Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[DrunkenMage]

Torygg was loyal to the Empire and always had been. Also his counselors, including Stentor herself, clearly feel that remaining part of the Empire is the wisest choice. One could suppose they would not hesitate to voice that belief.

High King Torygg was a new King, we aren't completely aware of Torygg's loyalty or beliefs, we do know he worships Talos and it was his father who was loyal to the Empire and accepted the Concordat on behalf of Skyrim. While Stentor herself may feel remaining part of the Empire is the wisest choice, her counsel in court is that of a magical nature. Falk Firebeard would be the ranking Court member to the Jarl of Solitude and he doesn't like Stentor that much, he might oppose her if she voiced such an opinion. Thane Bryling would back Firebeard as they are conflicted in their duties due to their romantic affair with each other.

 

[Jackanapes]

High King Torygg was a new King, we aren't completely aware of Torygg's loyalty or beliefs, we do know he worships Talos and it was his father who was loyal to the Empire and accepted the Concordat on behalf of Skyrim. While Stentor herself may feel remaining part of the Empire is the wisest choice, her counsel in court is that of a magical nature. Falk Firebeard would be the ranking Court member to the Jarl of Solitude and he doesn't like Stentor that much, he might oppose her if she voiced such an opinion. Thane Bryling would back Firebeard as they are conflicted in their duties due to their romantic affair with each other.

Do you have reason to believe that Falk Firebeard might counsel Torygg to join a movement for independence? When we speak with him in Solitude, he is very stern in his absolute support of both Elisif and Tullius.

Even so, the only reason (I have observed so far) to believe that Torygg would be willing to become a traitor to the Empire is Stentor's statement that he "might" have been willing to discuss a bid for independence. The evidence of his loyalty to the Empire is much stronger. He gave his life in defense of it, after all.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Do you have reason to believe that Falk Firebeard might counsel Torygg to join a movement for independence? When we speak with him in Solitude, he is very stern in his absolute support of both Elisif and Tullius.

Even so, the only reason (I have observed so far) to believe that Torygg would be willing to become a traitor to the Empire is Stentor's statement that he "might" have been willing to discuss a bid for independence. The evidence of his loyalty to the Empire is much stronger. He gave his life in defense of it, after all.

I found him to be neutral on the matter with Tullius, often clashing with Erikur on Tullius not running this city. Or even calling Elisif's service to the Emperor as technically;

His authority comes from the emperor. Who you also serve, technically."

We know he doesn't like Ulfric, but I wouldn't say he is absolute in his support of Tullius.

Torygg gave his life for honour I believe, the challenge was an honour bound challenge, to refuse would be cause for a vote of no confidence among the Jarls.

Though on the subject of Kings asking what will happen with Elisif after the Civil War.

Stormcloak victory;
"Well... By rights, she had a legitimate claim as High Queen of Skyrim. But now Skyrim is at Ulfric's mercy. The moot will meet and choose Ulfric as High King. With his troops in most of the cities, they have little choice."

Legion victory;
"That's the real question, isn't it? No one can deny Elisif has a legitimate claim to become High Queen of Skyrim..."

 

[Jackanapes]

I found him to be neutral on the matter with Tullius, often clashing with Erikur on Tullius not running this city. Or even calling Elisif's service to the Emperor as technically; We know he doesn't like Ulfric, but I wouldn't say he is absolute in his support of Tullius.

Torygg gave his life for honour I believe, the challenge was an honour bound challenge, to refuse would be cause for a vote of no confidence among the Jarls.

Though on the subject of Kings asking what will happen with Elisif after the Civil War.

Stormcloak victory;
"Well... By rights, she had a legitimate claim as High Queen of Skyrim. But now Skyrim is at Ulfric's mercy. The moot will meet and choose Ulfric as High King. With his troops in most of the cities, they have little choice."

Legion victory;
"That's the real question, isn't it? No one can deny Elisif has a legitimate claim to become High Queen of Skyrim..."

PC: Does General Tullius respect Elisif?
FF: Of course he does. What sort of question is that? Maybe you've been listening to Erikur. There's been some loose talk aong some of the Thanes, and I suspect he's the cause of it. You'll pay those rumors no heed if you wish to retain your welcome in this city. She may be young, but Elisif is Jarl by right. And here in Skyrim, if nothing else, we respect the traditions of our father's fathers. You'd do well to remember that.

