ginnyfizz Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I can certainly go along with that very lucid and succinct explanation, Inquart. It makes perfect sense, especially as you do hear Ulfric and Galmar discussing Balgruuf's position. I have never been able to bring myself to play on the Stormcloak side because I have to feel a great deal of respect to Balgruuf for letting my toon trap a dragon in his palace. He certainly doesn't lack for guts and takes a risk for the good of the whole of Skyrim. Personally I would campaign for Balgruuf as High King at the next moot... Mmmm...perhaps that's another reason the Stormcloaks attack. Precisely because Balgruuf has more get up and go than the other Jarls and is a credible threat to Ulfric's ambition. Side note - analogies of rebellions in the south west of England...actually it was a hotbed of them in the 16th and 17th centuries, but since they tended to be tied to a subject we can't discuss, I'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I can certainly go along with that very lucid and succinct explanation, Inquart. It makes perfect sense, especially as you do hear Ulfric and Galmar discussing Balgruuf's position. I have never been able to bring myself to play on the Stormcloak side because I have to feel a great deal of respect to Balgruuf for letting my toon trap a dragon in his palace. He certainly doesn't lack for guts and takes a risk for the good of the whole of Skyrim. Personally I would campaign for Balgruuf as High King at the next moot... Mmmm...perhaps that's another reason the Stormcloaks attack. Precisely because Balgruuf has more get up and go than the other Jarls and is a credible threat to Ulfric's ambition. I think it's the first time anyone even spotted what I wrote, not to mention actually agreeing with it, so thanks. :) Anyway, you've made some good points there about Jarl Balgruuf and frankly, I'm a little bit ashamed I haven't thought about it before myself and that I've never looked at him in that way, even with all my respect for the man. With his people's best interests always at heart, his courage, patience, caution and assertiveness (often misunderstood by his enemies as indecisiveness or cowardice), motivation, honesty and wisdom, I'm sure he'd make a truly fine High King had he ever wanted to claim the throne; his relationship with Dragonborn - whom Balgruuf seems to both recognize and respect - would certainly help his cause. And while Ulfric may be loved by some, it's mostly his narrow-minded Stormcloaks that blindly follow him, pompously calling him "true High King of Skyrim"; Balgruuf, on the other hand, I'm sure would be loved by most people of Skyrim, both Nords and individuals of the other races alike. The only problem with hypothetical High King Balgruuf the Greater is Elisif - I doubt she'd willingly gave him her place on the throne (she is, after all, Torygg's widow), unless the moot would unanimously support him over her. Too bad Balgruuf will probably never be the king, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sajuukkhar9000 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) I don't think Bethesda ever tried to paint balgruuf as a really good candidate or High King because he was supposed to get killed by his children, and you, at one point of the games development. Bi*** supposed to be dead. Edited October 28, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Right, I've completely forgotten about his corrupted children. I believe he was supposed to die at their hands during that quest with Mephala and Ebony Blade, right? Still, I think he'd be a good ruler for Skyrim (at least better than late High King Torygg and probably better than that egomaniac Ulfric would ever be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sajuukkhar9000 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Right, I've completely forgotten about his corrupted children. I believe he was supposed to die at their hands during that quest with Mephala and Ebony Blade, right? Still, I think he'd be a good ruler for Skyrim (at least better than late High King Torygg and probably better than that egomaniac Ulfric would ever be).Yeah, it was supposed to happen in the second part of the Ebony Blade quest. As for him being a good ruler, the only problem I have with him is that he seems FAR to non-confrontational, which, while useful in some situations, is normally a bad thing in the long run. staying out of things until the very last minute when you are forced into them is a very dicey move, which normally doesn't work out in your favor, because while you are sitting on our ass, your enemy has built up the forces they believe is needed to take you out. Edited October 28, 2012 by sajuukkhar9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquart Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 As for him being a good ruler, the only problem I have with him is that he seems FAR to non-confrontational, which, while useful in some situations, is normally a bad thing in the long run. staying out of things until the very last minute when you are forced into them is a very dicey move, which normally doesn't work out in your favor, because while you are sitting on our ass, your enemy has built up the forces they believe is needed to take you out. Good point - he tried to keep Whiterun off the war for as long as possible and finally picked a side when cornered by both Ulfric and Tullius - but I hope as a hypothetical only High King, maybe with Hrongar as his advisor, he'd be a little more down-to-earth, taking up problems at hand more aggressively, while still retaining his overall caution and forethought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts