Anyone else disappointed with the Stormcloak questline?

[CuliacanMexico]

 

Culiacan, you can role-play as a person who thinks with his head instead of his heart. I've done both. I've followed Ralof and I've followed Hadvar. I've sided with the Stormcloaks and I've sided with the Empire. Role-playing implies the ability to take on a "role" which is not you -- to play a character who might even have a very different way of looking at the world than you do. Like I said, it isn't black and white and anyone who sees it as such is simply missing the Big Picture. Of course, it's possible to role-play a character who is wearing conceptual blinders and can't see the options. I've done that, too. They're all valid approaches to the game. And, once out of Helgen you don't have to follow the person you chose. Indeed, you never ever have to see him, again, unless you involve yourself in the Civil War. That's generally the way I do it, because I don't like having that "Join the Imperial Legion" or "Join the Stormcloak Rebellion" quest crammed into my journal without my permission.

Everyone plays different. My son always goes the route of the Empire. For me, I really haven't developed a back story that would send me down that path, but I probably will in the future.

 

In my original post, I am not saying there is a right or wrong way to play. You don't have to choose one side over the other... or choose at all. Just pointing out... for me... the developers set-up a situation during the interdiction that seems to push my characters towards the Storm Cloaks.

 

The intro wasn't even handed... of course it doesn't have to be. ;)

 

Note: my characters are usually Breton... they don't really like either side too well right now. The Markarth Incident and all.

[Moraevik]

Heh ... I usually play as a Khajiit, so from that perspective, without developing a back-story to the contrary, I have no loyalties to anyone. Where was the Empire when the Dominion invaded and divided up Elsweyr? Why should I particularly like the Nords, when they won't even let my people into their cities? This makes it easy for me to just go my own way the instant I get out of Helgen. To Oblivion with Skyrim and the Empire and the Dominion and everyone else. If I never talk to Balgruuf there will be no Main Quest releasing a plague of dragons on the world. If I never talk to Ulfric or General Tullius there will be no Civil War. I don't have to deal with Delphine's arrogant, self-righteous preaching about what I should and should not do. I'm free to be a thief, assassin, join any guild I want to, or none of them. If Skyrim is going to treat me like dirt, well, I can be a predator, too.

 

Or I can be an Imperial or Stormcloak sympathizer. In one play-through I played as a Khajiit born and raised in Skyrim. The cold didn't even bother me. I didn't like either the Empire or the Stormcloaks, but I could see points in favor of both of them. Of course I never joined either side. Their conflict wasn't my conflict and I'd happily slaughter either Stormcloaks or Imperial soldiers if they interfered with my own agenda, which was just to live and let live. I don't base my player's ideology necessarily upon his race. I've played a Nord who was a staunch Imperial sympathizer. I've played an Imperial who thought the Emperor was a weak puppet of the Aldmeri Dominion and I smiled as I ran him through with my dagger.

 

You're right, though. The developers stacked the deck against the Empire in the opening sequences of the game, and that can't have been by accident. It seems to have been carefully planned out that the player would mistrust the Empire and side with the Stormcloaks, although I certainly can't figure out why that would be so. I can think of a dozen or more alternate ways to start this game that would leave the decision equally balanced between the two sides and give the player no reason to side with or against either faction.

 

Sadly, once you've experienced the xenophobia and barely-suppressed mistrust and even outright hatred that the Nords, as a whole, feel for everyone else, and know that Ulfric supports this 100%, it puts the entire Stormcloak rebellion in a different light. Do the Civil War quest for the Imperial side and you'll hear some very interesting remarks by Tullius that shows he's not happy with the White Gold Concordat and that he thinks the real enemy is the Dominion, and not the Stormcloaks. The more I got into the Stormcloak side of this civil war the less respect I had for them, and especially for Ulfric. He might have a golden tongue, but gold doesn't impress me.

[CuliacanMexico]

Sadly, once you've experienced the xenophobia and barely-suppressed mistrust and even outright hatred that the Nords, as a whole, feel for everyone else, and know that Ulfric supports this 100%, it puts the entire Stormcloak rebellion in a different light. Do the Civil War quest for the Imperial side and you'll hear some very interesting remarks by Tullius that shows he's not happy with the White Gold Concordat and that he thinks the real enemy is the Dominion, and not the Stormcloaks. The more I got into the Stormcloak side of this civil war the less respect I had for them, and especially for Ulfric. He might have a golden tongue, but gold doesn't impress me.

My Breton characters support neither the Storm Cloaks or the Empire because of The Markarth Incident. More of a question of what would be best... an Empire with Skyrim included or an Empire divided with Skyrim positioned between High Rock and the Empire? A weaker Empire would be easier to deal with.

 

Reachmen might be barbaric cousins, but they are cousin never the less. The Markarth Incident would not have set well with many Bretons.

 

 

"...the Imperial Empire, made a promise to Ulfric Stormcloak and a group of Nord militia in 4E 176 to allow free worship of Talos in exchange for putting down the rebellion and retaking the Reach..."

