feliciano182, I had my reply ready when the site started to switch servers. Thankfully the site remembered my post!
Also, connection to the site is very poor for me, so if I don't get back I was kicked off the connection.
Sorry, it is just something I have learned to mention in debates. I get ragged at a lot so I have to make it clear I'm not just singling out an individual.
I'm not sure how to explain, though, what I mean by "plural pronoun", so I hope that's not what you were "huhing" over.
Respectfully, the reason why this thread is at almost 400 pages, it's because people rationalize the pl*** out of the stormcloaks. I mean, we can contest all we want the veracity of The Bear Of Markarth, even I have agreed it's valid to say it's all BS, but by Talos, I think it's pushing it to say the description does not fit Ulfric.
Imperial Supporters rationalized the Imperial wicked actions
(as I previously mentioned in the discussions) and it wasn't a problem, though.
I never said the incident of Markarth was, in itself, BS. I beg that you re-read my posts.
Ulfric Stormcloak doesn't kill people for no reason, what the book says is, that those that refuse his call of arms are executed, the author argues that Ulfric demands complete and absolute support towards his cause, to not grant him such support means death.
Just so were straight, as now your posts have massively confused me *sorry*, we are talking about Arius' report, right? That's what I was told and linked to a few pages back...
The siege of Whiterun proves this perfectly because Balgruuf doesn't just garrison the legions at Tullius' demand, he asks Ulfric, in the traditional way, to acknowledge his neutrality in the conflict, which Ulfric denies, and then proceeds to invade.
My point was that he never killed or tortured innocents, so my point still stands regardless of Ulfric taking the city.
Obviously, we would not see Ulfric or Galmar doing call of arms and executions "Markarth Style" because that would cause inmense problems in regards to the gameplay, several NPC's would have to be eliminated to prove that point, so either way, the gameplay was never going to demonstrate it.
I would agree, perhaps, but I am not sure how it would be a problem to gameplay or NPCs?
So we
are to just believe an incident occurred
exactly as Arius said in which displays actions that Ulfric has
never been seen to support/do or is even talked about?
We're not speaking of The Bear Of Markarth ?
I'm not sure what you are speaking of...that's why I asked you to clarify.
Dagmar:
Relying on the absence of additional supporting lore is an appeal to ignorance that bears no persuasive weight in general and for lore purposes in particular.
Think it ignorant, I don't really care. What I am saying makes perfect sense. It is illogical to accept a source on a matter when it is the only source available and if it isn't even mentioned in the game (torture etc etc part). But according to this logic, it is ignorant to disbelieve that the Moon was split by Muhammad because we only have a single source quoting the event such, or that Jesus woke from the dead and ascended to heaven, and a whole bunch of other things.
To consider a
single source quoting an event (that is never mentioned in the detail described)
carefully makes absolute perfect sense.
See my other posts. I don't disregard that the Markarth incident happened, I doubt that it happened
exactly as Arius described.
But do you have
absolute proof that everything in it is exactly as it happened? So far I have seen nothing besides Arius' report.
Had this been the other way around and a scholar who supported the Stormcloaks made a similar report regarding Imperial behaviour and that scholar was the
only one who could be found quoting it, would you believe it?
Most likely not.
There is nothing contradictory to what the game reveals about Ulfric in his executing non-combatants for failing to support his cause. The notion is supported by the fact that the Stormcloaks commit similar atrocities for which they pay reparations at the ceasefire negotiations at High Hrothgar (as does the Imperial Legion). It's also consistent with Ulfric's one dimensional, black and white way of approaching things, i.e. his "you're either with me or against me" attitude that prompts him to attack neutral Whiterun.
Yes there is. You want to believe a report,
a single report from someone of the Imperial side, talk of actions Ulfric has never done before. This doesn't match him. This isn't the correct MO. It is suspicious.
If it exists or he has done similar things, show me where he has committed such things before.
Taking a city where the people who were alive before (minus Imperial soldiers, of course) were still there after or
hearsay does not count.
Though I suppose if you think it ignorant, then there isn't a need to respond to me...you don't accept why it is suspicious, so I can't prove it to you.