This quote -and your quotes- does not give me any reason to believe that Firebeard would counsel Torygg to support Ulfric's bid for independence. Instead, it only cements my belief that Firebeard is extremely loyal.

Torygg gave his life for honour, you say? Whose honour?

 

[DrunkenMage]

PC: Does General Tullius respect Elisif?
FF: Of course he does. What sort of question is that? Maybe you've been listening to Erikur. There's been some loose talk aong some of the Thanes, and I suspect he's the cause of it. You'll pay those rumors no heed if you wish to retain your welcome in this city. She may be young, but Elisif is Jarl by right. And here in Skyrim, if nothing else, we respect the traditions of our father's fathers. You'd do well to remember that.

This quote does not give me any reason to believe that Firebeard would counsel Torygg to support Ulfric's bid for independence. Instead, it only cements my belief that Firebeard is extremely loyal.

Torygg gave his life for honour, you say? Whose honour?

That quote seems more protective of Elisif than Tullius, asking if Tullius respects her, not if he respects Tullius. It does cement belief that Falk Firebeard is loyal, but to Elisif, not Tullius

Falk: "General Tullius does not run this city, Thane Erikur. Or have you forgotten your oaths of fealty?"

He gave his life for his own honour, that means a great deal to a Nord.

 

[High King of Skyrim]

PC: Does General Tullius respect Elisif?
FF: Of course he does. What sort of question is that? Maybe you've been listening to Erikur. There's been some loose talk aong some of the Thanes, and I suspect he's the cause of it. You'll pay those rumors no heed if you wish to retain your welcome in this city. She may be young, but Elisif is Jarl by right. And here in Skyrim, if nothing else, we respect the traditions of our father's fathers. You'd do well to remember that.

This quote -and your quotes- does not give me any reason to believe that Firebeard would counsel Torygg to support Ulfric's bid for independence. Instead, it only cements my belief that Firebeard is extremely loyal.

Torygg gave his life for honour, you say? Whose honour?

His honour. Nord culture, is warrior culture, not to dissimilar to that of the orsimer. Had Torygg refused Ulfric's challenge he would have renounced his Nord heritage, and thus inadvertently his right to the throne. A Nord lives and breathes for the fight, how they live is no where near as important to them as how they die. Honour dictates a true Nords every action, or at least is supposed to. I suspect Ulfric knew this young king was no match for him and I also believe Torygg knew it too. It was Torygg's responsibility however, to answer this cowardly challenge. At least that is what a Nord would believe.

 

[DrunkenMage]

His honour. Nord culture, is warrior culture, not to dissimilar to that of the orsimer. Had Torygg refused Ulfric's challenge he would have renounced his Nord heritage, and thus inadvertently his right to the throne. A Nord lives and breathes for the fight, how they live is no where near as important to them as how they die. Honour dictates a true Nords every action, or at least is supposed to. I suspect Ulfric knew this young king was no match for him and I also believe Torygg knew it too. It was Torygg's responsibility however, to answer this cowardly challenge. At least that is what a Nord would believe.

It is suggested Torygg had some martial training, but it mattered little since the moment Torygg drew his sword, Ulfric's lips parted and unleashed the voice. Which by I think three accounts says it is what killed Torygg, the shout not Ulfric's weapon.

 

[Jackanapes]

That quote seems more protective of Elisif than Tullius, asking if Tullius respects her, not if he respects Tullius. It does cement belief that Falk Firebeard is loyal, but to Elisif, not Tullius

Falk: "General Tullius does not run this city, Thane Erikur. Or have you forgotten your oaths of fealty?"

On what basis, though, can you say that Firebeard, or any of the Solitude court for that matter, might counsel Torygg to support a bid for Skyrim's independence? The fact that Firebeard is more loyal to Elisif than to Tullius? If Firebeard believed in Skyrim's independence, why would he support Elisif at all? It is much more reasonable to conclude that both Torygg and his court are thoroughly loyal to the Empire.

He gave his life for his own honour, that means a great deal to a Nord.

Is that what you were referring to when you said, "This rebellion is nothing more than ego instead of freedom"? Torygg's own honour? I thought you were referring to Ulfric. But I can see now how it is appropriate to talk about Torygg's ego in this regard.

 

[DrunkenMage]

On what basis, though, can you say that Firebeard, or any of the Solitude court for that matter, might counsel Torygg to support a bid for Skyrim's independence? The fact that Firebeard is more loyal to Elisif than to Tullius? If Firebeard believed in Skyrim's independence, why would he support Elisif at all? It is much more reasonable to conclude that both Torygg and his court are thoroughly loyal to the Empire.



Is that what you were referring to when you said, "This rebellion is nothing more than ego instead of freedom"? Torygg's own honour? I thought you were referring to Ulfric. But I can see now how it is appropriate to talk about Torygg's ego in this regard.

Firebeard supports his Jarl, by duty he is to support his Jarl no matter who that may be, by oath he must. Torygg going independent would be very different to Ulfric going independent. Firebeard stands by his Jarl, while he will counsel on matters to do with the Hold and with him being High King, Skyrim in general. Courts loyalty is to that of their Jarl, their oaths of fealty take priority. Supporting Elisif doesn't mean he is a complete loyal citizen of the Empire. Skyrim comes first to the High King of Skyrim, the Court supports the Jarl.

Ego as to Ulfric's ego, the war isn't about Torygg's honour. Ulfric did kill Torygg because Torygg accepted the challenge due to personal honour, but it was Ulfric who declared war on the western holds of Skyrim. The war isn't that much about freedom since many aspects of freedom are taken away. It can't be a war for freedom if you oppress and force yourself onto others, those are the actions of tyranny. Not even the Emperor has absolute power in the Empire, a High King didn't have absolute power in Nord politics, but as Falk Firebeard mentions, with Ulfric's soldiers occupying over half the Holds of Skyrim there is little choice in matters.

 

[High King of Skyrim]

It is suggested Torygg had some martial training, but it mattered little since the moment Torygg drew his sword, Ulfric's lips parted and unleashed the voice. Which by I think three accounts says it is what killed Torygg, the shout not Ulfric's weapon.

No need to split hairs on how Torygg was bested, albeit voice or sword, it matters not. It would have been like Joffrey Baratheon who no doubt has martial training, being challenged by Sandor Clegane, a seasoned veteran killer. A laughable challenge in the eyes of any true Nord warrior. It actually speaks volumes on Torygg's courage and Ulfric's cowardly nature. Perhaps if Ulfric had picked on someone his own size, like Barlgruuf...things would be different. It's not for us however to question the validity of an old Nord tradition, what transpired, transpired, right or wrong, it's the Nord way. Torygg knew this and that should be celebrated and never forgotten.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Is that what you were referring to when you said, "This rebellion is nothing more than ego instead of freedom"? Torygg's own honour? I thought you were referring to Ulfric. But I can see now how it is appropriate to talk about Torygg's ego in this regard.

Though that does provide an interesting look on things. Torygg's ego and Ulfric's ego, while intentional or not, Torygg does have a part to blame for this Civil War, had he refused the challenge which was within his right. The war could have been averted. How many die all in the name of one man's honour? But that is something for the philosopher.

 

[Docta Corvina]

No need to split hairs on how Torygg was bested, albeit voice or sword, it matters not. It would have been like Joffrey Baratheon who no doubt has martial training, being challenged by Sandor Clegane, a seasoned veteran killer. A laughable challenge in the eyes of any true Nord warrior. It actually speaks volumes on Torygg's courage and Ulfric's cowardly nature. Perhaps if Ulfric had picked on someone his own size, like Barlgruuf...things would be different. It's not for us however to question the validity of an old Nord tradition, what transpired, transpired, right or wrong, it's the Nord way. Torygg knew this and that should be celebrated and never forgotten.

