Anyone else disappointed with the Stormcloak questline?

[Anska]

Guys.... I enjoyed reading this thread so far, but at the moment it is taking this rather unpleasant turn towards "being right about what really happend" and, as Lachdonin and Bloodrend pointed out before, that doesn't really make sense for a game-world (if it makes sense at all). All the ingame sources are to some extent imperfect, because they are at best the opinions of someone (a book's author for example). More often than not though, they are the opinions someone has on someone else's opinion (like basically all books by imperial scolars about the provinces), attempts to shape the readers opinion on a subject ( The Bear of Markarth and The Dunmer of Skyrim come to mind) or historcal fiction (like "The Poison Songs") - amongst other types of writing. These sources are great material if you want to create a RPG character, but they are poor material if you wish to embark on a battle about what really happened - because the authors of the sources themselves blunder in the dark. It is way more rewarding and much more fun, in my opinion, to try figuring what different theories about what might have happened exist than trying to find the one truth of what really happened.

 

So I can fully understand if Fifteenspades is doubtful about the above mentioned books because they appear to be Nord-biased, at the same time I agree that this not necessarily makes them wrong; they represent a certain view of the world, a facet of reality if you wish.

 

Apart from that I feel compelled to nit-pick; "Children of the Sky" doesn't necessarily convey a Nord perspective on the matter but some (probaly imperial) scholar's view of the Nords' view of the matter. They don't have to match eachother.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Anska

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

I feel like figuring out who is "right" would be difficult at best, but I do feel that at the very least if your going to "discredit" something and or attempt to do so, then you should have the lore to do so when it is lore you are attempting to discredit.

 

I also feel like that if you make a request that you should be able to meet the requirements of your own request because if the other side accommodates that request and you're unable to do so, then you are no longer on equal footing.

 

That being said, it isn't that it doesn't make sense to doubt something, only that it doesn't make sense to believe that opinion to hold the same amount of weight as another if it fails to support itself. This isn't a declaration of right and wrong, just a declaration of the state of the debate.

 

Just because someone is ruled not guilty in the court of law, it doesn't mean that it is believed that they were not guilty, but it definitely means that their guilt wasn't sufficiently proven.

 

In this case, right or wrong, fifteenspades hasn't provided any lore to counter the lore provided, so regardless as to who is actually right (if that is even possible here), fiteenspades would have the weaker argument.

 

This can easily be rectified by providing links to lore that contradict what was provided by S9000.

[Anska]

I guess the problem here is that there aren't books which directly contradict the quotes given above, but that some people simply start the story of how the Nords came to Skyrim at a later date. The story the Pocketguide tells says that humans originate from the throat of the world, went to Atmora and returned after a war broke out in Atmora. Other sources - "Before the Ages of Men" or Tolfdir, when you chat with him during the Saarthal quest, for example - simply leave out the first bit and start the story by saying that the Nords originated from Atmora. Which of both versions you prefer probably depends on your position within the game-world; would you rather take the stance of those Nords, who argue that Skyrim is their rightful homeland or that of the other side who argue that the Nords simply invaded it at some point. - At least that's how the situation presents itself to me at the moment.

 

(Again I am sorry for not providing links or quotes. I am currently typing on an e-reader and copy&pasting is a pain on this thing. )

Edited August 10, 2013 by Anska

[sajuukkhar9000]

The story the Pocketguide tells says that humans originate from the throat of the world, went to Atmora and returned after a war broke out in Atmora. Other sources - "Before the Ages of Men"

 

The book "Before the gaes of man" says

"It was in the Late Merethic Era that the pre-literate humans, the so-called "Nedic Peoples", from the continent of Atmora (also 'Altmora' or 'the Elder Wood' in Aldmeris) migrated and settled in northern Tamriel."

 

However, both Kurt Kuhlmann, and Michael Kirkbride, have said the Nedes are not from Atmora.

 

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/kurt-kuhlmann-posts

On the origin of Nedes

"The usual Imperial arrogance. The hoary old "Out of Atmora" theory has been widely discredited (no reputable archaeologist would publicly support it these days), but the Imperial Geographers continue to beat the drum of the Nordic Fatherland in the best tradition of the Septim Empire. They seem to think that the imprimature of officialdom gives their outdated scholarship added weight -- which, unfortunately, it appears to in the eyes of the ever-gullible public which continues to snap up the latest Pocket Guides along with the rest of their Imperial Certified pablum. (HA)"

 

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/forum-archives-michael-kirkbride

Out of Atmora (07/10/08):

And for the last time (uh huh), Nedes != Atmorans. That's just shoddy scholarship from a bygone regime.