 

The Bear of Markarth

 

"...Every official who worked for the Forsworn was put to the sword, even after they had surrendered. Native women were tortured to give up names of Forsworn fighters who had fled the city or were in the hills of the Reach. Anyone who lived in the city, Forsworn and Nord alike, were executed if they had not fought with Ulfric and his men when they breached the gates. "You are with us, or you are against Skyrim" was the message on Ulfric's lips as he ordered the deaths of shopkeepers, farmers, the elderly, and any child old enough to lift a sword that had failed in the call to fight with him..."

[RighthandofSithis]

The Bear of Markarth

 

"...Every official who worked for the Forsworn was put to the sword, even after they had surrendered. Native women were tortured to give up names of Forsworn fighters who had fled the city or were in the hills of the Reach. Anyone who lived in the city, Forsworn and Nord alike, were executed if they had not fought with Ulfric and his men when they breached the gates. "You are with us, or you are against Skyrim" was the message on Ulfric's lips as he ordered the deaths of shopkeepers, farmers, the elderly, and any child old enough to lift a sword that had failed in the call to fight with him..."

 

The Bear of Markarth is completely biased. Might I even say its propaganda.

 

But even if it was true, that is war. Even the Imperials act as such. Remember Galmar's remark during the peace talks? He contradicted the Bear of Markarth, and stated the Empire had committed another massacre somewhere else.

 

Of course, Galmar is biased as well. However, considering the nature of war, it is almost cirtain such an Imperial massacre did take place, it is only being suppressed.

[Moraevik]

Culican, it's been pointed out many times in many places that you can't point to an in-game book in an ES game and claim that it represents any sort of "fact" regarding the ES "gameverse". Books were written by people. People have personal agendas. I know there are probably a few users here on Nexus who believe that every book is part of ES "Lore", but that's simply not the case, and in fact, some sources of this nature actually offer conflicting information, just as you would expect from real books in the real world.

 

You have to take into consideration who wrote the book, when, and under what conditions, just like a real historian would when dealing with books that were written during previous time-periods. Even then you can't be sure. I'm certain that Bethesda developers intentionally placed red herrings throughout the game in the form of in-game books, comments NPCs make, and possibly other ways, just to keep some details about "lore" up in the air. I think it contributes greatly to the immersiveness (is that a word?) of a game when you can't be certain of the validity of everything you read, because that's the way the real world is, too.

 

It pays to be circumspect when considering the veracity of any potential source of "lore", whether found in-game or out of the game.

[CuliacanMexico]

The Bear of Markarth is completely biased. Might I even say its propaganda.

 

But even if it was true, that is war. Even the Imperials act as such. Remember Galmar's remark during the peace talks? He contradicted the Bear of Markarth, and stated the Empire had committed another massacre somewhere else.

 

Of course, Galmar is biased as well. However, considering the nature of war, it is almost cirtain such an Imperial massacre did take place, it is only being suppressed.

I don't doubt it is biased, but by all accounts something took place. But in game, what would my character believe or come to believe?

 

 

 

"Let us begin with the Forsworn, the so-called "madmen" of the Reach. The Imperial Legion classifies them as little more than brigands, noting their constant raids and ambushes within the Hold. But none of their military reports asks the question of "why?" If they were merely a group of bandits, surely they would be focused on acquiring gold and minimizing deaths among their own. But the opposite is true in Forsworn attacks. Large sums of coin are often left behind, and their fighters easily throw away their lives rather than risk capture by Imperial soldiers."

 

The "Madmen" of the Reach:

A Cultural Treatise on the Forsworn

by Arrianus Arius, Imperial Scholar

[CuliacanMexico]

Culican, it's been pointed out many times in many places that you can't point to an in-game book in an ES game and claim that it represents any sort of "fact" regarding the ES "gameverse". Books were written by people. People have personal agendas. I know there are probably a few users here on Nexus who believe that every book is part of ES "Lore", but that's simply not the case, and in fact, some sources of this nature actually offer conflicting information, just as you would expect from real books in the real world.

 

You have to take into consideration who wrote the book, when, and under what conditions, just like a real historian would when dealing with books that were written during previous time-periods. Even then you can't be sure. I'm certain that Bethesda developers intentionally placed red herrings throughout the game in the form of in-game books, comments NPCs make, and possibly other ways, just to keep some details about "lore" up in the air. I think it contributes greatly to the immersiveness (is that a word?) of a game when you can't be certain of the validity of everything you read, because that's the way the real world is, too.

 

It pays to be circumspect when considering the veracity of any potential source of "lore", whether found in-game or out of the game.

My character is not a historian... just an inexperienced Breton who grew-up on rumor/history in game. I try to make that character react that way. Away in my opinion that seems... 'correct'. Other could/would make other choices.

 

Maybe the Forsworn Rebellion didn't happen, but in game lore... what my character grew-up with... it did. All in game lore states is was Ulfric if not by Imperial direction at least Imperial acceptance who crushed the Reachmen. What happened afterwards/is happening seems 'bad'. Did a massacre occur? The in game information and the attitude of the present Jarl would seem to indicate that it did. So my character reacts to that, especially since all lore related to this region indicates that the local population was conquered in the past... and been restless ever since.

 

In game... in lore... what would lead my character to believe Ulfric, the Nords or the Empire weren't capable of such things?

[Moraevik]

Well, considering that the remarks related to the Forsworn m.o. cannot be substantiated within the game, who, indeed are we to believe -- an Imperial scholar's book or our own experiences with the Forsworn? Given, the game, itself, plays with the "lore" a lot. Nothing is sacred, it would seem, and the developers reserve the right to alter things at their whim. It is, after all, Bethesda's baby and not ours.

 

My point, though, is that if it doesn't happen within the game, itself, then it doesn't happen -- at least relating to the time-frame of the game as you are playing it. No amount of NPC-written books will convince me of anything that my own experiences contradict, or at least fail to verify, as I play the game. I've never witnessed a fight between the Forsworn and Imperial soldiers in which "Large sums of coin are often left behind", for instance. In fact, I have seldom ever noticed "large sums of coin" with reference to the Forsworn. Where it concerns their actions, within the game, as opposed to in-game literature about them, the Forsworn act exactly like "bandits". They do the same things in and out of combat and their reactions to the player are precisely the same. There is, therefore, no actual in-game evidence to support Arrianus Arius' claims that the Forsworn are anything but common criminals.

 

I'm a role-player. I can, and would if the game permitted me, play a character who is a supporter of the Forsworn. As events unfold in the game you'll slowly learn that the Forsworn are the original human inhabitants of Skyrim, and that they are the disenfranchised victims of a military seizing of their own land. I find it a bit ironic that the Nords are doing to the Forsworn almost the same thing the Thalmor are doing to the Nords, something nobody within the game ever seems to recognize.

 

Even so, the takeover was "then". This is "now", and however victimized the Forsworn may have been during Ulfric's purge of the Reach, and the Nord invasion of Skyrim before that, actions speak louder than words to me. It's not a matter of what the Forsworn were back then, but of what they've become, now. Kidnapping little girls? For what end? Perhaps we shouldn't pursue that line of thought, but it happens within the game. Torturing and butchering prisoners? Yes it happens. Even their leaders, the Briarhearts, are a form of undead. Their leaders' leaders are the Hagravens? Have you ever met a friendly Hagraven? There's only one, and she still refers to you as though you were a morsel to be consumed. The other one is only friendly for a few moments until you tell her you want a certain ring back.

 

As a player, sitting at my keyboard and divorced of the "reality" of Skyrim as imposed by the game when you're playing it, I find little to like about the Forsworn. I find little to like about the Stormcloaks. I find little to like about the Empire. I find nothing at all to like about the Aldmeri Dominion. Bethesda has painted a bleak, unappetizing picture of Skyrim, and probably for good reason. The time-frame of the game is the turning of an Age. It might not be punctuated by an apocalyptic event like the Oblivion Crisis in the game of Oblivion, but I think it probably goes without saying that Tamriel is getting set for some sweeping changes, what with the Empire, itself, in near total disarray and probably very close to internal strife erupting into a civil war within Cyrodiil, itself. Interesting times lie ahead and I'm anxious to see where Bethesda goes with it.

[CuliacanMexico]

....As events unfold in the game you'll slowly learn that the Forsworn are the original human inhabitants of Skyrim, and that they are the disenfranchised victims of a military seizing of their own land. I find it a bit ironic that the Nords are doing to the Forsworn almost the same thing the Thalmor are doing to the Nords, something nobody within the game ever seems to recognize...

A nice twist I thought.

 

...I find little to like about the Forsworn. I find little to like about the Stormcloaks. I find little to like about the Empire. I find nothing at all to like about the Aldmeri Dominion. Bethesda has painted a bleak, unappetizing picture of Skyrim, and probably for good reason. The time-frame of the game is the turning of an Age. It might not be punctuated by an apocalyptic event like the Oblivion Crisis in the game of Oblivion, but I think it probably goes without saying that Tamriel is getting set for some sweeping changes, what with the Empire, itself, in near total disarray and probably very close to internal strife erupting into a civil war within Cyrodiil, itself. Interesting times lie ahead and I'm anxious to see where Bethesda goes with it.

I don't care for the different factions much, but some individuals...

 

Balgruuf the Greater: Jarl of Whiterun. My character was good with this NPC.

 

I find nothing at all to like about the Aldmeri Dominion.

I liked killing them. Does that count ;)

[sajuukkhar9000]

A nice twist I thought.

The real twist actually comes from the fact that it ISN'T their land.

 

The goddess Kyne created mankind at the throat of the world at time's dawn, Skyrim belongs to all of man, as all of man were created there.

 

Well except the Redguards........

Edited September 12, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000