Very much this. If we are to accept that Ulfric's warrior prowess was leaps and bounds ahead of that of Torygg, then the only reason why Ulfric would need to use the Voice is for dramatic effect, for the "message". It was all part of the presentation and crafting of his own legacy. As he himself says Torygg was "a message to the other Jarls", so was the circumstance of the latter's dispatching. Whether the Voice actually killed Torygg or if it simply knocked him to the ground and disarmed him, it doesn't really matter more than the fact that Ulfric employed it in the fight for the effect it would have on observers and on those telling the tales long after the fact.

 

[DrunkenMage]

I retract my statement before on the war not being about Torygg's honour. It has everything to do with Torygg's honour and ego. By accepting the challenge, Torygg set off a chain of events that lead us to the execution block, the return of the dragons and the entire Civil war. Newton's law at it's finest.

 

[Ozan]

Very much this. If we are to accept that Ulfric's warrior prowess was leaps and bounds ahead of that of Torygg, then the only reason why Ulfric would need to use the Voice is for dramatic effect, for the "message". It was all part of the presentation and crafting of his own legacy. As he himself says Torygg was "a message to the other Jarls", so was the circumstance of the latter's dispatching. Whether the Voice actually killed Torygg or if it simply knocked him to the ground and disarmed him, it doesn't really matter more than the fact that Ulfric employed it in the fight for the effect it would have on observers and on those telling the tales long after the fact.

Dear, dear, Legate.

If it were a message to the Jarls, would it not be simpler to see it as a demand to war? A call of arms? A threat to the undecided? An attitude of with or against seems more likely a sign to tell the other Nord Jarl types that they may join their High King or side with the Nord who can destroy someone with very harsh words.

The message was a simple one. Ozan admits, the Stormcloak Jarl has quite an ego... But how many modest noble types can one think of?

 

[Docta Corvina]

Dear, dear, Legate.

If it were a message to the Jarls, would it not be simpler to see it as a demand to war? A call of arms? A threat to the undecided? An attitude of with or against seems more likely a sign to tell the other Nord Jarl types that they may join their High King or side with the Nord who can destroy someone with very harsh words.

The message was a simple one. Ozan admits, the Stormcloak Jarl has quite an ego... But how many modest noble types can one think of?

Oh, I think that's very much the case. It was a show of force, and Torygg was made an example of. Ulfric wanted to demonstrate his power in the greatest and most dramatic way possible: using the Voice. I think it was very much a line in the sand, as it were, to the other Jarls. But it also served to bolster Ulfric's own personal legend in the process. Killing the High King will assuredly put one in the history books and in songs/tales. But doing so while wielding the Voice...well, that garners one an additional kind of fame/infamy.

 

[Buffington Battle-Born]

Why did I have to get sucked into this thread?!

 

[Jackanapes]

I retract my statement before on the war not being about Torygg's honour. It has everything to do with Torygg's honour and ego. By accepting the challenge, Torygg set off a chain of events that lead us to the execution block, the return of the dragons and the entire Civil war. Newton's law at it's finest.

Yes, let's not single out one pesky Nord ego as worthy of blame. Only one ego and you have annexation. War requires more than that. There are many egos in Skyrim. Elenwen's is massive. But about that chopping block....

You can't prove your innocence, that's just it. The only way your innocence could be in question, is had the Stormcloaks denounced you and Lokir's involvement in their cause. Did they say anything? No. They were going to let you die with them, for their cause. I don't blame the Empire for my attempted execution, because the law is guilty until proven innocent. There was no way to prove innocence, and the people who did know my innocence weren't saying anything.

Tell me, do you blame the Judge for handing your sentence for what they have before them, or do you blame a witness who withheld information proving your innocence.

First you say that you cannot prove your innocence, then you condemn a witness for failing to do so!

Under many circumstances, if you're innocent, it is certainly possible to prove that. The best example of such is the production of an alibi. What you cannot prove with absolute and perfect logical certainty is a negative. Everything else is up for grabs. Generally, in life and in law, absolute and perfect logical certainty isn't required, though, or court cases would go on without end. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities" have been working as legal standards in adversarial courts for quite some time. They work acceptably well in extra-legal debates as well, such as this one. At any rate, it is reasonable to assume that the Empire has devised some sort of established burden of proof other than "the accused are always guilty". However, in this case, they choose not to use it. It is reasonable also to condemn them for that decision.

We do not know whether or not our passengers in the carts said anything about our innocence or not. We do not even know what crime we were supposed to have committed, if any. We do not know exactly where we were or what we did to attract the attention of the Legion soldiers. We only know we were found in the vicinity of a group of rebels. The specific facts that both led up to and follow our capture are left up to the imagination of the player.

The Stormcloaks said nothing on Lokir's behalf right before he was killed fleeing or about ourselves right before we are placed on the block. This is fact. We do not know whether they said anything before we awoke from our stupor. That is up to our imaginations. We do know that we ourselves said nothing after we awoke. That is also fact. Why did we say nothing? What are our reasons for remaining silent? Could our reasons for remaining silent be the same reasons the Stormcloaks remain silent?

 

[Stormcrown]

The “racist” accusations towards Ulfric and the "racist" accusations towards the Stormcloak faction​

Nothing gives me a headache more than debating over this. Before I start, I would like to show you the definition of "racism".

• The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
• Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

First off, I'd like to say almost everyone in this game is "technically" racist, because they believe certain races are good at certain things, and discriminate against them because of it. Whether that be Nords thinking elves are physically weak, or Imperials thinking Nords are axe swinging barbarians, or Altmer thinking men as a whole are less intellegent. Only thing is, in Tamriel, some of these things are based from truth! But lets assume it is not, and look at the claims of racism to the Stormcloaks.

1. The Stormcloaks don't allow Khajiit in the city.

First of all, the Nords as a whole don't let the caravans in cities because they have a reputation of selling skooma, moonsugar, and thieving. I can't prove that they steal, but anyone can go up to them and see that they sell skooma and moonsugar, and if you listen, they can be heard among themselves complaining about "shakes" from not having any moonsugar. So on top of dealing, they also are users.

2. "Skyrim belongs to the Nords!"

All Nords say this battlecry. Even the Nords in the legion. It is a generic cry that can be heard from all nord npc's and should not be taken as racist. Nords as a whole are actually Nationalist and Xenophobic. Meaning they take great pride in their heretical history and background, and they are distrusting of outsiders. Not certain races, but outsiders. Even as a nord, the player can sometimes have a stormcloak in Windhelm say "You better not be an Imperial spy!" Now, some Nords are clearly racist, but this should not be generalised to all. Xenophobia and Nationalism are regulalry mistaken for racism.

3. Stormcloaks hate all elves

This is the easiest to debunk. Firstly, there is a difference between racism and prejudice. If the Stormcloaks truly hated all elves, why are there not one, not two, not three, but four Altmer npcs in the city who are not only not in the grey quarters, but are merchants? One of them says the Dunmer have themselves to blame because they are not willing to do what it takes to gain the nord's respect. Some of the Dunmer are though, as one from house Hlaalu owns a farm, and the other works on the farm and clearly dislikes the complaining his people does ans he refers to his brother saying he'd rather work than to "harp on about injustices" like his brother. Keep in mind that the Dunmer even has Nords in Windhelm working for him! Now, like I said, the Nords do have some racist people like the two in the front when you first walk into Windhelm, and the dock worker who has Argonian workers, but the Stormcloak's agenda is not a racist one, although they of course have some bad apples.

Moving on to Ulfric himself, a lot of the points previously described can be applied to his so called "racism" as well. First, Ulfric did not segregate the Dunmer, the High King during the time of the Red Mountain exploding did.

http://www.uesp.net/...ree_of_Monument

"Let it stand in honor of those who had the strength and spirit to accept Skyrim's Offer "untithed to any thane or hold, and self-governed, with free worship, with no compensation to Skyrim or the Empire except as writ in the Armistice of old wheresoever those might still apply, and henceforth let no Man or Mer say that the Sons and Daughters of Kyne are without mercy or honor."

This shows that Ulfric has these elves in his city, and they don't have to pay taxes, and they are supposed to be self governed. Yet they were still allowed in the city, which Ulfric still lets them stay, and they don't have to give the Nords squat in return. The poor nords in the city aren't even given free room and board.

