Anyone else disappointed with the Stormcloak questline?

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

I agree with all of those things Dante (especially the game representation being only a representation rather than perfectly accurate). I just would have went one step further and released those Stormcloaks after beheading Ulfric that way the word isn't just coming from the Empire and people would be able to claim propaganda, but also from the mouths of their own.

 

I'd say for myself, in conclusion, while there are aspects of the Stormcloak storyline that disappointed me, there are plenty of aspects done well.

 

My disappointment tends to stem from a lack of freedom and or a lack of in game response to my chosen path(s), but this applies to various areas of the story and one has to keep in mind that there are limitations in time, money, etc that affect such things.

[Anska]

What you just adressed, Tons, is basically what made me raise an eyebrow when reading the title of this thread. I am slightly dissapointed with certain aspects of the CW and the game in general, yes. For example it would have been nice if winning the war wasn't a foregone conclusion once you picked a side, but you actually had to work for it - just as I would like to have an option to deal with Grelod the Kind "the guild way" if my character is in the Thieves Guild. One of the first things Bryn points out to you is, that the Guild doesn't deal with people by killing them. Unfortunately, there isn't an option to keep this notion up for quests outside of the Thieves Guild context. Slightly frustrating and not very immersive, really. As you said yourself:

 

My disappointment tends to stem from a lack of freedom and or a lack of in game response to my chosen path(s), but this applies to various areas of the story and one has to keep in mind that there are limitations in time, money, etc that affect such things.

 

But why would I be especially disapointed in the Stormcloak questline? It's basically the Imperial questline in blue, after all. After reading the thread's initial post it hit me that the person was disapointed, because he had the impression of having joined the side which was „closer to the bad guys “ with the main focus being – as always in these cases – Ulfric.

Now, there is a thing which puzzle me about this: I quite often get the impression, that when people talk about their „characters with a good alignment“ they mean characters who didn't do a wrong thing in their life, wiped out all evil or morally ambiguous people in the game and are basically slightly more violent versions of a children's book version fairy-tale hero. Joining the „wrong“ side (like comming to the conclusion that you only helped an ambitious man while you actually wanted to help a righteous cause), making mistakes in general or even feeling remorse about something (like having to oppose Baalgruuf when joining the Stormcloaks or having to kill that vigilant in Markarth) does appear to contradict the idea of playing a good character. Which is something I absolutely fail to understand. Most of my characters have what would account for a good or neutral disposition by D&D standards, they have their goals and ambitions but they usually keep morals and the well-being of their friends and family (or society in general) in mind when doing stuff. But that doesn't keep them from accidently doing bad things, does it? My thief's first visit to Markarth left him devastated; not only did he feel responsible for the death of Eltrys and no small amount of anguish over that vigilant, he had also experienced how it felt to be on the other side of an intrigue not unlike the ones that the Guild is often helping out with. I thought about how he would react to all this and while I could only realize most of his actions in my head, it ended up being a nice story and helped to actually make my thief a better person in the end. So I really don't have a problem with characters being forced into nasty situations, because I don't think it sullies a good character's intentions if s/he's forced into something or makes a mistake. It simply gives you the opportunity to tell a different story about him/her. It is, after all, the story which makes a hero or a villain and it is in the player's hand to tell his or her character's story. (I still agree with what I quoted above though: a few more options would be nice.)

And this is, I assume, where most people's problem with Ulfric comes in. I got the impression that players (myself included) expect all this „honour and glory, rather go down fighting than live a slave, fighting for one's believes and independence“ stuff from the Stormcloaks and naturally expect Ulfric to be a „true Nord hero“. (Keeping in mind what I assumed about the demands on a true hero, this is quite a superhuman image to live up to.) However, the nice twist to Ulfric is, in my eyes, that while he does want to hold up old nordic values and all the other stuff he so eloquently talks about, he is also very aware that a hero (or a great king for that matter) is created through the stories told about him and not (only) through his own deeds. His constant worries about his public image and „what would make a better story“ show this well enough, I think. Ulfric is so good at creating his own legend that even Galmar occaisonally thinks, that he's either overdoing it (that annoyed question if it wouldn't make a better story if the Dragonborn killed Tullius indicates this) or that Ulfric has started to believe in his own stories (which is indicated by the question whether Ulfric is aware that the Moot's decision is a foregone conclusion). That the guy who is either cast as the hero or the villain during a large part of the game and holds up all this „nord nonsense“, turns out to be someone who actually understands that heros are, in the end, only a work of fiction and works with this notion to create himself as a heroic character is such a glorious ending and such a wonderful twist to the Stormcloak questline – how could I possibly be disappointed by that?

Now don't get me wrong, while I think that Ulfric is consciously creating a public image for himself, I don't think he is either a liar or simply powerhungry at all. I think he's sort of doing what he considers to be the right thing to do, but does it for personal reasons. (By „personal“ I mean that I don't think he's acting selflessly/ noble/ etc. but am not quite sure whether I want to call him selfish either.) But I think this post has become long enough and I have a couple of things to do before finally replying to Spade's question from Sunday and a couple of other comments ...

PS: Ulfric didn't really escape from the Thalmor. The dossier says he was "allowed to escape", meaning he was really released from prison without knowing it - and thus Ulfric and everyone but the Thalmor believe, that he actually escaped.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Anska

[fifteenspades]

What you just adressed, Tons, is basically what made me raise an eyebrow when reading the title of this thread. I am slightly dissapointed with certain aspects of the CW and the game in general, yes. For example it would have been nice if winning the war wasn't a foregone conclusion once you picked a side, but you actually had to work for it - just as I would like to have an option to deal with Grelod the Kind "the guild way" if my character is in the Thieves Guild. One of the first things Bryn points out to you is, that the Guild doesn't deal with people by killing them. Unfortunately, there isn't an option to keep this notion up for quests outside of the Thieves Guild context. Slightly frustrating and not very immersive, really. As you said yourself:

 

 

To be fair they had done the work for a HUGE civil war, and it was even challenging and you could also lose it. but it had too many bugs, was taking too much time and $. And they were in a hurry to release it. http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/37216//? (read the description to see what i mean). So the original idea was it wasn't a foregone conclusion but the restraints of time and $ forced it to be that way.

Edited August 14, 2013 by fifteenspades

[Bozzz123]

Its funny because the stormcloaks are actually stronger than the imperials. Put 10 random stormcloaks against 10 random imperials and the stormcloaks will win almost every time. Why, you might ask? Because the stormcloaks use warhammers. Warhammers>sword and shield. At least with npcs anyway. Anyway for anyone looking for a better civil war check this out

http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/37216//?

[Bozzz123]

Its funny because the stormcloaks are actually stronger than the imperials. Put 10 random stormcloaks against 10 random imperials and the stormcloaks will win almost every time. Why, you might ask? Because the stormcloaks use warhammers. Warhammers>sword and shield. At least with npcs anyway. Anyway for anyone looking for a better civil war check this out

http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/37216//?

Oops never mind looks like someone already posted the link lol

[demonicslayer85]

Its funny because the stormcloaks are actually stronger than the imperials. Put 10 random stormcloaks against 10 random imperials and the stormcloaks will win almost every time. Why, you might ask? Because the stormcloaks use warhammers. Warhammers>sword and shield. At least with npcs anyway. Anyway for anyone looking for a better civil war check this out

http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/37216//?

 

I suposed this is due to the creator trying to imitate the Empire with the Romes. Romes' army was not exactly the strongest, their weapon are those kind that you see. A gladius (shorter version of a normal sword which is about 60cm long) and shield. While the Stormcloaks are following the styles of Barbarians which prefer the use of heavy weapons. They usually carried two-handed swords ( which is longer and more deadly ) and axes.

[Bozzz123]

 

Its funny because the stormcloaks are actually stronger than the imperials. Put 10 random stormcloaks against 10 random imperials and the stormcloaks will win almost every time. Why, you might ask? Because the stormcloaks use warhammers. Warhammers>sword and shield. At least with npcs anyway. Anyway for anyone looking for a better civil war check this out

http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/37216//?

 

I suposed this is due to the creator trying to imitate the Empire with the Romes. Romes' army was not exactly the strongest, their weapon are those kind that you see. A gladius (shorter version of a normal sword which is about 60cm long) and shield. While the Stormcloaks are following the styles of Barbarians which prefer the use of heavy weapons. They usually carried two-handed swords ( which is longer and more deadly ) and axes.

 

Yes but the Romans still won because they had better strategy and leadership than the barbarians who basically just charged at them wtih no real order. I wish it was like that in skyrim with the imperials ordered and the stormcloaks sloppy and wreckless. I also wish there were different quests for different armies but they both have the same quests just different sides.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Bozzz123

[rattlemebones]

Even if they did execute Ulfric it wouldn't have mattered if Galmar was intelligent enough. Galmar could easily turn a dead Ulfric into a martyr, and his soldiers would fight twice as hard. The best way to put down a rebellion is to make the leader a criminal and put them in prison. Over all, if Ulfric were executed, it would only make things worse.

[Anska]

Thanks for the link, you two. I'll try this the next time I start a new character, it looks like fun. I had seen some left-over CW files in the creation kit before and thought that it's such a waste that they never have been put to use.

 

Bozzz, perhaps it helps with the realism that many Stormcloaks are former Imperial soldiers? I guess they simply didn't give up their training along with their loyalties. I generally agree with you though.

[TheVampireDante]

That the guy who is either cast as the hero or the villain during a large part of the game and holds up all this „nord nonsense“, turns out to be someone who actually understands that heros are, in the end, only a work of fiction and works with this notion to create himself as a heroic character is such a glorious ending and such a wonderful twist to the Stormcloak questline – how could I possibly be disappointed by that?

 

The creation of a heroic leader image during this might not just be for personal desire or the want to show that he is a traditionalist to his opponent - but for future generations, he might actually be thinking in the longer terms. It's no good "freeing" the land, if the next one up to fill your role is just going to hand it over again.

 

If the Stormcloaks win, it'll be put down to the might of it's warriors and they will have been led by one of the great heroes of the age, freeing the land from the oppression of the Thalmor and the weak willed Imperial army they use. Now that story would be passed on, and future leaders would aspire to be like such a man.

Ulfric knows that the tales will be added to and embellished over time, his deeds given greater reason, the enemy count will rise, the deviousness of his opponents will go up and a greater danger might be added.

 

So, why not create a fantastical tale to begin with? Start it all with something grand and inspiring, anything added to that will only fuel the minds and spirits of the people hearing it.

 

He's working one of the stronger emotions of the Nord people - their pride.

 

List of what he's done since the Dragonborn enters the scene - if told from the Stormcloak viewpoint

 

1. escaped execution by Imperials

2. survived the dragon attack on Helgen

3. recruited the Dragonborn to the cause

4. retrieved the Jagged crown to prove his worth

5. marched on Whiterun to secure the middle lands

6. had the Imperials trying to bargain with him at the diplomatic table

7. reclaimed the cities in the name of Skyrim to free them from Imperial rule

8. marched on the home of his enemy (solitude)

9a. dealt the fatal strike to the enemy leader, ending the civil war

or

9b. gave the honour to his ally, friend and symbol of Nordic heroes and values - the Dragonborn.

10 made a speech about not accepting leadership unless proven to be the choice by ancient Nord tradition (the moot)

 

Put into a Nordic tale that'd be quite an impressive list of feats to have undertaken as it is, you add in anything else he might have done after the end of the civil war, then the imagined "fluff" that would be put into the story over time - you'd think Ulfric was a demigod leading a troop of his nations finest to drive out the horrors of everything evil from his land after something like that was banded around for a decade or so.

 

Of course not everyone would believe everything in the tale - but they'd know it was true to some extent, which still leaves a lot of immensely impressive acts to follow. All this from the man that freed the Nord nation? That's going to rile up a lot of people to the point they make sure their land stays free.