 

This allows us to debunk "Before the Ages of Man", and also serves as the basis for native human live on Tamriel, which connects to Nu-Hatta's comment, in the Nu-Matia Intercepts, that all mortal life began on Tamriel, and the Nord's "sky-children" belief.

Edited August 10, 2013 by sajuukkhar9000

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

"...I guess the problem here is that there aren't books which directly contradict the quotes given above..."

 

That doesn't sound like a problem. It sounds like a fact that makes one side of the argument weaker than the other which is what I was saying.

 

 

"...but that some people simply start the story of how the Nords came to Skyrim at a later date..."

 

As you already pointed out, this does not directly contradict or even suggest the possibility that what was presented by S9000 is wrong as both could hold true therefore this side of the argument remains significantly weaker than the other. So it doesn't depend on game position as the two views are actually not actually conflicting...

 

...and even if thy were, that would be what? One source vs. how many? That would be the very definition of lopsided. I do believe my original request was for equal or greater number of references for that very reason.

 

Unfortunately and as you pointed out, what you provided doesn't even qualify in order to count against the presented references.

 

 

"...that of the other side who argue that the Nords simply invaded it at some point. - At least that's how the situation presents itself to me at the moment..."

 

Since both can be true at the same time, this isn't relevant. Nords could have come from Skyrim and been forced out and then invaded later. If you sell your house and then break into it later, I promise that it will be considered a Home Invasion at the very least.

 

However, you were aware that this wouldn't suffice given your opening statement so I am not quite sure why this was still presented.

 

 

"...(Again I am sorry for not providing links or quotes. I am currently typing on an e-reader and copy&pasting is a pain on this thing. )..."

 

As you stated in the beginning, your inability to provide something isn't due to you being on an e-reader, it's due to the fact that you have nothing that directly contradicts and unless that is provided, that side of the argument is automatically weaker.

 

I'll say this again, It was requested that one side provide links to anything in game that supported their argument and that side complied by providing several links and quotations placing that side of the argument on higher ground. This effectively and currently makes that side of the argument the strongest.

 

THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to effectively change that, is for the side that made the initial request to do the same. That is, they must provide links to information that directly contradicts what was provided equal or greater in number than the number of referencs provided by S9000. The only exception would be is if a link to Bethesda saying that the Nords are wrong were to be provided. That alone would win the argument and make that side correct. Directly contradicts means that in order for one to be true, the other would have to be impossible. This means that a single link where Bethesda says it is possible that the Nords are wrong would not be sufficient as we already know it is possible.

 

If this can be done, the argument resumes on equal footing.

 

If this cannot be done (regardless as to why and especially if it is because such things do not exist), then one side has effectively prevailed as the stronger of the two sides of this debate and there is NOTHING else that will change that making it a fail to continue to argue the other side until such evidence can be found and provided.

[fifteenspades]

 

 

 

"...I guess the problem here is that there aren't books which directly contradict the quotes given above..."

 

That doesn't sound like a problem. It sounds like a fact that makes one side of the argument weaker than the other which is what I was saying.

 

 

"...but that some people simply start the story of how the Nords came to Skyrim at a later date..."

 

As you already pointed out, this does not directly contradict or even suggest the possibility that what was presented by S9000 is wrong as both could hold true therefore this side of the argument remains significantly weaker than the other. So it doesn't depend on game position as the two views are actually not actually conflicting...

 

...and even if thy were, that would be what? One source vs. how many? That would be the very definition of lopsided. I do believe my original request was for equal or greater number of references for that very reason.

 

Unfortunately and as you pointed out, what you provided doesn't even qualify in order to count against the presented references.

 

 

"...that of the other side who argue that the Nords simply invaded it at some point. - At least that's how the situation presents itself to me at the moment..."

 

Since both can be true at the same time, this isn't relevant. Nords could have come from Skyrim and been forced out and then invaded later. If you sell your house and then break into it later, I promise that it will be considered a Home Invasion at the very least.

