Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

feliciano182 said:

.................................

.................................

Raijin, is that you ?

Click to expand...

I don't understand, is it because I'm defending Ulfric rather vigorously here?

Don't get me wrong, I hate Ulfric with a passion. He's a racist, small minded brute of a man that I relish killing. But that doesn't mean I'm willing to swallow this diatribe against him, especially when the only confirmation we have that something like this happened cited the crime of someone else.

Ilrita said:

Then why doesn't he kill the people around him who are not Nord? The accusations in the report do not fit Ulfric at all and nothing supports the notion he kills non-Nords. He may be racist, but throughout the game he has never killed someone who was not Nord.

So again, the MO does not fit.

And then there is my part in my post concerning why it isn't mentioned by others like Tullius.

Click to expand...

Good grief...

The book states that when Ulfric Stormcloak was in Markarth, he told the nord population to get up and fight, those that didn't were put to the sword, because as he saw it, they were either with him or against him.

That is pin-point perfect description of Ulfric's mindset, he doesn't tolerate neutrality in any way, a good example is Whiterun, Balgruuf had no real desire to seek protection from The Empire until Ulfric told him straightforward that he would not tolerate his city not being part of the stormcloak cause.

feliciano182 said:

Good grief...

The book states that when Ulfric Stormcloak was in Markarth, he told the nord population to get up and fight, those that didn't were put to the sword, because as he saw it, they were either with him or against him.

That is pin-point perfect description of Ulfric's mindset, he doesn't tolerate neutrality in any way, a good example is Whiterun, Balgruuf had no real desire to seek protection from The Empire until Ulfric told him straightforward that he would not tolerate his city not being part of the stormcloak cause.

Click to expand...

(for the below the "you"s are also plural pronoun)

Good grief indeed. Don't get irritated when someone asks you to explain your point. Just don't debate if you don't like it.

That's nice and all, but that doesn't answer my question. He hasn't been shown to kill people who are non-Nords and the Siege of Whiterun proves nothing because every citizen present before the attack were there after except the Jarl. So answer my question; why isn't he killing the non-Nords in Windhelm or any close by village/city?

And if by "book" you are referring to the report of which we speak, please re-read my last few posts on whether or not we should except it as truth (or at least not an extreme exaggeration of events). Of course, if you mean another book, please post it instead of being extremely vague.

Ilrita said:

(for the below the "you"s are also plural pronoun)

Good grief indeed. Don't get irritated when someone asks you to explain your point. Just don't debate if you don't like it.

That's nice and all, but that doesn't answer my question. He hasn't been shown to kill people who are non-Nords and the Siege of Whiterun proves nothing because every citizen present before the attack were there after except the Jarl. So answer my question; why isn't he killing the non-Nords in Windhelm or any close by village/city?

And if by "book" you are referring to the report of which we speak, please re-read my last few posts on whether or not we should except it as truth (or at least not an extreme exaggeration of events). Of course, if you mean another book, please post it instead of being extremely vague.

Click to expand...

What does Ulfric not killing Non-Nords in Windhelm have to do with Ulfric killing Nords in Markarth?

DrunkenMage said:

What does Ulfric killing Non-Nords have to do with Ulfric killing Nords in Markarth?

Click to expand...

Killing anyone, too, I was just focusing more toward the Forsworn when I made the last few posts. It makes even less sense that he would let people torture or torture himself, fellow Nords.

If one truly desires to fool the world, tell the truth. Khajiit doubts the book is accurate. If it is absolute fact, then Khajiit will admit he was deceived.

Ilrita said:

Killing anyone, too, I was just focusing more toward the Forsworn when I made the last few posts. It makes even less sense that he would let people torture or torture himself, fellow Nords.

Click to expand...

So it isn't in Ulfric's character to kill? The Markarth incident never happened? He didn't kill Forsworn by shouting them off the walls? He didn't kill the High King? I'm confused in what you're trying to say.

DrunkenMage said:

So it isn't in Ulfric's character to kill? The Markarth incident never happened? He didn't kill Forsworn by shouting them off the walls? He didn't kill the High King? I'm confused in what you're trying to say.

Click to expand...

We know he kills (please see my previous posts, it will clear it up, particularly the first post after I asked what was the recent discussion), I just doubt the exact details of Arius' report. I think it is an exaggeration.

He very well could have killed Forsworn to retake the city, but the rest of Arius' report is not of Ulfric's MO. If he is into torturing and slaughtering innocent people, why hasn't he done so at all during the Civil War? We are to believe that—despite his other actions or lack thereof before that point or after—Ulfric has done such things?

Ilrita said:

(for the below the "you"s are also plural pronoun)

Click to expand...

Huh ?

Ilrita said:

Good grief indeed. Don't get irritated when someone asks you to explain your point. Just don't debate if you don't like it.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, the reason why this thread is at almost 400 pages, it's because people rationalize the plops 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.

Ilrita said:

That's nice and all, but that doesn't answer my question. He hasn't been shown to kill people who are non-Nords and the Siege of Whiterun proves nothing because every citizen present before the attack were there after except the Jarl. So answer my question; why isn't he killing the non-Nords in Windhelm or any close by village/city?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Ilrita said:

And if by "book" you are referring to the report of which we speak, please re-read my last few posts on whether or not we should except it as truth (or at least not an extreme exaggeration of events). Of course, if you mean another book, please post it instead of being extremely vague.

Click to expand...

We're not speaking of The Bear Of Markarth ?

Ilrita said:

It is very suspicious. That is like taking the Stormcloak's word over an event they talked about once only once made by someone that supports them....Couple that to the fact that the event doesn't have any legitimate sources, that makes this out to be either an enormous lie, an exaggeration, or just propaganda.

Click to expand...

The book is a legitimate source. It is not an enormous lie, exaggeration or propaganda. The only basis you have to contradict it is subjective and speculative bias and that's not how lore works. 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. What's relevant is that the book exists, it's a historical accounting, and there is no game content or other lore source to contradict it and no objective reason to doubt it. If one were to adopt your approach to the lore it would be gutted because the fact of the matter is that much of the lore of the game is single sourced.

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.

It is lore and canon and it happened regardless of what you may want to believe for the purposes of your personal role play.

Dagmar said:

The book is a legitimate source. It is not an enormous lie, exaggeration or propaganda. The only basis you have to contradict it is subjective and speculative bias and that's not how lore works.

Click to expand...

I disagree, inconsistencies aside, the form in which the lore is presented (publications, journals, novellas, reports) does lend opportunity for the player to doubt the validity of the content.

And personally, I don't think The Bear Of Markarth is meant to be rigidly taken as the truth, I mean, do we believe with absolute tenacity that everything we read in a book is the undisputable truth ? Aside from that, it's clearly meant to be suggestive reading, it accomplishes the same purpose The Great War does in relation to the Civil War questline.

Dagmar said:

What's relevant is that the book exists, it's a historical accounting, and there is no game content or other lore source to contradict it and no objective reason to doubt it. If one were to adopt your approach to the lore it would be gutted because the fact of the matter is that much of the lore of the game is single sourced.

Click to expand...

Again, I'm an imperial supporter, it's in my best interests to support The Bear Of Markarth's depiction of Ulfric Stormcloak. Still, I was under the impression that the lore in this game was written with the purpose of being treated as one treats intellectual content in real life, it is either true or false.

Aside from that, I never saw the content as being "single sourced", obviously there was a team of developers working on it, but within the game there are authors, factions and institutions; so at least in some form of sense, all books and all content is produced by different people with different agendas and motivations in mind.

Now, to take cover.

*raises bunny-protecting shield*

feliciano182 said:

I disagree, inconsistencies aside, the form in which the lore is presented (publications, journals, novellas, reports) does lend opportunity for the player to doubt the validity of the content.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It only qualifies what the content is purporting. In a novel the author isn't presenting the content to you as factual. In journals and reports the author is presenting the content to you as factual. The author of The Bear of Markarth is presenting you with information about what happened at Markarth in 4E 176.

feliciano182 said:

..I mean, do we believe with absolute tenacity that everything we read in a book is the undisputable truth ?...

Click to expand...

If a document presents events as factual and nothing else in the game refutes or contradicts that information it's accepted as lore. The standards aren't comparable to how we assimilate knowledge about other things because when it comes to game lore, there's an exponentially smaller amount of resources to construct an entire reality. That's not just my standard. It's the standard of Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages and The Imperial Library.

feliciano182 said:

Aside from that, it's clearly meant to be suggestive reading, it accomplishes the same purpose The Great War does in relation to the Civil War questline.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by the term suggestive reading? If you're comparing it to the book The Great War: A Concise Account of the Great War Between the Empire and the Aldmeri Dominion to assert that it serves the same purpose, that supports the notion that it's accurate and reliable regarding the information it conveys.

feliciano182 said:

...Still, I was under the impression that the lore in this game was written with the purpose of being treated as one treats intellectual content in real life, it is either true or false...

Click to expand...

No, there is a significant amount of lore in the game that doesn't fit into this category. Aside from the novels, the lore sources about religion are filled with contradicting versions of the creation myth and there are historical accountings that are inconsistent such as The Arcturian Heresy. These are instances where there's an objective basis for players to debate about the veracity of the lore source and The Arcturian Heresy has been a source of a lot of debate within the player community about who Tiber Septim really was.

feliciano182 said:

Aside from that, I never saw the content as being "single sourced", obviously there was a team of developers working on it, but within the game there are authors, factions and institutions; so at least in some form of sense, all books and all content is produced by different people with different agendas and motivations in mind.

Click to expand...

Single sourced doesn't mean a single developer was involved in the development of the lore source. It means it's the only lore source available covering the information it provides. Unless the game presents you with an agenda or motivation that undermines the credibility of a source of information there's no basis to question its credibility. A rather obvious one would be Ulfric's claims about people being traitors to Skyrim. Aside from the fact that he's speaking metaphorically, he has an obvious bias that makes it clear that the assertion is merely his subjective opinion. Generally speaking there's nothing persuasive in the games to establish bias of the historical scholars who write many of the documents found in the games.

Jeez, I kinda knew Dagmar was going to eat me alive, but this is a little embarrasing.

Anyways, I can still struggle !

Dagmar said:

The author of The Bear of Markarth is presenting you with information about what happened at Markarth in 4E 176.

Click to expand...

But how do I know the book is not simply slander ?

Dagmar said:

What do you mean by the term suggestive reading?

Click to expand...

In that it's meant to make people question their motivations to join The Stormcloaks, it affects your choice in The Civil War.

Dagmar said:

It means it's the only lore source available covering the information it provides. Unless the game presents you with an agenda or motivation that undermines the credibility of a source of information there's no basis to question its credibility.

Click to expand...

That doesn't bother you ? THE ONLY source ? One little book recounting an event everyone should pretty much be up in arms about ?

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.

feliciano182 said:

Huh ?

Click to expand...

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.

feliciano182 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

feliciano182 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

feliciano182 said:

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.

Click to expand...

My point was that he never killed or tortured innocents, so my point still stands regardless of Ulfric taking the city.

feliciano182 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

feliciano182 said:

We're not speaking of The Bear Of Markarth ?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ilrita said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I got it, don't worry about that.

Ilrita said:

Imperial Supporters rationalized the Imperial wicked actions (as I previously mentioned in the discussions) and it wasn't a problem, though.

Click to expand...

Not really, you're just slightly unwilling to listen and you're not really looking to change your mind, that's perfectly fine, though that's not the same as rationalizing.

Rationalizing is when someone says The Empire disturbs them because there are no women among the ranks of the legionnaires, or that The Empire is racist and opressive because they don't change the racist nord laws by being opressive.

Ilrita said:

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...

Click to expand...

The Bear Of Markarth ?
If that is supposed to be Arius' report, then yes, we are talking about that one.

Ilrita said:

My point was that he never killed or tortured innocents, so my point still stands regardless of Ulfric taking the city.

Click to expand...

No no no, the point about The Bear Of Markarth perfectly describing Ulfric's personality stands with the siege of Whiterun as evidence, that was an issue that we were discussing ever since you said the person described by Arius does not match Ulfric's description.

As for the killing and torturing of innocents, it might very well be true, the evidence is not uncontestable, but it is evidence to some extent.

Ilrita said:

I would agree, perhaps, but I am not sure how it would be a problem to gameplay or NPCs?

Click to expand...

Well, imagine if you were playing on the side of The Stormcloaks, assaulting Whiterun, and Ulfric and Galmar made a call of arms, to which many citizens refused (Anoriath, Nazeem, Arcadia, the Battle-Borns) and then were executed.

It would be disruptive with many quests for starters, and if many were shopkeepers then you would be losing several NPC's without any gain whatsoever, it's a terrible idea from a developing standpoint.

Ilrita said:

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?

Click to expand...

As I see it, you're meant to think about the contents of the book and then make a choice about the validity of it's claims, specially when some descriptions are very accurate.

feliciano182 said:

But how do I know the book is not simply slander ?

Click to expand...

On what basis do put forth the premise that a historical book found authored by a scholar is slander? You have no more basis from game content to claim this than you have that the book The Great War is nothing more than Imperial Empire propaganda. The Great War is pretty much the only source that covers the details of the Great War so why should we accept it for what purports to be the truth? No one in the game affirms the bulk of the content just as no one in the game affirms the contents of The Bear of Markarth. While we're at it let's challenge the practice of cannibalism by Bosmer under the Green Pact and the Meat Mandate since that's single sourced by the First Edition of the Pocket Guide to the Empire. Since it's not affirmed by events or dialogues in the games we should simply dismiss it as more Imperial Empire propaganda to disparage the first Aldmeri Dominion and wipe it off the pages of canon for the Elder Scrolls universe. These are just a few of many things you have to dispense with from the canon of the game if you insist on attributing something as slanderous with no objective basis to do so.

feliciano182 said:

That doesn't bother you ? THE ONLY source ? One little book recounting an event everyone should pretty much be up in arms about ?

Click to expand...

Why should it people be up in arms about it? It happened a quarter of a century ago. There are several instances of only one document recounting specific aspects of en event. Further there are several opportunities in the game where NPCs could have referenced and refuted the books claims, but it never happens. Where are all of defenders of Ulfric's honor regarding this matter when there are so many to refute the Imperial Legion side's accounting of his duel with Torygg?

Claiming the premise could be true (i.e. it's slander) because there's no additional evidence to support it as truth is a superlative of the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance, i.e. taking a position and claiming it has truth value to it because there's no evidence that it's not true, rather than providing any evidence that it is in fact true. Using that flawed approach you can pretty much eviscerate much of the lore of the Elder Scrolls universe.

Ilrita said:

Think it ignorant, I don't really care.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's ignorant. It is factually reliant on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. There is no truth value to a premise simply because one proposes it and then claims otherwise based on the absence of evidence to refute it. Saying that a history book isn't an accurate accounting because there's no other evidence to support it does absolutely nothing to validate such a claim.

Ilrita said:

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).

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. As I've stated before, you can't take the same epistemological approach regarding the lore of the Elder Scrolls universe as you would the real world because the resources available are exponentially smaller, which is why your analogy regarding the Moon is weak and invalid.

Ilrita said:

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?

Click to expand...

Arius Arrianus wasn't supporting any side when he wrote The Bear of Markarth. It's publication predates the Stormcloak rebellion so there are no sides to take. The reference to him being an Imperial is a reference to his race not some kind of bias in favor of the Empire in producing scholarly works. He casts equal doubt on both Imperial and Nord scholarship regarding the Forsworn in his other book, and only by methodical research does he ultimately come to a conclusion that is consistent with those other works. That's hardly the sign of a biased scholar.

You also completely ignored other things I pointed out in the game that are completely consistent with Ulfric's actions described in the book, e.g. the Stormcloak war atrocities and the unilateral attack of a neutral Hold.

feliciano182 said:

Not really, you're just slightly unwilling to listen and you're not really looking to change your mind, that's perfectly fine, though that's not the same as rationalizing.

Rationalizing is when someone says The Empire disturbs them because there are no women among the ranks of the legionnaires, or that The Empire is racist and opressive because they don't change the racist nord laws by being opressive.

Click to expand...

I am actually a very willing person. I have had a change of view several times but before I change them, I'd like to know for sure, is all.

If you see my very first posts, you will see an example of this. I teamed up with the Imperials my first two saves. Although I haven't fully become a supporter of the Stormcloaks, I'm not entirely an Imperial either.

feliciano182 said:

The Bear Of Markarth ?

Click to expand...

feliciano182 said:

If that is supposed to be Arius' report, then yes, we are talking about that one.

Click to expand...

I definitely got turned around with the names, but yes, I'm discussing the Arius report. Sorry for the confusion.

feliciano182 said:

No no no, the point about The Bear Of Markarth perfectly describing Ulfric's personality stands with the siege of Whiterun as evidence, that was an issue that we were discussing ever since you said the person described by Arius does not match Ulfric's description.

