Forsworn/Silver-Bloods/Nords

[Lachdonin]

I don't know if you were joking or not, but I really hope you know that the Nazis also established more than a few ghettos for minorities

 

It was something of an attempt at anti-Stormcloak satire, as we know full well Markarth is not Stormcloak (though its barely Imperial because its Jarl does pretty much whatever the Silver-Bloods tell him to) and still crams minorities into ghettos. As for the Nazi's (we've broken unspoken internet rules by carring on a conversation after the word Nazi has been used, by the way, which is impressive) they commonly used the ghettos as a source of cheap, essentially slave labour, which doubles the comical inuendo of the initial comment. At least to my somewhat dry and caustic sensibilities.

 

Now, that said, Ulfric and the Stormcloaks are not part of the arguement here, to me at least, because this isn't so much about who would win in the Reach, but rather who SHOULD. Who has the greater ethical stance, who has legitimate claim to the lands of the Reach and who is the "lesser evil" as it were, between the Foresworn and the Silver-Bloods.

 

If we were expanding the arguement to who would win, then the greater political conflicts of Skyrim would come into play, but they have no real bearing on the validity of each sides arguements, or on the moral standing and responsiblity of the Silver-Bloods and Foresworn.

 

 

 

PS; If we're really looking for Nazi's, the Thalmor are a much better fit than Ulfric and his Arnie-clones.

[Inquart]

I suspected you were making some kind of irony there, but it's always better to ask and be sure.

 

As for the Reach - I'm not sure if there's anything like "lesser evil" there at the moment; both groups vying for control, i. e. the Silver-Bloods and the Forsworn, are a blight upon the land, though each in its own way. Now, I know that short-lived Forsworn kingdom in the Reach - established, if I remember it all correctly, during the Great War and overthrown by Ulfric and his militia in what later became known as Markarth Incident - was rather peaceful and perhaps even recognized by the Empire, but that was long ago and I don't know about you, but I'd be a little afraid to just give the power back to the Forsworn while so many of them have degraded from native freedom-fighters to lawless bandits and Daedra-worshipping savages with burning hatred for the Nords. On the other hand, the Silver-Bloods with their Mafia-like stench are far from being saints themselves and giving them any more power than they already have would also be something best avoided.

 

I remember that Margret's Journal from "The Forsworn Conspiracy" mentioned something about General Tullius wanting the Empire to own Cindha Mine. Assuming the Empire would win the Civil War, they could simply take over the mine, thus largely diminishing or even eliminating any Silver-Blood influence in Markarth. But what of the Forsworn? As I wrote before, even if the Empire would be willing to negotiate with them, how do you make peace with a faction so internally divided and yet so blindly aggressive?

 

As for the Thalmor being Nazi - I agree in all extend; I myself always preceive the Dominion as a Reich-like state, with the Thalmor being its Gestapo :)

[SFBryan18]

Many people who are considered hero's can be accused of war crimes...

 

Andrew Jackson had millions of Native Americans rounded up and moved which resulted in the deaths of thousands of sick and old people, but many would have considered him a hero for his service as a great General during the war of 1812, and I highly doubt anyone would call him a Nazi.

 

Sure, many politicians are corrupt, and share many common traits. The fact that Ulfric has a sketchy past is just good story writing and I'm positive the Empire has its own flaws too, but that doesn't make him or his soldiers anywhere near the Nazis and making such a comparison is just a petty desperate attempt to serve yourself.

 

As for the Forsworn, they don't even know me and they always attack me on sight, which leads me to believe they attack all people. Some could call them a rebellion, but attacking the innocent only proves that they are equal to bandit criminals and deserved to be brought to justice. If innocent people are killed in the crossfire during the pursuit of justice, that's called collateral damage which is the fault of the criminal.

 

To strengthen my view that they are criminals, I am reminded of the man you talk to inside the mine who's daughter had been killed by Ulfrics soldiers. After he tells his story, he tells you that all he cares about now is killing Nords. He is not concerned with justice or freedom, but only revenge against the entire race, guilty or innocent. That is not a freedom fighter, it's a criminal.

[RighthandofSithis]

To strengthen my view that they are criminals, I am reminded of the man you talk to inside the mine who's daughter had been killed by Ulfrics soldiers. After he tells his story, he tells you that all he cares about now is killing Nords. He is not concerned with justice or freedom, but only revenge against the entire race, guilty or innocent. That is not a freedom fighter, it's a criminal.

 

Hmmm. Now I've gotten to thinking about it, perhaps that not actually criminal...

 

In Markarth, the Reachmen and the Nords are separated not just by ethnicity, but also largly by class. The Nords make up the vast majority of the ruling and oppressive class, and the Reachmen make up near all of the lower and oppressed classes.

