Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[Tdroid]

There's nothing in the lore that supports this. The ingame dialogues largely assert the opposite, i.e. that Skyrim is dependent on subsidies from the Empire.
She said nothing of the sort. She said that it was Nord custom to accept the challenge. That hardly makes it legal and regardless of whether one thinks it's not murder in layman's terms it's irrefutably high treason under Imperial Law to do any harm to an allegiated sovereign of the Empire under any circumstances.

Jarl Balgruuf seems to disagree with you, he talks to his steward about sending resources to Cyrodiil and that the city coffers are running short because of that.

Sybile Stentor says, and I quote: By the time we realized that Ulfric was here to challenge Torygg... it was already too late. By Nord custom, once the challenge was issued in court, Torygg had no choice but to accept.
If the duel had been illegal he couldn't have issued it in court. And duels have been a custom of the Empire in the past, for example in Morrowind where you could only reach the highest rank in the Imperial Legion by dueling the Knight of the Imperial Dragon to the death. And if duels were illegal, the challenger(radiant) would have been attacked by guards even if you accepted the duel(he is attacked if you refuse, bcause he "won't take no for an answer"). Everything points to duels being legal.
As a sidenote, Stentor also says that if Torygg had turnd the challenge down, Ulfric could have called for a new Moot. Seems to be a strange practise to follow an illegal duel, don't you think?

 

[Dagmar]

I challenge you to find me 1 objective source of that. 1 year on the Bethesda Forums have these debates been going on, and I have yet to see any such thing.

The objective source is all around you in Windhelm. You have to be blind and deaf to not notice that the Dunmer are sequestered in the Gray Quarter of Windhelm by law not choice. Dialogues confirm this and none refute it.

As for the Dunmer, you should read this book, the Decree of Monument, and remember that even if the Empire wins, the situation doesn't change.

The Decree of the Monument isn't a book. It's a decree on a monument.

You can read it at Refugee's Rest east of Windhelm and it in no way supports the notion that the situation doesn't change. It does support the notion that in Windhelm the situation changed for the worse since the time the decree was made 180 years ago.

You equate summoning an ally to using a power directly, so your question is essentially irrelevant.

No I equate use of Thu'um with use of Thu'um so your response is completely inaccurate.

It is like you challenging me and I accept, then I ask my friend who is a champion of mixed martial arts(for the sale of this example) to take you down for me.

It's not like that at all. Determining if use of Thu'um is acceptable isn't like choosing from a buffet menu. The concept that the Nord right of challenge has rules of conduct where there's a chart of Thu'um you can use in column A and Thu'um you can't use in column B is quite absurd. It's either allowed or it's not.

It is an art of magic that the Nords and Nords alone practised and it is an important cultural art.

It's not exclusive to the Nords. They have an affinity for learning it. It's role in Nord culture doesn't equate to it being a legitimate use of magic in an honor duel between two warriors.

And then there is a radient event where a challenging wizard can approach you. Since the terms of the duel is never specified you can approach it any way you want. Even though you are challenged because of your skill with magic, you can kill the challenger with a weapon in front of guards who will not intervene.
An example of fights that have specidied terms is the tavern brawls where they ask for no weapons or magic.

None of these are duels under the Nordic custom of right of challenge so all of them are irrelevant.

 

[Dagmar]

Jarl Balgruuf seems to disagree with you, he talks to his steward about sending resources to Cyrodiil and that the city coffers are running short because of that.

Sybille Stentor states that one of the reasons not to seek independence from the Empire is because it provides needed provisions for the province.

Sybile Stentor says, and I quote: By the time we realized that Ulfric was here to challenge Torygg... it was already too late. By Nord custom, once the challenge was issued in court, Torygg had no choice but to accept.
If the duel had been illegal he couldn't have issued it in court.

Why not? You don't seem to have a firm grip on the difference between what is recognized by custom and what is recognized by law. The two are not equivalents and there are lots of things that may be recognized by custom in some cultures that are prohibited by law. As I stated before, it's irrefutable that killing an allegiated sovereign of the Empire is high treason. This is beyond debate as it's black and white Imperial law contained within the text of Legal Basics by Anchivus, M.Z.F.:

Ignorance of the law is no defense. Be forewarned that the following are but the most universal of Tamrielan laws and regulations. Your own local province or principality may have unique laws of its own. As a citizen of Empire, it is your right and responsibility to know and follow these laws of the land....

