Alignment choices and why

[Kraeten]

What? You mean Hadvar? He's a soldier, your execution was ordered, and the general didn't overturn that order. What kind of soldier would violate his oath and potentially compromise the capture of the leader of enemy forces just to defend a nobody? Loyalty is not a weakness.

 

When loyalty comes before a sense of honor and justice, it certainly is a weakness. I also highly doubt it would've jeopardized the entire execution had he gone over the captain's head to ask the General. He was only a half a dozen feet away after all.

 

On the other hand, Ulfric - the one guy in the entire place with the power of the Voice and any chance against a dragon - is out the door as soon as his gag is off. Sure, Helgen was clearly loyal to the Empire and Ulfric had no obligation to help defend them, but that just made his claims of fighting for Nords all that less authentic.

 

Helgen was crawling with Imperial soldiers, the same soldiers trying to take his head off. Ulfric would have to be a complete moron to stay and fight under those circumstances.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Kraeten

[AnimeOtaku102]

When loyalty comes before a sense of honor and justice, it certainly is a weakness. I also highly doubt it would've jeopardized the entire execution had he gone over the captain's head to ask the General. He was only a half a dozen feet away after all.

Honor and justice for who, though? Put yourself in Hadvar's shoes: you're a soldier, you've sworn an oath of loyalty, you partake in an operation to capture the rebel leader who has plunged your home country into civil war, and after you succeed another unit throws two more guys on the wagon (remember Hadvar doesn't even recognize you when he notices you at the back of the line, so he had nothing to do with your capture), one of which spends a bit of time whining loudly that he would have gotten away if he managed to "steal that horse". While calling out names you realize the other guy's name wasn't written down. What does that mean? The idiot who was in charge of writing down names forgot? The prisoner refused to give a name before being tossed on the wagon? He's some mysterious stranger who dumped all his equipment, tied up his own hands, and sneaked onto the wagon when nobody was paying attention?

 

Then your commanding officer, whom you have served in battles with and known longer than some nameless prisoner, tells you to proceed with the execution. What do you do? Do you go over your CO's head to openly question her decision in front of the general and all the other soldiers? Ask Ulfric and his men if the prisoner is with them? Ask Lokir's corpse if the prisoner is a fellow horse thief? On what basis do you compromise your honor as a soldier, your loyalty to the Empire, to disobey orders beyond the simple fact that someone forgot to write down the prisoner's name?

 

But you're right, simply breaking the chain of command won't jeopardize the execution. I made an unfair assumption that if your definition of "weak" was obeying orders, then the only way he couldn't be considered weak was to draw his sword and defend the prisoner until someone agreed to review the capture (unlikely) or he died under a hail of arrows (more likely). That sort of distraction would jeopardize the execution, because Ulfric is powerful enough that all he needs is one of his men to get that gag out of his mouth to wreak some serious havoc (and why wouldn't he? He's standing in front of a headsman's block, he has nothing to lose).

 

Helgen was crawling with Imperial soldiers, the same soldiers trying to take his head off. Only a complete moron would have stayed behind under those circumstances.

Only a complete moron would ignore orders on baseless grounds, which is exactly what Hadvar didn't do, yet he's weak for that?

It's honorable and just to defend your countrymen against a bigger threat than the Legion, which is exactly what Ulfric didn't do, yet there's nothing wrong with that?

 

Note I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong to follow Ralof, he is pretty much the only guy who stops to get you to cover, but I think it's highly unfair to find fault in Hadvar's actions and disparage people who choose him over Ralof, yet whitewash Ulfric's actions (note that I'm not calling Ulfric weak or a moron, just that his loyalty to the Nord people isn't authentic).

Edited January 18, 2013 by Anime_Otaku102

[Kraeten]

On what basis do you compromise your honor as a soldier, your loyalty to the Empire, to disobey orders beyond the simple fact that someone forgot to write down the prisoner's name?

The simple basis that the PC doesn't wear the uniform of a Stormcloak, on top of the fact that the PC wasn't recorded among the combatants captured. That's just cause for a more thorough examination instead of just being lumped with the rest of the prisoners to be executed.

Only a complete moron would ignore orders on baseless grounds, which is exactly what Hadvar didn't do, yet he's weak for that?

He's weak for being unwilling to challenge his superior officer's decision to callously execute the PC.

It's honorable and just to defend your countrymen against a bigger threat than the Legion, which is exactly what Ulfric didn't do, yet there's nothing wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with self preservation, which is exactly what motivated Ulfric and his men to flee Helgen. Really, this isn't complicated. He had no absolutely obligation to remain behind and fight the dragon. His duty to his men and the rebellion takes precedence.

I think it's highly unfair to find fault in Hadvar's actions and disparage people who choose him over Ralof,

I'm wasn't trying to be disparaging. It's just the facts. Hadvar would have stood by and watched you be executed. No sensible person would overlook that, nor would a sensible person follow him with the "hope" that they might earn themselves a pardon when they could follow Ralof instead. For anyone who likes living, Ralof certainly represents the most logical method of escape.

yet whitewash Ulfric's actions (note that I'm not calling Ulfric weak or a moron, just that his loyalty to the Nord people isn't authentic).

There's nothing to whitewash. It would have been INSANE to stay behind and fight the dragon. It would have been needlessly risking the lives of his men and the future of the rebellion. Let's get one thing straight here while we're on this subject, I'm not saying Ulfric is a perfect leader, but your argument for why's his loyalty is insincere is quite frankly irrational.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Kraeten

[AnimeOtaku102]

The simple basis that the PC doesn't wear the uniform of a Stormcloak, on top of the fact that the PC wasn't recorded among the combatants captured. That's just cause for a more thorough examination instead of just being lumped with the rest of the prisoners to be executed.

They also had Lokir's name on the list, from his exchange with Ralof it's obvious he wasn't a Stormcloak, so that's proof enough the names on the list aren't exclusively Stormcloaks. Your name not being on the list does not suggest innocence, it only suggests a clerical error (and, let's be fair, it's also only there as a mechanism to let you customize your name).

 

He's weak for being unable or unwilling to challenge his superior officer who callously ordered the PC to be executed.

Well, if you insist on believing that, then that's fine. I did rattle off a bunch of things he had to consider, I consider his decision no less pragmatic than Ulfric's decision to flee.

 

There's nothing wrong with self preservation, which is exactly what motivated Ulfric and his men to flee Helgen. Really, this isn't complicated. He had no absolutely obligation to remain behind and fight the dragon. His duty to his men and the rebellion takes precedence.

No, it really isn't complicated. Ralof had no obligation to some nameless prisoner either. His duty to the Empire and the oath he swore took precedence. Ulfric abandons a town to honor his duty, Ralof abandons some nameless prisoner to honor his duty. The scales are different, but it's still basically the same thing.

 

I'm wasn't trying to be disparaging. It's just the facts. Hadvar would have stood by and watched you be executed. No sensible person would overlook that, nor would a sensible person follow him with the "hope" that they might earn themselves a pardon when they could follow Ralof instead. For anyone who likes living, Ralof certainly represents the most logical method of escape.

Then I apologize, I misunderstood your statement of "no sane person" as being targeted toward the player rather than the character (granted the character is intended to be an extension of the player to some degree, so it gets a little sticky in that regard).

 

There's nothing to whitewash. It would have been INSANE to stay behind and fight the dragon. It would have been needlessly risking the lives of his men and the future of the rebellion. Let's get one thing straight here while we're on this subject, I'm not saying Ulfric is a perfect leader, but your argument for why's his loyalty is insincere is quite frankly irrational.

To be fair, more on Ulfric's insincerity is revealed long after Helgen, so it does make me rather biased about his behavior during the dragon attack. That being said, I'm claiming you're whitewashing because of the argument above: Ralof's actions are justifiable, but you insist on calling him weak for that, therefore I insist the same standard be applied to Ulfric despite his actions also being justifiable, which I don't believe you are doing.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Anime_Otaku102

[Kraeten]

They also had Lokir's name on the list, from his exchange with Ralof it's obvious he wasn't a Stormcloak, so that's proof enough the names on the list aren't exclusively Stormcloaks.

They did however know Lokir's crime, which is different from the PC if we're to follow what the game's presentation infers.

I consider his decision no less pragmatic than Ulfric's decision to flee.

Then I'm concerned for you. There's a very stark difference between running from a dragon and a settlement of people who would happily see your head decorating a spike, and choosing to sit back as your commander callously chooses to execute a prisoner seemingly guilty of no crime.

No, it really isn't complicated. Hadvar had no obligation to some nameless prisoner either. His duty to the Empire and the oath he swore took precedence. Ulfric abandons a town to honor his duty, Hadvar abandons some nameless prisoner to honor his duty. The scales are different, but it's still basically the same thing.

That's a grossly simplistic way of looking at it. Hadvar is a soldier and his duty is to defend the Empire and its people. The PC is a citizen of that Empire and appears to be not a combatant. Hadvar had an obligation to make sure the PC wasn't unjustly executed, but instead he took the route of the servile minion and followed orders. That's very different from fleeing a settlement filled with people who want you dead and a dragon.

To be fair, more on Ulfric's insincerity is revealed long after Helgen, so it does make me rather biased about his behavior during the dragon attack. That being said, I'm claiming you're whitewashing because of the argument above: Ralof's actions are justifiable, but you insist on calling him weak for that, therefore I insist the same standard be applied to Ulfric despite his actions also being justifiable, which I don't believe you are doing.

The problem here is you're comparing apples to oranges.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Kraeten

[AnimeOtaku102]

They did however know Lokir's crime, which is different from the PC if we're to follow what the game's presentation infers.

While I did say "ask the dead Lokir if the prisoner was a fellow horse thief", there wasn't anything else in the introduction that suggests the soldiers believed he was just a horse thief. All we know for certain is everyone on the carts were destined for the chopping block, someone up the command chain made that decision (likely Tullius) before the start of the game (as evident by the headsman and priestess all ready and waiting, and the Thalmor trying to interfere), and the list was short a name. That's all. Nothing suggests the list has crimes attached to each name, therefore missing a name doesn't mean they automatically have to question your guilt of innocence.

 

Then I'm concerned for you. There's a very stark difference between running from a dragon and a settlement of people who would happily see your head decorating a spike, and choosing to sit back as your commander callously chooses to execute a prisoner seemingly guilty of no crime.

That's a disingenuous way of framing the argument now, isn't it (on second thought this is unnecessarily rude, but I'll leave it in any way in response to "I'm concerned for you")? You present the motivations for why Ulfric is justified in fleeing, yet you gloss over what motivations Hadvar had as if to indicate he had no justifications. How about betraying his oath? Ruining his honor? Shaming his kin? Losing his livelihood? Losing the respect of his brother-in-arms? For what? To defend a prisoner from execution simply because their name was missing on the list despite being on the execution cart?

 

Keep in mind that while you may not find those to be legitimate motivations, the warrior-centric, honor-obsessed, let's-solve-our-differences-over-a-mug-of-mead-and-a-hearty-murderous-duel Nord culture that Hadvar was raised in likely doesn't share your values.

 

Also keep in mind Hadvar's not a judge. It's unreasonable to expect him, a mere soldier, to know the crimes of every prisoner he escorts, so why should he suddenly start doubting the guilt of one just because he doesn't have a name?

 

That's a grossly simplistic way of looking at it. Hadvar is a soldier and his duty is to defend the Empire and its people. The PC is a citizen of that Empire and appears to be not a combatant. Hadvar had an on obligation to make sure the PC wasn't unjustly executed, but instead he took the route of the servile minion and followed orders. That's very different from fleeing a settlement filled with people who want you dead and a dragon.

It's only grossly simplistic if you assume there's more to the oath he swore than there actually is. Remember that you get to hear the oath when you join the Legion, so there's no mystery as to what it entails:

 

"Upon my honor I do swear undying loyalty to the Emperor, Titus Mede II, and unwavering obedience to the officers of his great Empire. May those above judge me, and those below take me, if I fail in my duty. Long live the Emperor! Long live the Empire!"