 

In that sense, the suppression of the Nords may not be as such an act of racial discrimination, but more a revolutionary act of liberation of the oppressed class. This requires the suppression of the ruling class (almost entirely Nords).

 

While yes, there are reachmen in the upper echelons of Marcarth's society, they would act more as a revolutionary vanguard, leading the revolution.

 

Interesting. Bethesda has really put an awful lot of thought into this game. That or I'm noticing things that wern't intened to be in it.

[StayFrosty05]

 

Now, that said, Ulfric and the Stormcloaks are not part of the arguement here, to me at least, because this isn't so much about who would win in the Reach, but rather who SHOULD. Who has the greater ethical stance, who has legitimate claim to the lands of the Reach and who is the "lesser evil" as it were, between the Foresworn and the Silver-Bloods.

 

If we were expanding the arguement to who would win, then the greater political conflicts of Skyrim would come into play, but they have no real bearing on the validity of each sides arguements, or on the moral standing and responsiblity of the Silver-Bloods and Foresworn.

 

 

 

PS; If we're really looking for Nazi's, the Thalmor are a much better fit than Ulfric and his Arnie-clones.

 

The who should...greater ethical stance, etc...Is a very hard question to answer....though I would more so say this in regards to the Forsworn and Nords, not the Silver-Bloods.....The Forsworn are a dispossessed and abused people in their own land and they have every damned right to fight back....but their 'Kill em' all!' approach is a big issue....that's where the Forsworn slam a few nails into their own coffin so to speak....The Forsworn certainly have my sympathies but their approach sucks and only serves to ultimately hinder their own cause not help it.....They do need to be united under a singular thinking General or King...one who can be reasoned with/bargained with and I believe Madannoch could fill that role.

 

Considering the Forsworn's extreme behavior as it stands...no one at this point holds the ethical high ground or is the lesser of the two evils.

[Cobwebmaster]

 

Now, that said, Ulfric and the Stormcloaks are not part of the arguement here, to me at least, because this isn't so much about who would win in the Reach, but rather who SHOULD. Who has the greater ethical stance, who has legitimate claim to the lands of the Reach and who is the "lesser evil" as it were, between the Foresworn and the Silver-Bloods.

 

If we were expanding the arguement to who would win, then the greater political conflicts of Skyrim would come into play, but they have no real bearing on the validity of each sides arguements, or on the moral standing and responsiblity of the Silver-Bloods and Foresworn.

 

 

 

PS; If we're really looking for Nazi's, the Thalmor are a much better fit than Ulfric and his Arnie-clones.

 

The who should...greater ethical stance, etc...Is a very hard question to answer....though I would more so say this in regards to the Forsworn and Nords, not the Silver-Bloods.....The Forsworn are a dispossessed and abused people in their own land and they have every damned right to fight back....but their 'Kill em' all!' approach is a big issue....that's where the Forsworn slam a few nails into their own coffin so to speak....The Forsworn certainly have my sympathies but their approach sucks and only serves to ultimately hinder their own cause not help it.....They do need to be united under a singular thinking General or King...one who can be reasoned with/bargained with and I believe Madannoch could fill that role.

 

Considering the Forsworn's extreme behavior as it stands...no one at this point holds the ethical high ground or is the lesser of the two evils.

 

Interesting debate here about legal rights. The point I would like to make as an observer is that applying modern day socialist value judgements to a dark age or Romanesque society is really like trying to put tits on a bull. It just don't fit! History records that whoever wins makes the rules and legal right does not exist unless those extolling it are in a position to enforce it or in the case of Markarth may be able to use it as a shield. In short Forsworn and Nordic rights are imposed by conquest. Silverblood rights have been imposed by extortion, murder and whatever local remedy is available. The Jarl of Markarth really has no control over what is going on in his hold and is virtually powerless. He may pass a law but he is not in a position to enforcwe it without the consent of those who hold all the best cards in this particular power game (Riften is in a similar state of evolution but doesn't have the local tribesmen in rebellion). The Empire is a preferred authoritarian figure (or the Altmeri it matters little) as in essence it grants those in control a greater degree of autonomy than Ulfric would otherwise allow. The Empire don't care who runs the place as long as trade flourishes and the taxes keep pouring in. The Altmeri (Ayleids) are pretty much the same as long as tribute is duly paid. Either way any solution to the Markarth problem is going to be a bloody one and I am forced to agree that choosing between the Forsworn or Nords requires the wisdom of Solomon. Who would run a better society? It's only us that really cares about such things. The only real argument about the Silverbloods is that they are keeping all the goodies for themselves and not spreading the loot around enough. Balgruuf of Whiterun has more foresight in allowing everyone to make a few coins and better themselves so there the peasants are not revolting.

 

 

I guess the answer to this is just let the protagonists sort it out themselves as no -one holds the moral high ground here. The Altmeri are quite happy to let the situation resolve itself as would be the Empire (they've done nothing about this in the past). Divide and rule is a simple tactic but it works on a temporary basis

 

As regards the Altmeri's status as Nazis? Well they're conquerors again as were their ancestors and the only rule I can see they are interested in enforcing is making sure that no one worships the guy who kicked their asses out of Skyrim centuries ago. Hitler himself wasn't an obvious persecutor of those with opposing religious beliefs just an exterminator of convenient whipping targets (The Jews, the Poles, and anyone else who believed in such daft ideas as democracy or opposed his views). Hitler himself had a Christian upbringing as his parents were both Roman Catholics but there is no record of his confirmation. It is on record however that he was a crap artist

[Lachdonin]

Andrew Jackson had millions of Native Americans rounded up and moved which resulted in the deaths of thousands of sick and old people, but many would have considered him a hero for his service as a great General during the war of 1812, and I highly doubt anyone would call him a Nazi.

 

I'm going to pick on this for a moment, particularly the bolded part, because i think it brings up an important point. As someone on the opposite side of 1812, Jackson is seen as an instigator, and unnessessary aggressor and a villan of the conflict, and it's not a name you general mention with swelling pride up here (unless you're talking about setting fire to the White House). In fact, the few people i personally know who would recognise the name tend to lump him in with names like Riel, Stalin and Hitler.

 

Which is important, i think, because it shows there are always 2 sides to a conflict. Despite one questline, we are given a very Nord-heavy experience in Skyrim, in terms of the conflict in the Reach, at least.

 

Again though, i don't feel the 'kill anything that moves' approach to the Foresworn, which is represented in game, can be taking literally, because, well, the game has limitations. Spriggans, for instance, are known to be intelegent, and while they react uniformly aggressivly in Skyrim, in the past you've been able to talk them down. Giants, similarly, we are informed have had numerous diplomatic dealings with humans over the centuries, but their portrayl would have you beleive their all mute 'primitives'. The fact that a gameplay mechanic features in the game, while source material tells us otherwise (the 'Madmen of the Reach' and 'The Markarth Incedent" being the primary literary resources) clearly indicates the divide between the game its self and the world its set in.

[SFBryan18]

I'm not really sure how someone can be considered an "aggressor" when they are defending their country, but I'm not going to argue the facts about an ancient war or defend the mans morality. All I was saying is that he served as a General in the United States Military and helped defeat the British, and I think many people would call that heroic. I obviously was aiming to point out a shady person to make a point, but he did become president, so he must have done something right. The comparison was to make an overall point, which you rudely just pulled out one sentence. I notice that's kind of a trend around here, to just grab what you want and miss the rest.

[Lachdonin]

I'm not really sure how someone can be considered an "aggressor" when they are defending their country, but I'm not going to argue the facts about an ancient war or defend the mans morality. All I was saying is that he served as a General in the United States Military and helped defeat the British, and I think many people would call that heroic. I obviously was aiming to point out a shady person to make a point, but he did become president, so he must have done something right. The comparison was to make an overall point, which you rudely just pulled out one sentence. I notice that's kind of a trend around here, to just grab what you want and miss the rest.

 

A; The USA invaded British North America (though there was, admitedly, provocation involved) B; The British most certianly did not 'lose'. C; Richard Nixon and George W. Bush also became president, so ones heroic acomplishments, morality, or even mental stability have nothing to do with getting the post.

 

D; I pulled out a point in order to make another, which was relavent to the conversation, none of which actually invalidated anything you said, and only used the same example. Congrats on falling into your own complaint there.

 

But, to get back to the point, this isn't really about Ulfric, his cause, be it valid or bogus, or the Stormcloaks in general. It is about the Foresworn and the Silverblood.

 

I do find it interesting, however, that you earlier gave carte blance support to the Silverbloods simply because they support Ulfric, despite the fact that they are guilty of the same things (in fact, they may be guilty of the whole damned situation) which you condem the Foresworn for. Thronar (i think that's the buggers name) is known to have used the enslaved Madanach to send Foresworn to kill people who inconvienienced him, and to sow fear throughout the reach for the purposes of increasing his power and wealth. Karthwasten is prooft of his willingness to use the Foresworn to force people out of their homes and property, and there is ample reason to suspect the entire situation in the Reach is either his, personal doing, or that of his family. Their causal responsibility makes them just as culpable for you being attacked as the Foresworn who actually attack you.

 

Again, though, i want to draw attention to the Spriggan. We know, as FACT, that their behaviour in game does not represent their behaviour in-universe. Because of this, there is no reason to assume that the fact the Foresworn attack you on sight means that they attack everyone. Assuming so is a clear dissconnect between gameplay-/-background.