High Treason:

Any act against (whether directly or indirectly, or any nonaction which results in circumstances, directly or indirectly, against) a allegiated sovereign or by a vassal to a liege, resulting (or what a reasonable person would assume would result) in physical, emotional, mental, or magical harm or injury in said sovereign or liege. The punishment for this crime will be death.

This makes the rest of your post completely irrelevant as the reason why killing Torygg is illegal has nothing to do with it being the result of a duel and everything to do with his being the High King, Skyrim's allegiated sovereign to the Empire.

 

[Tdroid]

The objective source is all around you in Windhelm. You have to be blind and deaf to not notice that the Dunmer are sequestered in the Gray Quarter of Windhelm by law not choice. Dialogues confirm this and none refute it.
The Decree of the Monument isn't a book. It's a decree on a monument.

You can read it at Refugee's Rest east of Windhelm and it in no way supports the notion that the situation doesn't change. It does support the notion that in Windhelm the situation changed for the worse since the time the decree was made 180 years ago.
No I equate use of Thu'um with use of Thu'um so your response is completely inaccurate.
It's not like that at all. Determining if use of Thu'um is acceptable isn't like choosing from a buffet menu. The concept that the Nord right of challenge has rules of conduct where there's a chart of Thu'um you can use in column A and Thu'um you can't use in column B is quite absurd. It's either allowed or it's not.
It's not exclusive to the Nords. They have an affinity for learning it. It's role in Nord culture doesn't equate to it being a legitimate use of magic in an honor duel between two warriors.
None of these are duels under the Nordic custom of right of challenge so all of them are irrelevant.

You seem to have missed some important information around Windhelm, including some very important dialogue between Ulfric and his steward.
For one, the Altmer of the city are rather well off and one of them even says that the Dunmer are too naive and proud to get out of their situation. She is a newcomer to the city and testifies thatthe Nords of Windhelm are suspicious of outsiders, but they will respect people who makes themselves useful.

In Ulfrics dialogue with his steward(I think it can only be heard after the Battle for Whiterun have been done in favor of the Stormcloaks so Galmar is not in the Palaca of Kings) his steward informs him that there is some unrest in the Grey Quarter. Ulfric goes on to answer his steward if he can tell them that he has more important issues at hand(the whole of Skyrim as he says). I am sure you'll just dismiss this, but seen in light of Free-Winters dialogue if he becomes Jarl the most plausbile explination is that he doesn't have the resources to help them(Free-Winter says that the war have taken a large toll on the city's resources and he has to stock up on wood and timber before he can do anything).
Free-Winter also says that he wants to let the Argonians in, but it turns out he has to keep them out of the city for their own safety.

The Decree of Monument states that the Dunmer can live in Skyrim without swearing alligiance to a Jarl or pay taxes to them and to be selfgoverned. This does change a whole lot, because you cannot put the blame of the Grey Quarters on Ulfric. Or any other Jarl in Skyrim. They are to govern themselves. Apparently they haven't done a good job at it.

I think you have missed an important aspect of the Dragon summoning shout. You do not command the dragon, you call upon him for aid. His own dialogue in the game says that he is not bound to come to you just because you shout his name. Call dragon = asking an ally.

How are these not under Nordic custom? You fight under Nordic law and can do so in any city if you wish without interuption of the guards.

The Thu'um may not be exclusive to the Nords, but I have yet to see an example of another group of people who used it, besides the Dragons.

 

[Tdroid]

Sybille Stentor states that one of the reasons not to seek independence from the Empire is because it provides needed provisions for the province.
Why not? You don't seem to have a firm grip on the difference between what is recognized by custom and what is recognized by law. The two are not equivalents and there are lots of things that may be recognized by custom in some cultures that are prohibited by law. As I stated before, it's irrefutable that killing an allegiated sovereign of the Empire is high treason. This is beyond debate as it's black and white Imperial law contained within the text of Legal Basics by Anchivus, M.Z.F.:
This makes the rest of your post completely irrelevant as the reason why killing Torygg is illegal has nothing to do with it being the result of a duel and everything to do with his being the High King, Skyrim's allegiated sovereign to the Empire.

I was unfamilair with that text, I'll admit. However, it doesn't make the rest of my post irrelevant. There is a time difference between this document and a change of management to boot. While this itself doesn't necessarily change anything, there is now a sharp contrast in legal procedure. You cannot claim that it is against the law if a refused challenge means a new Moot can be held, because the Moot is the electorate of Skyrim and a part of the government.

