spyroware Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 There is a bunch of natives living in Markath that are part of normal society and work honest jobs. Granted they live in piss poor conditions but that can be changed by a ballsy Jarl. These are the natives I support. The Forsworn dont represent what is just and fair, legitimate or whatever. They are just a faction that wants to have its faction-specific targets fulfilled. And they are guided by the hagravens (!) As for the Silver-Blood vs Forsworn, theres no moral distance between the Silver-Bloods and the Forsworn. They're both murderers and terrorists. Just because some prisoners in their grief dont know better and support the Forsworn doesnt make them good. The Dragonborn needs to escape Cidhna Mine and is offered two paths. If he follows the Silver-Blood path he gets to deal a major blow to the Forsworn movement making the life of the average inhabitant of the Reach who just wants to get by much better. The rift between the Silver-Bloods and the Forsworn will weaken the former as they will be deprived of a source of dispensable terrorists for their plots. If however the Dragonbron follows the Forsworn and helps the Madanach escape he may be tipping the scales for a complete destabilisation of the Reach requiring real intervention that with the Aldmeri Diminion ready to strike again is definitely something Skyrim/the Empire cannot afford. For my pragmatist Nord path #1 is the no-brainer. A Mer who just wants to watch the world burn might want path #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I agree in premise, Spyroware, but i still feel the situation is far more complicated than that. For one, you have to consider that the original uprising in the Reach, dubed the Markarth Incedent, was largely non-violent, until Ulfric got involved. The Empire was also willing to at least hear their request for sovreignty (similar to what they did with Orsinium) so it's unlikely the Empire, at least, would get involved in another uprising, at least not if the Reachmen started cutting off trade and such. Second, you can find missives scattered through Foresworn camps which indicate that they are not united, either in leadership or even idiolgy. Some prefer diplomacy, others violence, others seclusion. Madanach at least offers a unified agenda and approach, and he seems to largely want to avoid killing civilians. Third, you the Silver-bloods are partcially, if not largely to blame for the perception of the Foresworn in the Reach. By using the Foresworn as their personal hit-men, they've ensured that the Foresworn are hated, and attacked on sight. That in its self would contribute to the Foresworn becomming increasingly violent towards other inhabitants of the Reach. Not to mention the fact that the Silver-bloods support, at least in part, the Stormcloaks rather than the Empire. Their wealth, supporting the Stormcloaks, could to a lot more to destabilize the ballance of power than having the Foresworn in charge. Finally, on the note of Hagravens. The fact is, we still don't know that much about Hagravens. They certianly SEEM evil (and i'm inclined to think they are) but then again so did Orcs at one point. So do Spriggans now. In both latter cases, we know that it's not true. We also know, that, in times of despiration, otherwise 'Good guys' associate with evil entities. The Imperials summoning Mehrunes Dagon at the gates of Mournhold during the end of the 2nd Era, for instance. Desperate people do desperate things, so associating with Hagravens cannot, in and of its self, be an absolute mark of evil and corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StayFrosty05 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 @Lachdonin...thank you....I had been wanting to respond in similar vein....just got such a headache right now, you have said everything I wanted to say...thank you and kudo's to you sir.... :happy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnkhAscendant Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Well, my character is a Reachman who was displaced as a child with his parents after Ulfric started massacring them... I know where my loyalties lie. ;) I would love to see, as mentioned, a mod or official DLC that lets you decide the matter, especially if the Reachmen could ultimately be recognized like Orsinium as a new province. It seems so much more important to me than the official Civil War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobwebmaster Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Well I guess my vote goes towards peace. There is little to choose between the forsworn and the Silverblood regimes. The forsworn big gripe is with the Nords who forced them to live in caves and in hiding after conquering the area. I's a bit like England and the Saxons. All of them were dispossessed by the Normans. The only thing that should be possible is to open a real major quest in the Reach area (after the dragon thing is sorted) which offers the possibility for the Dragonborn to broker a peace with fairer deal for the Forsworn for the future. it doesn't really matter who wins the civil war as the Forsworn hate Nords period, but that should not be a barrier to peace. If the Forsworn are adamant on ejecting everyone and not doing any sort of deal which ends up with them being a loyal part of a Skyrim set up (they could even have their own Jarl maybe at some point) then there is no choice but to get rid of them one way or another. Thoise that want to live in peace would be welcomed, but the area must be stabilised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 . it doesn't really matter who wins the civil war as the Forsworn hate Nords period, but that should not be a barrier to peace. While i agree for the most part (and would in fact love to see more quests regarding the Foresworn Rebellion) i dissagree with this premise. The Foresworn hate the Nords, it's true, but there is something verry different about the conduct of the Empire and the Stormcloaks in regards to them. The Empire is far more tollerant to the idea of Reachman independance, going so far as to be willing to hear their suggestion of soverignty during the uprising. They also are opposed to the treatment of the Reachmen in Markarth, as evidenced by a particular conversation with the Smelter Foreman. With that to consider, its clear that the Jarl have a lot of independance in their own domans, because te Empire is, ethically at least, more on the side of the Foresworn. Economics of course are want to confuse the issue. As for the Stormcloaks, not only are they the ones who put down the Reachmen during the Markarth Incedent (rather brutally, in fact) there is also the hipocritical nature of their own rebellion to consider. The Reachmen wanted independance and the right to live by their own traditions, and were, in effect, slaughtered for it, then Ulfric and his followers, fresh from what can only be considered a war crime, demand the same thing for themselves of the Empire. If you were a Reachman, would you be willing to even talk to Ulfric after that? The act its self indicates that, to Ulfric, the Stormcloaks and maybe even the Nords in general, the Reachmen are inherently inferior and not deserving of the same rights they demand themselves. That makes for a radically different negotiating platform between the Empire and the Stormcloaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RighthandofSithis Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Second, you can find missives scattered through Foresworn camps which indicate that they are not united, either in leadership or even idiolgy. Some prefer diplomacy, others violence, others seclusion. Madanach at least offers a unified agenda and approach, and he seems to largely want to avoid killing civilians. Have small groups of soldiers acting virtually independently is a common trait of guerrilla warfare. Fore example, the Viet Cong worked in groups of about 3. Each group worked independently of the others. Were they effective? Hell yes. They exhausted the American and French armies (and allies) and forced them out. It took several decades, but guerrilla soldiers are prepared for that. And as each group acted independently, they knew nothing about other groups, meaning if one member was captured, he couldn't reveal any useful information. Simply because the Forsworn are separated into small groups, doesn't mean they are not unified, or weak. They are a legitimate threat. They are a guerrilla force that knows the terrain well. As such, they are in the position to wait out a prolonged war, like as Vo Nguyen Giap said, the stages are "defensive, equilibrium, offensive". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachdonin Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Snip-asaurus Clearly you haven't read said notes. They indicate that Group A thinks Group B, C and D are cowards. Group B thinks A and D are savages. Group D thinks A and C working with Hags is heresy. Group Q has no clue why anyone bothers, etc. The existance of small groups doesn't show a fractured or weak organization, i agree. The Viet Cong (and the Taliban for that matter) is a perfect example of this fact. However, the content of the aforementioned missives is what indicates that they are not in any way a united force, which is in turn supported by Madanach's own claims that it will take time to get everyone under one banner again. Edited September 7, 2012 by Lachdonin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StayFrosty05 Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Clearly you haven't read said notes. They indicate that Group A thinks Group B, C and D are cowards. Group B thinks A and D are savages. Group D thinks A and C working with Hags is heresy. Group Q has no clue why anyone bothers, etc. The existance of small groups doesn't show a fractured or weak organization, i agree. The Viet Cong (and the Taliban for that matter) is a perfect example of this fact. However, the content of the aforementioned missives is what indicates that they are not in any way a united force, which is in turn supported by Madanach's own claims that it will take time to get everyone under one banner again. I wonder if that explains the sometimes varied reactions from the Forsworn....there are those groups that attack as soon as glimpse you....there are those who warn you to back off....and there are those who you can mildly interact with, non violent. I had one group the other day who gave the warning to 'back off'....my Dovahkin complied and went on his merry way....a few in game hours later he had to come back that way...this time same group of Forsworn are in a tangle with some Bandits....so my Dovahkin charges in and helps the Forsworn out....no back off warnings from them now, just the eternal "can I help you?". I do hope Bethesda eventually tackles the Forsworn issue with a DLC...in which you can side either with or against them and if you side with the Forsworn eventually be able sue for peace between them and the state...or if you side against them to eventually be able to remove their threat altogether, that being something like either genocide or subjugation. Edited September 7, 2012 by StayFrosty05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RighthandofSithis Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Snip-asaurus Clearly you haven't read said notes. They indicate that Group A thinks Group B, C and D are cowards. Group B thinks A and D are savages. Group D thinks A and C working with Hags is heresy. Group Q has no clue why anyone bothers, etc. The existance of small groups doesn't show a fractured or weak organization, i agree. The Viet Cong (and the Taliban for that matter) is a perfect example of this fact. However, the content of the aforementioned missives is what indicates that they are not in any way a united force, which is in turn supported by Madanach's own claims that it will take time to get everyone under one banner again. May you please send me a link to said notes? I am interested in reading them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts