Where should a desent Nord's allegiance lie?

[Anska]

The situation in Windhelm is quite strange, as in other cities the Dunmer show no issues with assimilation. I'm not sure what's wrong with Windhelm, or why the Dunmer seem to be less willing to take part in Nord society there while in Riften they simply joined the rest just fine. Maybe Riften had other races for longer, and in Windhelm is a recent thing? I can't remember right now.

 

I can't tell you what really happened, but if you bear with me for a moment, I can venture a guess.

 

One of the inhabitants of the Grey Quarter tells you, that Windhelm has such a large Dunmer population, because it was actually one of the first cities the Dunmer traveled to, when trying to escape the eruption of Red Mountain, because it is closest to the border. The Dunmer were allowed to settle in the city but were either confided to the Grey Quarters or just settled there because it was the cheapest area of the town and refugees of natural catastrophes usually don't have that much money. (The highly polemic "Scourge of the Grey Quarters" says, it was Ulfric's father who allowed the to settle in Windhelm first - but I am very cautious when it comes to that book.) Now the Dunmer are probably just as xenophobic as the Nords are and didn't care too much for adapting to the "Nord ways" while the Nords didn't care too much about finding out about the "Dunmer ways" (the "Corner Club, why don't they just call it a bar" dialogue illustrates this nicely). So the rather large Elven population kept largely to themselves, while being regarded with suspicion by the Nords.

 

Time went by. Most of the Inhabitants of the Grey Quarter were either Dunmer or Nords who couldn't afford to live anywhere else, both groups were rather poor and discontent, the Grey Quater became Windhelm's synonym for trouble and unrest and a thorn in the Jarl's eye. So when Ulfric inherited the throne, he inherited a decades old immigration-problem along with it.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Anska

[RatcatcherOfKvatch]

@Zog: Re: "Me Logical. You Tarzan!"

The Stormcloak argument is the more reasonable one, even though it is most often presented as an appeal to emotion. Tullius, on the other hand, is a Thalmor collaborator (Re: Avulstein Grey-Mane) whose rational plan to betray them at some unspecified future date has no passion behind it, no urgency to its implementation.

What you see as an either-or choice of emotion or reason is actually an either-or-both revealing a glaring deficiency for the Empire.

The Stormcloaks have both emotional and reasonable arguments to make for their side; the Empire, having no emotionally compelling arguments, has only rational arguments to make, making them appear on first glance to be the more rational choice.

 

@Shubal: Re: "On the contrary, with much knowledge comes decisiveness."

 

I've thought for some time now that properly calibrated analysis is the key to decisiveness, or at least the sort of decisiveness that one would wish for.

Improperly calibrated analysis leads to either bad decisions or wasted time as models and projections are updated and faulty assumptions slowly and painfully corrected over time.

"No analysis at all" is a special case of "improperly calibrated". Unless there is some piece of intelligence of such overriding importance its relevance needs no analysis; i.e. "Crixus is marching on Rome! Shall we defend Rome?"; failing to recognize the need to analyze what you know will almost certainly lead to bad decisions.

 

 

Though I initially thought (and I'm still trying to believe) that Bethesda made both factions have pros and cons that made the Civil War utterly ambiguous, replaying the quests is making me feel like they did give the Stormcloaks the upper hand when it comes to a moral/strategic choice.

My thinking went through the exact same evolution. Did the writers intend this evolution or did they simply make the Empire / Thalmor relationship too one-sided to survive Fridge Logic?

I'm genuinely curious what the authors intended, but I'll take that as a sign of good writing ... so long as whatever happens next is believable.

[MightyZ0G]

I'm not saying that playing one side or the other is right or wrong (when looking at it from outside the game) but the argument that Tullius is a Thalmor agent based on the missive is a bit much. all that note says is that Thorald is a prisoner of the Thalmor and that Tullius thinks it would be better not to rock the boat. it doesn't say that Tullius handed Thorald over to the Thalmor.

Tullius is playing a long term game and, as a General, he knows that sacrificing pawns is preferable to losing in the long run.

 

as I said, the Stormcloak argument is emotional. it is about the people here and now, but the rebellion is also the Thalmor plan. the dossiers actually state that.

 

the Imperial argument is logical in that it will take a united Empire to defeat the Thalmor. if Skyrim gains independence then Skyrim will have to face the Thalmor on its own.

Edited April 8, 2013 by mighty zog

[Anska]

Because this has irritated me in the CW discussions for a while now, I will simply throw in another question. Perhaps one of you can explain it to me:

 

What does this ever have to do with reason or logic? They are both reasonable or unreasonable depending on your standing. If you have to find opposing pairs they are utilitarian versus idealistic, cautious versus forceful ... even sophisticated versus barbaric if you must. But not illogical or logical, reasonable or unreasonable. Only because we live in a knowledge based society where logic and reason are the ultimate thought-terminating clichés, it doesn't even make them sensibly applicable arguments in just about every discussion.

[MightyZ0G]

I didn't say the Stormcloak argument was illogical, I said it was emotional.

 

virtually every one of Ulfric's speaches plays on the emotions of the player/character while Tullius is almost Vulcan in his lack of emotion.

 

the Stormcloak argument is also short term while the Imperial argument is long term.

BOTH want to see the Dominion beaten, the difference is that Ulfric thinks that Skyrim can achieve this without the Empire while the Imperials think that it will take a united Empire to defeat the Dominion.

[Anska]

They are speeches, one of them aimed to rally his men for battle, another to honor them for their work and the most famous one, to ... well, essentially, to make Galmar shut up about pushing the war to the next stage. Of course they play on the emotions of his listeners. Pathos is a rhetorical form. That doesn't make Ulfric's reasons emotional, it just marks him as a good speaker. His reasons, when you talk to him or listen to him chat with Galmar or Jorleif are either drawn from logical conclusions (when talking about tactics) or from the areas of moral or duty. Galmar's reasons are emotional (hate, love, passion), but Galmar isn't planning the rebellion, Ulfric is and Ulfric is all about doing the right thing - which is not an emotional reason

Neither is Tullius reasoning always using logic, in fact it rarely does. He prefers to use necessity as a source for his arguments most of the time. He is portrait as a calmer, more matter-of-fact person than the more passionate Ulfric, but lack of emotions doesn't necessarily mean that your arguments are logical either. As pointed out, there are plenty of other fields you can draw your arguments from, such as duty, honor, morals or even situational necessity.

The closest thing to an argument that is mostly logical is the dialogue given by Sybille Stentor - and she too is playing on her listeners emotions. (I am sure there are plenty of other examples, but she's the only one that comes to mind right now.)

Edit: I should add something before we misunderstand each other, zog. What made me write my previous comment was less your use of the term "logic" and more Ratcatcher's saying, that "the Stormcloak argument is the more reasonable one". This sounds a bit like "the Stormcloak's arguments are more sensible" to me and I don't like this line of thought very much. I think that both sides have valid reasons for their actions and, as far as I can judge, equally good plans for the future. They are just very different and, as pointed out above, saying one side's arguments are more reasonable than the other's just doesn't work, because the leaders of both sides rarely argue in terms of reason or logic.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Anska

[MightyZ0G]

ask Laila Law-Giver about Ulfric, remembering that she is on the side of the Stormcloaks and put her son under house arrest for speaking up for the Empire.

Ulfric's speeches use an emotional argument. they target the emotions of the listener.

and if Ulfric is using logic in his reasoning them it is very well hidden.

how can Skyrim do alone what couldn't be done when it was part of the Empire?

 

the Stormcloak cry of "Skyrim for the Nords" is also wrong on so many levels considering that a large part of Skyrim was home to Bretons before the Nords turned up.

if Ulfric wins but the Empire doesn't fall, I could see a diplomatic mission from High Rock to one of the redoubts and Empire support for the Reachmen. and they are much better at guerilla warfare than the Stormcloaks.

[Juranas]

I always went with RPing what I thought my character would do. FOr example, every time you listen to the passive dialogue from Stormcloaks and that deranged preacher guy from Whiterun, they keep mentioning "those damned elves" or "elven bastards". So if I'm on a Dark/High/Wood elf, I tend to go either Imperial or Neutral (Greybeard peace FTW).

 

Any other race, I go Stormcloaks, because I'm still nursing a grudge for those bastard Imperials trying to lop my noggin off for no damn good reason. Only the complete and total annihilation of the Imperial presence in Skyrim will suffice to assuage my irritation. Oddly enough, when you slaughter an Imperial camp and leave the bodies and weapons arrayed in the words "F*** YOU TULLIUS", it doesn't seem to get my point across to them.

[Anska]

Let's just agree to disagree on this one. I would still love to hear Ratcatcher's opinion though.

[ZoMHead]

Both sides are not worth it.

 

But, since i am against the Thalmor, i sided with the Empire. "Unless the empire stands together, the Thalmor will destroy us all" - Hadvar

 

I like what the Stormcloaks are fighting fore, but removing the empire, being racist and "Skyrim belongs to Nords only".

 

Also, you do understand, that Ulfric was captured by the Thalmor in the great war, cracked and gave them info? Also, if you listen to certain NPCs carefully, you will learn that it was the Thalmor who wanted Ulfric to rise and start the Markarth incident, did you ever discover that in game?

 

So, if the Thalmor can not control Skyrim, they want it destroyed from within, aka a civil war.

 

Now, i am against Thalmor running around freely in skyrim arresting people.

 

If it was up to be, id join both stormcloaks and imperials, join forces with Hammerfell and just go on an all out assult on Summerset Isles.

 

Empire is tied with that stupid agreement that made to end the great war. But it is better to stand together and fight the enemy, than fight each other while the enemy watches.

 

I like the Empire, but i do not agree to all their decisions. I like the stormcloaks, but being racist and "cheating" and playing dirty is not my thing. Both sides suck, but with the given choices, i would stand together and stand strong as i mentioned.