are the "real" men and women of the Reach: those that refused to give in to the Nords. Those that still practiced the ancient traditions that the rest of their people had abandoned in exchange for peace.

 

In time, I was able to create trust with many more natives in my search that corroborated the old woman's story. By chance, one of them arranged a meeting between myself and what I thought was an elder member of his village. I was shocked to find that I was led to a camp, filled with the animal skulls, severed heads, and still beating hearts that I had read about from the military reports back in the Imperial City. There, I met Cortoran, a Forsworn, who seemed amused at the prospect of me writing down his story. Which I quote in full below:

 

"You want to know who the Forsworn are? We are the people who must pillage our own land. Burn our own ground. We are the scourge of the Nords. The axe that falls in the dark. The scream before the gods claim your soul. We are the true sons and daughters of the Reach. The spirits and hags have lived here from the beginning, and they are on our side. Go back. Go back and tell your Empire that we will have our own kingdom again. And on that day, we will be the ones burying your dead in a land that is no longer yours."

 

It's a separate culture, not necessarily a primitive one. There's barely any information on their Hagravens either. They Hagravens are often hostile (so are lots of people when you show up unexpectedly on their land), they worship Daedra (so do Dunmer and many others secretly) and they've made some sort of deal with Daedra in exchange for power that made them unattractive to most human sensibilities (the Companions made a similar deal through the Glenmoril to become Werewolves and they aren't evil); so it's hard to actually say even the Hagravens are evil. They hate the Spriggans, sure, but I kind of do too and I'd imagine I'm not alone in that.

[BrettM]

I have no problem saying the hagravens are evil. Do the quest in Darklight Tower to find out how they are created. Is it not evil to sacrifice an innocent person to gain the power of a hagraven? The desire to "kill something pretty", as Melka suggests in Blind Cliff Bastion, is not exactly a mark of sainthood. I have as hard a time supporting a revival of this religion as I would supporting the revival of a religion that throws virgins into volcanos or uses obsidian knives to cut the hearts out of living sacrifices. The right to religious freedom does not trump the right to life of everyone else.

 

The Companions as a whole are not evil, but that doesn't mean there are never any individual members who stray from the path of righteousness. The deal with the Coven was made hundreds of years ago. The Harbinger at that time had questionable judgement at least, but can we blame the current members of the Circle for his stupidity? Being a werewolf is not, of itself, evil.

 

There are some pretty clear differences between the situation of the Stormcloaks and the situation of the Forsworn, despite the superficial parallels. The Stormcloaks are rising against a wrong that was committed on them. The Forsworn are rising against a wrong that was committed on their distant ancestors hundreds of years ago. As Bothela, the Reachwoman who owns the Hag's Cure, says, the Forsworn are trying to restore a way of life that was over long ago.

 

Suppose that the U.S. government signed a treaty demanding the abolition of Christianity and some Christians started a rebellion to restore their religious freedom. Suppose at the same time a group of Seminoles started slaughtering people in Florida while demanding that the lands stolen from their ancestors be returned to them. Would you consider the two rebellions to be equivalent?

 

There has to come a point at which an injustice is put aside save as an historical lesson. There is probably not a single person on the planet today whose ancestors weren't subjected to some injustice at sometime in the last 10,000 years. If we don't acknowledge the impossibility of rectifying those ancient injustices and find a way to move on, then we are all entitled to demand reparations from somebody else on the basis that their ancestors were barbarians or conquerors who took the land of our ancestors. The British can declare war on the Normans and re-fight the Battle of Hastings. The Normans can declare war on the Italians in retribution for the conquest of the Gauls by the Roman Empire. The Italians can declare war on the descendants of the barbarians who brought down the Roman Empire. It never ends.

 

There probably is not a square inch of land on this planet that was not unjustly taken from someone at some point in history. Do any of us feel obligated to track down the descendants of those ancient owners and give our homes to them? Do we acknowledge their right to come and take it from us? If not, then why is it right for the Forsworn to kill Nords whose ancestors have lived in the Reach for generations?

[SFBryan18]

I just hope you all take just as much interest in real world politics as you do in this fictional story.

[Kraeten]

I just hope you all take just as much interest in real world politics as you do in this fictional story.

 

Real world politics are soul crushingly boring.

[ClonePatrol]

I have no problem saying the hagravens are evil. Do the quest in Darklight Tower to find out how they are created. Is it not evil to sacrifice an innocent person to gain the power of a hagraven? The desire to "kill something pretty", as Melka suggests in Blind Cliff Bastion, is not exactly a mark of sainthood. I have as hard a time supporting a revival of this religion as I would supporting the revival of a religion that throws virgins into volcanos or uses obsidian knives to cut the hearts out of living sacrifices. The right to religious freedom does not trump the right to life of everyone else.

 

I've not done that quest yet so I don't really know all the events that happened in it, but in a world like Nirn a key difference arises from the fact that the Gods are obviously real (Aedra, Daedra, whatever). Historically (IRL), human sacrifice wasn't always something done with the unwilling. Priests of religions that demanded it (Ancient Mayans for example) would often sacrifice their enemies (the ones they considered evil, making it equivalent to an execution) or they would try and take volunteers from among their own people (generally in cases where they believed their own Gods to be angered with them). In Mayan culture being a willing sacrifice to the Gods in a great time of need was considered an honorable action. If a person sacrifices themselves to their own Gods to the benefit of their people is their anything wrong with that? Is a soldier who goes off to a battle where he'll most certainly die much different from a willing sacrifice who approaches an altar where they most certainly will? Both should have made peace with their death, but the one approaching the altar is making a much greater sacrifice for their people. Is there anything wrong with ritual sacrifice when it acts as a form of execution for those who have already committed wrongs against ones people and when it provides a clear ability to offset the damage that individual dealt to your people?

 

Not everyone in Nirn (or at least Tamriel) seems to be aware of the fact that the afterlife is a very real thing in their world and it does seem to follow some sort of justice-like system (however flawed). The PC can go to Sovngarde and see that Nord heroes really do go there, and resurrection and reincarnation are possible Gods willing. It kind of makes killing in game somewhat less of a moral issue as long as you aren't soul trapping and sending black souls to the Soul Cairn left and right. It does seem not everyone gets the afterlife they want, Kodlak would go to Hircine's Hunting Grounds rather than Sovngarde liked he'd want to, but that is a clear consequence of his choice to become a werewolf (whether he was aware of the consequence or not, it was his choice and it's arguable that he should have to live with it).

 

If the requirement is to become a Hagraven is to kill 'an innocent person', then that's likely evil unless an innocent can be convinced to come forward and offer themselves up. If the requirement is to 'kill something beautiful' or 'kill a beautiful person' it's a lot less cut and dry.

There are some pretty clear differences between the situation of the Stormcloaks and the situation of the Forsworn, despite the superficial parallels. The Stormcloaks are rising against a wrong that was committed on them. The Forsworn are rising against a wrong that was committed on their distant ancestors hundreds of years ago. As Bothela, the Reachwoman who owns the Hag's Cure, says, the Forsworn are trying to restore a way of life that was over long ago.

 

Unless we can be sure the Forsworn only took back up their traditions when they retook Markath (which seems unlikely to me, but I can't find a reference to exactly when they were formed, only that they refused to give up their ancient traditions when they were conquered) then that's not exactly a fair comparison. The Forsworn have been continuously oppressed and in the time they have existed have never given up their beliefs or their claim to their historic lands (and many of the assimilated conquered people have supported their return to power as well) and seem to have been at constant war to reclaim them. Despite what Bothella said, the Forsworn are fighting against a wrong that is still being committed against them, and the way of life was clearly not over long ago as people are still living it. It can't truly be said that the Forsworn are 'rising against a wrong that happened to their ancestors' but that they are 'still risen against a wrong that has been happening to their people for generations'. If anything I'd say the Forsworn have a more legitimate grievance than the Stormcloaks.

 

We're getting a bit off topic now though.

Edited July 21, 2012 by ClonePatrol

[ClonePatrol]

Accidentally replied instead of editing. Edited July 21, 2012 by ClonePatrol

[SFBryan18]

I just hope you all take just as much interest in real world politics as you do in this fictional story.

 

Real world politics are soul crushingly boring.

 

Well, I would disagree with that. I think people ignore real politics because they are not as black and white as Imperial vs Stormcloak, where in a fictional story it's easy make conclusions while in real politics, people need more evidence than just hearsay to say something. Real politics are also much more depressing because they are usually tied hand in hand with money, while a fictional story can be about right and wrong, good and evil. This story is not very deep and this discussion gets ridiculously too over exaggerated. Just enjoy the game people. Proving one side is better than the other is pretty pointless since it's not real. There are better ways to get an ego boost.

[ClonePatrol]

I just hope you all take just as much interest in real world politics as you do in this fictional story.

 

Real world politics are soul crushingly boring.

 

Well, I would disagree with that. I think people ignore real politics because they are not as black and white as Imperial vs Stormcloak, where in a fictional story it's easy make conclusions while in real politics, people need more evidence than just hearsay to say something. Real politics are also much more depressing because they are usually tied hand in hand with money, while a fictional story can be about right and wrong, good and evil. This story is not very deep and this discussion gets ridiculously too over exaggerated. Just enjoy the game people. Proving one side is better than the other is pretty pointless since it's not real. There are better ways to get an ego boost.

 

I'm sorry, but the Imperial vs Stormcloak conflict isn't black and white either. The story is very deep if you care to look into it, most people don't care to though. It's not about an ego boost, some of us just enjoy the media in this way.

[SFBryan18]

It is black and white, but I'm not about to spend 50 pages over exaggerating. If you can't see things for what they are, too bad for you.

[ClonePatrol]

It is black and white, but I'm not about to spend 50 pages over exaggerating. If you can't see things for what they are, too bad for you.

 

If you can't or won't defend your position on an issue you shouldn't state it. This is a forum, it's primary purpose is discourse between individuals interested in the topic at hand.

 

If you actually think the conflict is black and white present an argument to that effect, because this entire thread is filled with arguments counter to that and I have no intention of summarizing them as a rebuttal to a non-argument.

 

If you don't like reading too deeply into the story of the game and prefer to just enjoy the game-play mechanics that's perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean the story isn't there. The Elder Scrolls games are one of the few series that actually have a good complex narrative in a rich and detailed game world that allows complex analysis in the same way one might analyze a book.

 

If you actually have an argument to make, if you actually can point something out that all of us doing a detailed analysis have missed and that can actually reduce this to a black and white argument then please (pretty please) do so, I'd absolutely love to hear it. Nobody is asking for fifty pages, how about a few paragraphs? That should take what, fifteen minutes?