I don't think anyone cares to bother with the High Treason part of it, seems self-explainatory. However, I see no reason to believe that the Empire would have cared if it was not about Skyrim leaving the Empire or not.
One reason I think this is because Igmunds family(him or hos father, the sources seem to conflict on that detail) offered Talos worship to a Nord militia(Igmund himself states that it was they who offered it and I think he is a more reliable source than a book that blames Ulfric for the executions, which according to prisoners in Cidna Mine was performed by the Jarl and not Ulfric) and risked, at least as far as the Empire would know at that time, the Dominion to re-engage the war. However, they decided to find a scapegoat since Igmund stayed loyal to the Empire. Seems that they stay a part of the Empire is more important than the law, because I cannot find any punishment for Igmund or his father in the lore for breaking the law.

 

[Dagmar]

For one, the Altmer of the city are rather well off and one of them even says that the Dunmer are too naive and proud to get out of their situation. She is a newcomer to the city and testifies thatthe Nords of Windhelm are suspicious of outsiders, but they will respect people who makes themselves useful.

This does nothing to refute the fact that the Dunmer are sequestered in the Gray Quarter by law. In addition Niranye isn't a Dunmer so her experience is not reflective of those of the Dunmer.

....I am sure you'll just dismiss this

I dismiss it because it does nothing to refute the fact that Ulfric enforces the sequestration of the Dunmer in the Gray Quarter. Your conclusions about why he continues to enforce it are pure speculation and Brunwulf Free-Winter's conduct is irrelevant to the fact that Ulfric enforces an apartheid policy for the Dunmer.

The Decree of Monument states that the Dunmer can live in Skyrim without swearing alligiance to a Jarl or pay taxes to them and to be selfgoverned. This does change a whole lot, because you cannot put the blame of the Grey Quarters on Ulfric. Or any other Jarl in Skyrim. They are to govern themselves. Apparently they haven't done a good job at it.

The Decree of the Monument states nothing of the sort. It states that the Dunmer refugees are allowed safe passage into Skyrim and use of Refugee's Rest as a staging area to assist the Dunmer refugees in reuniting with their family and friends "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." It has nothing to do with allowing them to establish residence in Skyrim. The notion that the Jarls of Skyrim would allow the Dunmer to self govern on their sovereign territory is a bit laughable and it's also refuted by everything you see in the game.

I think you have missed an important aspect of the Dragon summoning shout. You do not command the dragon, you call upon him for aid. His own dialogue in the game says that he is not bound to come to you just because you shout his name. Call dragon = asking an ally.

First of all, let's be real. This is a hollow distinction. There's not a single instance where you call Odahviing where he doesn't attack your enemies. Second of all regardless of whether the Dragon attacks your enemy, it's your sole motivation for using the shout. You didn't use it so the Dragon can provide you moral support or talk about the weather. Whether he attacks your enemy in an honor duel under the Nordic right of challenge is irrelevant to whether your summoning him to do so isn't dishonorable and a breach of conduct.

How are these not under Nordic custom? You fight under Nordic law and can do so in any city if you wish without interuption of the guards.

First of all you don't fight in any city under the Nordic right of challenge so it's not relevant. Second of all it's not even accurate. With the exception of brawls which are not duels to the death, you can't fight in any city unless you're defending yourself. You're arrested by the guards and/or incur a bounty if you do so.

The Thu'um may not be exclusive to the Nords, but I have yet to see an example of another group of people who used it, besides the Dragons.

Are you serious? First of all if you're conceding the point so who cares whether you've witnessed it personally? Second, the game allows the Dragonborn to be of any race. Where are you even going with this statement?

 

[Mr1cammando]

Dagmar-Stomped.

 

[Tdroid]

This does nothing to refute the fact that the Dunmer are sequestered in the Gray Quarter by law. In addition Niranye isn't a Dunmer so her experience is not reflective of those of the Dunmer.
I dismiss it because it does nothing to refute the fact that Ulfric enforces the sequestration of the Dunmer in the Gray Quarter. Your conclusions about why he continues to enforce it are pure speculation and Brunwulf Free-Winter's conduct is irrelevant to the fact that Ulfric enforces an apartheid policy for the Dunmer.