Edit: Some game dialogue reveals that the Dunmer possibly do actually pay taxes, so this deal may have been altered over time. I'm leaving this section in in case this is only taxes from businesses, since the Dunmer in question is a business owner. At any rate, the Dunmer were given a place to stay, and originally did not pay taxes, and originally didn't have to give the Nords anything, and they let the Grey Quarter go to crap with the oppertunity.

Here's a good argument against this that suggests the Dunmer do not in fact pay taxes.

http://forums.bethso...elm/?p=22588230


Ulfric wouldn't allow Altmer in his city when he was tortured by the Thalmor if he hated elves, and he wouldn't allow Dark Elves to work in the market or own farmland if he was racist or prejudiced either. Now, one good point some people have brought up is his segregation of Argonians out of the city. The definition of racism is in fact discrimination of a race, but he is segregating them because of their people's history with the Dark elves, not because of some prejudice against them or a belief about their race. The Argonians are known for being suddenly overtaken by the hist. This is what happened when the Argonians attacked Morowind, presumably out of revenge for their slavery in Morrowind. Ulfric is in the middle of a civil war, and would be a fool to take chances of increasing civil unrest, especially if it could get violent. The Empire could easily take advantage of that with riots in the streets if this were to actually happen.



Also keep in mind that Ulfric says nothing racist or prejudiced, and there's no actual evidence of his racism or prejudice anywhere.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Yes, let's not single out one pesky Nord ego as worthy of blame. Only one ego and you have annexation. War requires more than that. There are many egos in Skyrim. Elenwen's is massive. But about that chopping block....



First you say that you cannot prove your innocence, then you condemn a witness for failing to do so!

Under many circumstances, if you're innocent, it is certainly possible to prove that. The best example of such is the production of an alibi. What you cannot prove with absolute and perfect logical certainty is a negative. Everything else is up for grabs. Generally, in life and in law, absolute and perfect logical certainty isn't required, though, or court cases would go on without end. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities" have been working as legal standards in adversarial courts for quite some time. They work acceptably well in extra-legal debates as well, such as this one. At any rate, it is reasonable to assume that the Empire has devised some sort of established burden of proof other than "the accused are always guilty". However, in this case, they choose not to use it. It is reasonable also to condemn them for that decision.

We do not know whether or not our passengers in the carts said anything about our innocence or not. We do not even know what crime we were supposed to have committed, if any. We do not know exactly where we were or what we did to attract the attention of the Legion soldiers. We only know we were found in the vicinity of a group of rebels. The specific facts that both led up to and follow our capture are left up to the imagination of the player.

The Stormcloaks said nothing on Lokir's behalf right before he was killed fleeing or about ourselves right before we are placed on the block. This is fact. We do not know whether they said anything before we awoke from our stupor. That is up to our imaginations. We do know that we ourselves said nothing after we awoke. That is also fact. Why did we say nothing? What are our reasons for remaining silent? Could our reasons for remaining silent be the same reasons the Stormcloaks remain silent?

Well you yourself can't prove your innocence, you have no means of documentation or anything on your person that may indicate your innocence, or what you were doing with the Stormcloaks. We do know you were captured in the same ambush as the Stormcloaks, you were with them at the time of capture near Dark water crossing. You have also provided a very good point, you yourself remain silent and don't attempt to defend yourself. So this also puts a point in the Legion, you made no attempt to declare innocence, remaining silent does nothing to help you as the player.

This would mean it is hardly the Legions fault for placing you for execution when you make no case for yourself. Would be the same in any court of law or Military trial. Silence can be considered a form of guilt when given charges or a sentence. You gave them your name, nothing else. Something that a soldier would do on either side; name, rank etc.

Imperials can hardly be blamed for your execution when no attempt to declare innocence is given, you do not denounce your involvement with Ulfric Stormcloak and the Stormcloaks do not denounce you as one of them.

Is our own silence a form of guilt, or shock, we do not know.

I know that if I was in the Legion's shoes and a prisoner who was captured with the most wanted man in Skyrim, isn't talking or saying anything. I would have to make judgement then and there, same as the Captain did.

 

[Buffington Battle-Born]

STORMCLOAKS ARE RACIST NORDS FOLLOWING A CORRUPT LEADER AND THE EMPIRE IS NOW THE THALMOR'S PUPPET. CASE DISMISSED, BITCH!