 

Nothing about fair trials or defending the people. He had no obligations to the prisoner. None. Nada. Zilch.

 

You'd have a point if Hadvar was mindlessly obeying orders to slaughter women and children, but he wasn't, he was following orders to send a prisoner along to their execution, then he followed orders to try and save townspeople from a dragon, and he wasn't leaving until he heard Tullius issue the order to retreat.

 

The problem here is you're comparing apples to oranges.

The problem here is you're whitewa... actually, let's not go that way. Instead I'll just disagree with your assertion that I am comparing two different things on the grounds that you have not proven that they are in fact two different things.

[UrgeNexus]

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to defend following Hadvar by using my own character. His name is Ghorak and he is an Orc. Ghorak chose to follow Hadvar. Here's why.

 

Ghorak believes the Stormcloaks are traitors, it's that simple. Ghorak was adopted by a Nord ex-legionaire living in a small village n northern Cyrodiil. The Empire is the only home he's ever known, the only political identity that has been known to stick up for the Orcs when they needed it (See the second sacking of Orsinium) and essentially the only group to even attempt to integrate the Orcs into society (Almost making Orsinium a proper province before the Oblivion Crisis happened) rather than shun them as monsters.

 

For this reason, Ghorak chooses to follow Hadvar despite almost losing his head at Helgen. Ralof isn't a bad person as evidenced by him stopping to get Ghorak into cover. Ghorak does not believe the Stormcloaks are evil, but they are traitors and loyalty is something Ghorak values highly. He doesn't like the idea of being executed, but he understands why nobody stopped it, he knows how the Legion works and ultimately the important thing is that he wasn't actually executed. When all is said and done, Ghorak is fine. Why hold a grudge when he believes the Empire is the best chance Tamriel has against the Dominion and to grant the Orcs their own place to call home?

 

The Empire isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, Ghorak knows this. But the Empire is his home, it's the only political entity that has shown the will to stick up for his people and they're the best chance Tamriel has against the Dominion. This is why Ghorak chooses to follow Hadvar.

[Kraeten]

You present the motivations for why Ulfric is justified in fleeing, yet you gloss over what motivations Hadvar had as if to indicate he had no justifications. How about betraying his oath? Ruining his honor? Shaming his kin? Losing his livelihood? Losing the respect of his brother-in-arms?

There's nothing good about simply following orders unerringly. Most of the great genocides that have occurred in our history were only made possible by soldiers who tossed aside their humanity in favor of simply following orders.

Keep in mind that while you may not find those to be legitimate motivations, the warrior-centric, honor-obsessed, let's-solve-our-differences-over-a-mug-of-mead-and-a-hearty-murderous-duel Nord culture that Hadvar was raised in likely doesn't share your values.

Hadvar is a sycophant, so yes he doesn't hold my values. Nor does he share the values of a great many other Nords. Nords who believe in worshiping who they like. Nords who don't like seeing Thalmor abducting people whenever they please.

Also keep in mind Hadvar's not a judge. It's unreasonable to expect him, a mere soldier, to know the crimes of every prisoner he escorts, so why should he suddenly start doubting the guilt of one just because he doesn't have a name?

I've already gone through this. The PC doesn't wear a Stormcloak uniform, and isn't on the list with the others. Maybe if the circumstances were different, and the punishment was say a weekend in a dungeon I would agree it doesn't make much difference if the PC is thrown in with some actual criminals. But when the sentence on the table is death, it's a big deal to make a mistake.

Nothing about fair trials or defending the people. He had no obligations to the prisoner. None. Nada. Zilch..

Really....THAT is your argument? If a Legionnaire's duty is only to follow orders as you argue, then we can expect Hadvar would have in fact slaughtered a bunch of women and children had he received the order from his superiors. Great job trying to make Hadvar look like a decent guy. :rolleyes:

The problem here is you're whitewa... actually, let's not go that way. Instead I'll just disagree with your assertion that I am comparing two different things on the grounds that you have not proven that they are in fact two different things.

The circumstances for each situation are very much different. If anything the only one who hasn't proved anything here is you, by trying to argue they're the same. The only thing you've shown, is you have a very simplistic perspective and an inconsistent rationale for defending Hadvar.

snip

Orcs tend to be very simple minded, can't say it surprises me that yours chooses loyalty over a sense of self preservation. Very few, if any sensible people would follow Hadvar when Ralof is available to follow instead. By sensible, I mean normal people who like living.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Kraeten

[AnimeOtaku102]

Really....THAT is your argument? If a Legionnaire's duty is only to follow orders as you argue, then we can expect Hadvar would have in fact slaughtered a bunch of women and children had he received the order from his superiors. Great job trying to make Hadvar look like a decent guy. :rolleyes:

Alright, I'm going to do you a favor by trying to remain civil. I'll admit my overall tone could be better, but I have not deliberately taken statements out of context and misrepresented like you just did (twisting a hypothetical situation to try and discredit my argument, then using it to imply it's "proof" he's a bad guy), nor have I been flirting with borderline ad hominems (do try to refrain from questioning others' sanity/rationality in future replies, they speak more of your character than they do my arguments).

 

I've already gone through this. The PC doesn't wear a Stormcloak uniform, and isn't on the list with the others. Maybe if the circumstances were different, and the punishment was say a weekend in a dungeon I would agree it doesn't make much difference if the PC is thrown in with some actual criminals. But when the sentence on the table is death, it's a big deal to make a mistake.

This is what I've interpreted your argument as: it's a soldier's duty to defend a prisoner slated for execution and call for a review on the basis that someone forgot to write down a name. The basis of this claim is that a) prisoners are still citizens of the Empire, thus a soldier is obligated to protect him from an unjust death and b) the missing name/lack of uniform suggests that a soldier has no idea what the prisoner's crimes are, thus he must question if his orders are unjust.

 

Regarding the first point: I quoted the oath because it's direct evidence that your claim Hadvar had an obligation, as a soldier, to defend the PC is simply untrue. That's all there was to it, I even threw in the caveat that he could be considered weak if he mindlessly murdered women and children while under orders, which isn't what he did. All he did is ask what should be done because there was a clerical error on the list he was given and he was given an order; there is nothing to suggest Hadvar believes your execution is unjust, the only thing we know is that he doesn't personally know the reason (related to the point below), thus no basis for him to reject the order or feel obligated to defend the PC.

 

Regarding the second point: I've also "gone through this" regarding the missing name. Lokir is evidence that the list is not exclusively for those captured during Tullius' raid on Ulfric, it's just a name of people who are on the carts being sent for execution. Lokir and the PC aren't necessarily being executed for being suspected as Stormcloaks, but if they are there is no evidence that they aren't Stormcloaks either. Lack of uniform means absolutely nothing: even we don't know why Lokir and the PC are in the cart with nothing but rags on. We don't know if they had their own gear, but were stripped of it (which would be inconsistent with how the Stormcloaks are treated, since they get to keep their armor), or if they were being highly suspicious by lacking any traveling gear and being in an area near where rebels were caught. Hadvar wouldn't have this information either since he wasn't the one who captured Lokir and the PC, but lack of evidence is not evidence, thus there is nothing for him to question if the orders are actually unjust.

 

Now to clarify what I've been arguing: you insist Hadvar is weak because he's meekly following orders he believes is unjust, I insist there is no reason he should believe the orders are actually unjust, thus there is nothing wrong about him following said orders. You argue the lack of name is proof he's not a Stormcloak, I point to Lokir's name as evidence that the list isn't exclusive to Stormcloaks. You argue his lack of uniform is further proof that he's not a Stormcloak, I... miss that argument (for that I apologize), but I argue in this post why I don't believe that's relevant, You argue Lokir's crime was known, thus suggesting Hadvar must know what every prisoner is being executed for, I argued I don't believe it's reasonable for every soldier involved to know the details behind every execution. You argue it's his obligation as a soldier to (essentially) be a legal advocate, I pointed to the oath as evidence it is not.

 

I fail to see how my arguments have been any simpler or less rational than yours.

 

There's nothing good about simply following orders unerringly. Most of the great genocides that have occurred in our history were only made possible by soldiers who tossed aside their humanity in favor of simply following orders.

Look, this is a strawman, it may not have been your intent you just made the argument that "following orders unerringly" is a subset of "genocides", "genocides" are bad, ergo "following orders unerringly" is bad. Please rephrase this argument in a more logical manner which can actually be discussed.

 

The circumstances for each situation are very much different. If anything the only one who hasn't proved anything here is you, by trying to argue they're the same. The only thing you've shown, is you have a very simplistic perspective and an inconsistent rationale for defending Hadvar.

You insist I made an "grossly simplistic" comparison between Hadvar's duty and Ulfric's duty, the basis of which is:

 

Hadvar is a soldier and his duty is to defend the Empire and its people. - True, however execution of criminals is also part of defending the Empire and its people.

The PC is a citizen of that Empire and appears to be not a combatant. - First part is nebulous (since the PC could also be from a territory that left) and the second part is presumptive.

Hadvar had an obligation to make sure the PC wasn't unjustly executed, - False, as evident by the oath quoted above, also presumptive since you're assuming Hadvar has reason to believe the order is unjust.

but instead he took the route of the servile minion and followed orders. - Statement based on the false premise of obligation and assumption that he questions the PC's guilt.

 

Thus you have not established anything beyond the fact that Hadvar's a soldier. This does not disprove my claim that you are not giving Hadvar the same considerations as you do Ulfric when justifying their actions based on their what their respective duties are and what they would reasonably know.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Anime_Otaku102

[Kraeten]

I'll admit my overall tone could be better, but I have not deliberately taken statements out of context and misrepresented like you just did (twisting a hypothetical situation to try and discredit my argument

 

You tried to argue that since the military oath demands little more than servitude to the military hierarchy, Hadvar had absolutely no obligation to give a skeever's arse for the PC.

 

^^^^That is your argument. Yours. You made that argument to excuse Hadvar's decision to let his captain's orders stand. My hypothetical only emphasized the fact that the oath by itself is amoral. Before you jump to the assumption that I think all of the Legion soldiers lack morality, let me state that I don't believe that all. Let me also add that none of the soldiers took that oath so they could be perfect minions. They took that oath to defend their countrymen/country.

Regarding the first point: I quoted the oath because it's direct evidence that your claim Hadvar had an obligation, as a soldier, to defend the PC is simply untrue.That's all there was to it, I even threw in the caveat that he could be considered weak if he mindlessly murdered women and children while under orders, which isn't what he did.

The crux of the matter here, is you're saying Hadvar's only obligation is to follow his orders. My counterargument was quite simply this, there's more to being a soldier than following orders. None of the Legionnaires enlisted to expressly do that. They enlisted to defend their country/countrymen. For the most part. Orcs I understand just look at it as a fun job, but that's beside the point.

there is nothing to suggest Hadvar believes your execution is unjust, the only thing we know is that he doesn't personally know the reason (related to the point below), thus no basis for him to reject the order or feel obligated to defend the PC.

On the contrary, he does show "some" internal conflict. After he's told to forget the list, Hadvar apologizes to the PC. Even tries to console the PC by mentioning honorable funeral arrangements. He doesn't do that for any of the others. That isn't some random coincidence.

Lokir and the PC aren't necessarily being executed for being suspected as Stormcloaks, but if they are there is no evidence that they aren't Stormcloaks either.

Yes they are in fact being executed for that suspicion. Lokir even moans about it "I'm not a rebel, you can't do this!". The PC and him happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The men in the carts were actually bound for the Imperial City before Tullius decided to skip a trial and instead have an impromptu execution instead.

I fail to see how my arguments have been any simpler or less rational than yours.

That much is quite clear.

You insist I made an "grossly simplistic" comparison between Hadvar's duty and Ulfric's duty, the basis of which is:

Hadvar is a soldier and his duty is to defend the Empire and its people. - True, however execution of criminals is also part of defending the Empire and its people.

You also argued Ulfric had an obligation to defend a settlement filled with people who wanted to murder him. That's not a rational argument.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Kraeten