Anyone else disappointed with the Stormcloak questline?

[fifteenspades]

10. Made a Speech about not accepting leadership unless proven to be the choice of the moot.

If only there was an Asterisk there pointing out that little side convo with galmar about nice addition there. And the fact

early in the game, if you were a Jarl and you didn'd support Ulfric he considered you an enemy as Legate rike pointed out.

 

So its more like he put a gun to their head and they gave( will give ) him the vote.

[TheVampireDante]

As I said, that list was to be taken from the Stormcloak viewpoint - so that kind of thing wouldn't be taken into account or mentioned at all.

 

If taken from the Imperial viewpoint, that entire list becomes something very bad indeed. It's all about the wording.

[Bozzz123]

\Well considering the dragonborn did all the work anyway, I think both sides don't give you enough credit. I wish you could kill Ulfric and take his spot as leader of the stormcloak rebellion or kill General Tulius and take his place as leader of the empire in skyirm.

[TheVampireDante]

Better story progression there would be that the opposition killed the one leading your faction, and in the aftermath you picked up the role as leader in order to continue the fight.

 

Killing your own faction leader would likely end up with your own execution by the forces they commanded, as a spy or a traitor. Although with the Legion I suppose you could argue for the direct removal of Tullius as the head of the Legion forces due to his ineptitude in dealing with the rebellion, taking his place and leaving him demoted to legate/commander.

 

Not really an option with the stormcloaks, as I suspect that Galmar would sooner put an axe through your head for even suggesting it, rather than listen to the whole thing.

[Bozzz123]

Ya youre probably right but it would be pretty cool to give the orders instead of take them so then the war is more like a game of Risk. That would be really fun.

[rattlemebones]

Hate to foist my morals upon other people, but war is neither fun nor a game. War should only be waged if all other options are exhausted and neither side can come to an agreement. Thanks to diplomacy, we haven't had a world war since World War II. To sum it up, war is fear cloaked in courage.

[TheObstinateNoviceSmith]

Yeah, I don’t think it makes sense to be disappointed with Ulfric outside the game. Ulfric was done perfectly in my opinion. The characters, their personalities, and their motivations were done excellently. I think the fact that there’s so much discussion proves that, but sometimes their actions (or lack thereof) were something to be disappointed about.

 

I guess, my true disappointment sometimes also stems from a lack of believability. The characters were all believable and no one appears to be arguing that Ulfric didn’t make sense, they just don’t like him.

 

First off, there was no right or wrong side in this war. Sorry to all of you that felt like you joined the right side or the wrong side, but you’re all wrong and all right at the same time, so deal with that :p

 

But I don’t see the whole, thinking your leader to be one way to find out he’s or she is another as being the same as the killing the vigilant thing. I was alright to discover that Ulfric wasn’t a completely squeaky clean guy. It was a relief and it made him more real to me. The being forced to kill a vigilant, no. In fact I restarted the game because in that guys’ story, he would have found a way to defy the will of a dadric prince. I guess I get tired of evil getting their way and doing so virtually unchallenged. I know it happens in real life, too much in fact, but when I make a hero, I want him to be the kind of hero that can’t be forced into doing evil.

 

So you’re right Anska, being tricked and or forced into doing something terrible doesn’t make a person evil or not a good character, but some of us want (or have notions of) the kind of heroic characters that can overcome and or defy any evil and it isn’t all that fun having that forced away from you without any ability of recourse in my opinion.

 

In most situations where the hero is tricked or forced to do wrong in a game setting, they have a way of being able to make things right (sometimes that is the quest) but with the vigilant situation and others like it, there is no such recourse. Evil just either wins entirely, gets part of what they wanted, or you just have to uncharacteristically go through great lengths to avoid them.

 

 

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.

 

I have to say, you’re a pretty creative person Anska. I never thought about that, but yes, that would fall into the category of missed opportunities for development in my opinion. To be fair, it’s like the more they deliver, the more we want. It’s because they put so much in this game, that it leaves us wanting more. Think about all those games that don’t give you nearly as much freedom that we still enjoy and that still do well.

 

Quick question for ya, Is it possible that the Thalmor just said that to save face from embarrassment? And whether he escaped or not, the legion would be under the impression that he did escape so they shouldn’t have been willing to take any chances. Tullius doesn’t seem like a guy that would take chances, nor would Rikke.

 

I disagree with you rattle, though your argument has been made before by a few others. Ulfric’s death would likely put an end to the movement/group. Many a group has fallen due to the leader being assassinated or killed.

[fifteenspades]

Hate to foist my morals upon other people, but war is neither fun nor a game. War should only be waged if all other options are exhausted and neither side can come to an agreement. Thanks to diplomacy, we haven't had a world war since World War II. To sum it up, war is fear cloaked in courage.

 

Thats only true for you. Others probably enjoy it ;o

Just imagine the Thalmor sitting in their... elf chairs laughing as ulfric does exactly what they want while not even knowing hes a puppet.

 

also it's "diplomacy" not diplomacy.

[rattlemebones]

Yes, groups do collapse because the leaders are killed. That happens when the thing holding the group together is the leader and the leader only; However, if said leader is intelligent enough to pick a good second-in-command who is charismatic as the leader then the group will survive. Ulfric made a good choice when he picked Galmar Stone-Fist as his dragon. If Ulfric was killed, Galmar would win because of Ulfric's death.

[Bozzz123]

Hate to foist my morals upon other people, but war is neither fun nor a game. War should only be waged if all other options are exhausted and neither side can come to an agreement. Thanks to diplomacy, we haven't had a world war since World War II. To sum it up, war is fear cloaked in courage.

War is not fear cloaked in courage. The Romans didn't conquer almost all of the civilized world because they were afraid of the opposing sides. If they were afraid they wouldn't bother attacking. They were ruthless, and thats why they won.