As for the killing and torturing of innocents, it might very well be true, the evidence is not uncontestable, but it is evidence to some extent.

Click to expand...

Evidence, but evidence we can't disprove or prove, I say.

feliciano182 said:

Well, imagine if you were playing on the side of The Stormcloaks, assaulting Whiterun, and Ulfric and Galmar made a call of arms, to which many citizens refused (Anoriath, Nazeem, Arcadia, the Battle-Borns) and then were executed.

Click to expand...

How do we know for sure he would do these things, though? We have one source claiming he did them before, but absolutely nothing else to support it.

feliciano182 said:

It would be disruptive with many quests for starters, and if many were shopkeepers then you would be losing several NPC's without any gain whatsoever, it's a terrible idea from a developing standpoint.

Click to expand...

I am not getting it, I'm sorry. Why would you be losing NPCs?

feliciano182 said:

As I see it, you're meant to think about the contents of the book and then make a choice about the validity of it's claims, specially when some descriptions are very accurate.

Click to expand...

That certainly makes more sense than just calling it "truth" no matter what, especially considering the type of game we are playing.

I know Ulfric's a bastard, but he's never shown any action or thoughts supporting or hinting at slaughtering innocents or torturing.

Dagmar, I'm afraid I disagree with you on new sources of lore. Their veracity can only be truly assessed in the next game. The Pig Children, originally presented, was intended to color your interactions with the Orcs in Daggerfall. The lore outcome of the Warp in the West isn't what happened in the game, you chose one. Then Bethesda goes through and decides on the history they really want. It was entirely up to you to decide if the orcs were civilized or simply cunning in your game, and the game allowed for either interpretation. I wholeheartedly believe this is the same case with the Bear of Markarth. As admirable as the efforts of those who chronicle the lore are, they ignore the past practices of Bethesda in regards to their own lore: they change what they want, when they want to. Personal interpretation is both the heart and the purpose of the current game. Nothing is set until it's history.

Dagmar said:

I don't think it's ignorant. It is factually reliant on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. There is no truth value to a premise simply because one proposes it and then claims otherwise based on the absence of evidence to refute it. Saying that a history book isn't an accurate accounting because there's no other evidence to support it does absolutely nothing to validate such a claim.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt the Markarth incident happen, I just have suspicions on the exact details of it. I haven't seen any event in which Ulfric has issued or done similiar commands, so I find it suspicious that one single source claims he has done them.

Dagmar said:

No it doesn't. As I've stated before, you can't take the same epistemological approach regarding the lore of the Elder Scrolls universe as you would the real world because the resources available are exponentially smaller, which is why your analogy regarding the Moon is weak and invalid.

Click to expand...

But why would the resources being smaller mean that my analogy is invalid? Resources back during Muhammad and Jesus' live time was very limited and small. So forgive me, but I am not understand your point. Would you mind explaining it a bit more?

The Imperials stood at Markarth, did they not, when Ulfric took it and allowed him his worship. Why didn't any of them record this? Mention it? Anything? There had to be another person who could validate Arius' claims, but there isn't.

I'm sorry if having doubts on a single man's words sounds ignorant or weak in a debate. To me one man's words does not condemn another. To me this is hearsay.

Dagmar said:

Arius Arrianus wasn't supporting any side when he wrote The Bear of Markarth. It's publication predates the Stormcloak rebellion so there are no sides to take. The reference to him being an Imperial is a reference to his race not some kind of bias in favor of the Empire in producing scholarly works. He casts equal doubt on both Imperial and Nord scholarship regarding the Forsworn in his other book, and only by methodical research does he ultimately come to a conclusion that is consistent with those other works. That's hardly the sign of a biased scholar.

Click to expand...

I did not know it meant his race, that is news to me. I still cannot believe one man's word on this.

Dagmar said:

You also completely ignored other things I pointed out in the game that are completely consistent with Ulfric's actions described in the book, e.g. the Stormcloak war atrocities and the unilateral attack of a neutral Hold.

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it. I asked you to show me where because obviously I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't acknowledge you being right or wrong if I don't see or have the same 'evidence' you have.

As I said, the attack on Whiterun does nothing to prove your point. He had no men, women, elderly or children old enough to wield a sword slaughtered or tortured. You cannot use Whiterun. Nothing he did it in compares to the actions Arius claims he did in Markarth against the innocents.

"Stormcloak war atrocities"? Please share.