 

However, you were aware that this wouldn't suffice given your opening statement so I am not quite sure why this was still presented.

 

 

"...(Again I am sorry for not providing links or quotes. I am currently typing on an e-reader and copy&pasting is a pain on this thing. )..."

 

As you stated in the beginning, your inability to provide something isn't due to you being on an e-reader, it's due to the fact that you have nothing that directly contradicts and unless that is provided, that side of the argument is automatically weaker.

 

I'll say this again, It was requested that one side provide links to anything in game that supported their argument and that side complied by providing several links and quotations placing that side of the argument on higher ground. This effectively and currently makes that side of the argument the strongest.

 

THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to effectively change that, is for the side that made the initial request to do the same. That is, they must provide links to information that directly contradicts what was provided equal or greater in number than the number of referencs provided by S9000. The only exception would be is if a link to Bethesda saying that the Nords are wrong were to be provided. That alone would win the argument and make that side correct. Directly contradicts means that in order for one to be true, the other would have to be impossible. This means that a single link where Bethesda says it is possible that the Nords are wrong would not be sufficient as we already know it is possible.

 

If this can be done, the argument resumes on equal footing.

 

If this cannot be done (regardless as to why and especially if it is because such things do not exist), then one side has effectively prevailed as the stronger of the two sides of this debate and there is NOTHING else that will change that making it a fail to continue to argue the other side until such evidence can be found and provided.

 

 

 

 

To start off i get what you are trying to do Smith but well when trying this make sure you get your facts in line otherwise everything else falls apart.

 

"I'll say this again, It was requested that one side provide links to anything in game that supported their argument and that side complied by providing several links and quotations placing that side of the argument on higher ground. This effectively and currently makes that side of the argument the strongest."

 

1. I did not request anything

2. I did not ask for links for anything

3. On the kyne part i even stated i wasn't clear on her

4. I never said any of that lore was wrong, it's just not credible as the "truth"

 

"THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to effectively change that, is for the side that made the initial request to do the same. "

5. Again wasn't me.

 

Now for what it is worth, "truth" itself is a lie. There is never one truth, there are many truths.

Again i can't say this enough i am not saying the nord version is Wrong, it's just another "truth" i am saying it's not credible enough to be called the one truth

 

"So I can fully understand if Fifteenspades is doubtful about the above mentioned books because they appear to be Nord-biased, at the same time I agree that this not necessarily makes them wrong; they represent a certain view of the world, a facet of "reality" if you wish."

 

That would best explain my above statement. with 1 minor change ;o

 

Last point : Just because one side of an argument is weaker doesn't mean they are wrong. Maybe i don't mind being the weaker side?

 

 

"Guys.... I enjoyed reading this thread so far, but at the moment it is taking this rather unpleasant turn towards "being right about what really happend"

 

I wouldn't so it's turning unpleasant. just a Debate atm with neither side getting upset or how to say "emotional". If it does turn to that i will be the first to stop because once that happens peoples logic goes poof~

Edited August 10, 2013 by fifteenspades

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

To start off i get what you are trying to do Smith but well when trying this make sure you get your facts in line otherwise everything else falls apart.

 

 

Assuming that one aspect is incorrect (that you did not request anything despite me saying that you did), it doesn't cause everything else to fall apart and it especially doesn't remove the main aspect of what I am saying. It doesn't change the fact that your argument is weaker unless you can provide lore references equal to or greater in number that contradict the lore already provided and thus there is no sense of you, or anyone else attempting to argue your side as it cannot effectively be done until you can provide such evidence/lore.

 

Does this mean your side is wrong? No, but it does mean that it is fruitless to argue it until you can at least equal the opposing argument. You can know in your heart someone is guilty, but until you have sufficient evidence to support that, you cannot even bring charges against them.

 

Now, pardon me while I attempt to "get my facts straight" as you have requested.

 

 

1. I did not request anything

 

This would be a request:

 

Would you have a link to where it describes Kyne creating the nords? or something along the lines~

 

 

2. I did not ask for links for anything

 

This would be you asking for a link to something:

 

Would you have a link to where it describes Kyne creating the nords? or something along the lines~

 

 

 

3. On the kyne part i even stated i wasn't clear on her

 

This would explain why you made a request for links.

 

 

4. I never said any of that lore was wrong, it's just not credible as the "truth"

 

You attempted to discredit it which is the same as saying it is false which is the same as attempting to say it is wrong. On top of that, my point to you was that the only way to effectively claim it as not true, would be to counter with lore of your own otherwise your points are baseless and your argument remains the weaker of the two.

 

 

"THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to effectively change that, is for the side that made the initial request to do the same. "

5. Again wasn't me.

 

Says fifteenspades right here above a request being made for links regarding Kyne creating the Nords:

 

 

Would you have a link to where it describes Kyne creating the nords? or something along the lines~

 

 

Now for what it is worth, "truth" itself is a lie. There is never one truth, there are many truths.

Again i can't say this enough i am not saying the nord version is Wrong, it's just another "truth" i am saying it's not credible enough to be called the one truth

 

It isn't worth anything because this isn't the issue at all. I have not been saying that you are wrong. I have not been asking about the meaning of truth. I have only been referring to the strength of your argument vs. the other. Your argument is currently baseless which means you have the weaker argument. Stating things like "the truth is a matter of perspective, etc, etc" only supports why your argument is weak.

 

You're saying that the lore presented isn't credible enough to be the one truth... but you provide nothing that says otherwise so it is illogical to argue your side until you can.

 

Not sure if I am the aspect that was considered to be turning this unpleasant or not, but it was not my intent to do so and I am glad you do not see it as being unpleasant, but the fact of the matter is, whether you are right or not, you have no argument until you can provide something in game or out of game via Bethesda.

[fifteenspades]

I asked for something about Kyne, and he provided it and that's that.

I didn't say anything for or against it except the Kyne being mother of men.

 

I'll take back what i said before i did ask for that ONE thing. but it has nothing to do with everything else.

It was just references so i could read up on kyne and i agreed with most of it. and i even thanked him for it.

 

"I'll say this again, It was requested that one side provide links to anything in game that supported their argument and that side complied by providing several links and quotations placing that side of the argument on higher ground. This effectively and currently makes that side of the argument the strongest."

 

That has nothing to do with the stuff i asked for about Kyne. And that is your entire focus of the your entire point.

So again, i have nothing to do with "asking for links to support their argument" if you try to say my asking for stuff about Kyne proves otherwise you are just twisting my words.

 

Also yes if your Front premise of your argument is wrong then everything else falls apart because why should anyone listen to the rest?

 

"You attempted to discredit it which is the same as saying it is false "

Actually no, they are entirely 2 different things. so... yeh.

Edited August 10, 2013 by fifteenspades

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

I asked for something about Kyne, and he provided it and that's that.

I didn't say anything for or against it except the Kyne being mother of men.

 

So that would be you saying something against the lore provided because that is what it was in reference to, the lore provided also supports the notion that the Nords originated in Skyrim... which you also argued against. You even stated that you wanted to know about the Kyne thing due to a belief that the Nords are actually from Atmora.

 

Then once provided, you did in fact attempt to argue against/discredit what was presented, so it is a bit late to say you didn't make a request when you clearly did and even attempted to argue and or discredit it afterwards.

 

 

I'll take back what i said before i did ask for that ONE thing. but it has nothing to do with everything else.

 

It actually does and you were the one that made it the case... BUT let's say that there is some other argument you are referring to and the post where you made a request for links due to you believing something else to be true was merely a detour or a side thing from the main point you were trying to make from before that had nothing to do with contending whether the Nords originated in Skyrim or not or if mankind was created by Kyne or not, what I am saying obviously is focusing on this particular argument.

 

You argued against the Nords originating in Skyrim and against mankind being created by Kyne so that is the argument that has no weight or base unless you can provide lore that says otherwise.

 

 

It was just references so i could read up on kyne and i agreed with most of it. and i even thanked him for it.

 

Thanking someone wouldn't be relevant here as that does not mean that one agrees with anything. I also missed where you agreed with most of it. That isn't to say it didn't happen, just to say that this definitely happened first and you didn't agree with anything:

 

"...None of it is actual proof ;o but thank you for linking all of them anyways ^^

 

You didn't state agreement at all, you only argued against and attempted to discredit all of it.

 

 

Also yes if your Front premise of your argument is wrong then everything else falls apart because why should anyone listen to the rest?

 

Thing is, you didn't attack my Front Premise just an aspect of it. In fact, the thing you called my "Front Premise" wasn't even mentioned in my initial response. Furthermore, when it was mentioned it began with "I also," meaning in addition to rather than it being the main point of my words.

 

Since it isn't as clear as I thought, I'll make it crystal here. You had no evidence/lore for what you're trying to argue, S9000 did/does and thus your argument against the provided lore is currently weaker.

 

Fact: You tried to argue against the lore provided. Unless you can prove that you never argued against it or attempted to discredit it, my front premise stands.

 

 

"You attempted to discredit it which is the same as saying it is false "

Actually no, they are entirely 2 different things. so... yeh.

 

Entry 3 of an Online Thesaurus:

3. discredit - reject as false; refuse to accept

 

Guess they aren't that different after all. Is this the part where you try to argue that the Thesaurus isn't truth because there are multiple truths and it can mean something different to different people? If so, just make sure you provide proof that completely contradicts what I am saying and make sure that proof has friends as I promise I can pull way more than one reference to support my claim here.

[fifteenspades]

Quoting things takes too much space in my email :C

I am going to start adding spoilers for people who just don't care what we think :tongue:

 

 

 

Before i begin i would like to say Smith whenever you type these long... long paragraphs. please just say what you mean and get straight to the point. I am not saying adding a bunch of words is the problem it's the way you use them.This isn't about who can use more words then the other and try and confuse them. Like a lawyer would do basically. If this is just how you typically talk/text then i apologize.

 

1."So that would be you saying something against the lore provided because that is what it was in reference to, the lore provided also supports the notion that the Nords originated in Skyrim... which you also argued against. You even stated that you wanted to know about the Kyne thing due to a belief that the Nords are actually from Atmora.

Then once provided, you did in fact attempt to argue against/discredit what was presented, so it is a bit late to say you didn't make a request when you clearly did and even attempted to argue and or discredit it afterwards."

If you read carefully you would see that i did not Argue against the lore itself. I argued against his interpretation of it.

And no i asked for the kyne thing because as i said in the statement "I could be wrong about this, not really familiar with her"

You argued against the Nords originating in Skyrim and against mankind being created by Kyne so that is the argument that has no weight or base unless you can provide lore that says otherwise."

I am not arguing at all against mankind being created by Kyne. Which is why idk where you got that idea from~

"You didn't state agreement at all, you only argued against and attempted to discredit all of it." Actually no i only made a note about the Men = more then nords.

so i didn't argue against or attempt to discredit "ALL" or any of it. So with that said your above statement is half false.

If you still can't find my agreement with the Kyne thing. the mere fact i didn't even bring it up EXCEPT that men part should show i had no problems with it right?

Sorry if you get confused sometimes when i type it's just i type with the intention people have the intelligence to connect the dots without me showing them the way. <--NOT MEANT AS AN INSULT IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM.

"Since it isn't as clear as I thought, I'll make it crystal here. You had no evidence/lore for what you're trying to argue, S9000 did/does and thus your argument against the provided lore is currently weaker."

I Guess i wasn't as clear as i could of been either. I don't care if it's the weaker side or not. aka stop bringing that up lol it has no relevance here. Bring weaker DOES NOT mean you are wrong or right. yellow was my color for text t-t~

Used the exact same word you did. didn't find one thing that says "wrong" or in a sense "is false" and none of the other words have anything to do with whether its TRUE or NOT. you can reject/disbelieve/ refuse to accept as much as you want doesn't make it true or not.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discredit

http://thesaurus.com/browse/discredit

http://thesaurus.babylon.com/

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/discredit

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/discredit?showCookiePolicy=true

http://graphwords.com/word#discredit

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discredit?s=t

 

Keep having to edit this to sound as nice as possible in case some people have some "sensitive emotions" T_T.

Guys.... I enjoyed reading this thread so far, but at the moment it is taking this rather unpleasant turn towards "being right about what really happend" and, as Lachdonin and Bloodrend pointed out before

Oh and to help support this isn't unpleasant at least in my view. Just read pages after the 4th one. Great example of "upset" they got emotional in their debate xD

Edited August 10, 2013 by fifteenspades