The Decree of the Monument states nothing of the sort. It states that the Dunmer refugees are allowed safe passage into Skyrim and use of Refugee's Rest as a staging area to assist the Dunmer refugees in reuniting with their family and friends "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." It has nothing to do with allowing them to establish residence in Skyrim. The notion that the Jarls of Skyrim would allow the Dunmer to self govern on their sovereign territory is a bit laughable and it's also refuted by everything you see in the game.
First of all, let's be real. This is a hollow distinction. There's not a single instance where you call Odahviing where he doesn't attack your enemies. Second of all regardless of whether the Dragon attacks your enemy, it's your sole motivation for using the shout. You didn't use it so the Dragon can provide you moral support or talk about the weather. Whether he attacks your enemy in an honor duel under the Nordic right of challenge is irrelevant to whether your summoning him to do so isn't dishonorable and a breach of conduct.
First of all you don't fight in any city under the Nordic right of challenge so it's not relevant. Second of all it's not even accurate. With the exception of brawls which are not duels to the death, you can't fight in any city unless you're defending yourself. You're arrested by the guards and/or incur a bounty if you do so.
Are you serious? First of all if you're conceding the point so who cares whether you've witnessed it personally? Second, the game allows the Dragonborn to be of any race. Where are you even going with this statement?

I'm not even going to continue the Monument thing, we clearly interpret it differently and none of us will change our minds on it.

It is not a hollow distinction, if nothing else because the fact that you acknowledge that there is a distinction at all makes my previous analogy valid. You Call an ally, which would break the one on one part of a duel. Using another shout, like unrelenting force, will not.

It is accurate, you can fight the challenger without any legal issues or any involvement in any city if you agree to the duel. You cannot assault people, but that is not quite the same.

Yes, the Dragonborn can be of any race. However, how does that change that the Thu'um has been limited to nordic culture?

 

[Dagmar]

You cannot claim that it is against the law if a refused challenge means a new Moot can be held.

Yes I can because it is. There's no time difference. The role of the Moot precedes the establishment of the Third Empire. It's been that way for over a thousand years ever since the disastrous War of Succession that tore the First Empire of the Nords apart. The fact that Ulfric can sue for a meeting of the Moot to determine if Torygg deserves to remain High King in no way nullifies Imperial Law. It's a basic tenet in conflicts of law and is implied in Legal Basics that when there is a conflict between the laws of a territory and the laws of the nation state that rules over it, the laws of the nation state, e.g. the Empire, prevail.

However, I see no reason to believe that the Empire would have cared if it was not about Skyrim leaving the Empire or not.

Then you're kidding yourself. The Empire cares when one of it's most important capital laws is broken. To think otherwise you may as well think that it doesn't care about enforcing any of its laws. The White-Concordat isn't a law, it's a treaty. It's the Empire's duty to enforce it but it has no obligation to arrest or prosecute anyone for violating its terms.

 

[Squirrel_killer-]

It's truly dumbfounding that apologists for Ulfric continue to make this inaccurate assertion. There's a glaring objective and unassailable basis for his being a racist which is his enforcement of Windhelm's system of apartheid on the Dunmer. I can only conclude that some people simply don't understand what racism is and that it's defined far more by actions than words.

Back up for this is here. Since I'm just sick of watching you guys be idiots and out right ignore obvious racism every time Dagmar or someone else makes this god damn point. I will give you the fluffing definition of the term!

racism, n.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Now then, read that and then look at Ulfric's actions and right me an intelligent post on how Ulfric's actions do not mirror the definition.
Oh ya, Tdroid No one gives a flying fluff what was said on the Bethesda Forums, I doubt every argument here has been said there, and every argument there has been said here. I also found the Bethesda forums rather immature and full of idiots in my own experience. So if you want to say anything on the matter, please go to the Bethesda Forums, copy and paste a post from there with a link to the original post, then explain to us how all of what we have said here about Ulfric being a Racist tyrant is a misconception based on the context of said post. Also understand, this is not the only thread on this matter in these forums that I have seen in my time here, only the largest and most active. So please, enlighten us with your superior knowledge from the Bethesda Forums oh great one.

 

[Fenrir101]

When I first played I started with the stormcloaks but as I started seeing the truth I restarted and I'm leaning more to the imperials because they only signed the WGC in order to get their footing back and if you look around you will see stormcloaks take imperial hostages just like the imperials

 

[Jeremius]

Not here to argue, but did anyone think that the "High Treason" is more of the Starting a Revolution thing and not the killing the high king thing?

Do not report me, just throwing the question out there.

 

[Squirrel_killer-]

Not here to argue, but did anyone think that the "High Treason" is more of the Starting a Revolution thing and not the killing the high king thing?

Do not report me, just throwing the question out there.

Ulfric's High Treason was what started the Civil War, but if Ulfric had even only conspired to attack the Emperor or some other person who causing harm towards counts as High Treason (such as the High King), then that would also be counted as High Treason by Imperial Law.

 

[Flint firestorm]

Not here to argue, but did anyone think that the "High Treason" is more of the Starting a Revolution thing and not the killing the high king thing?

Do not report me, just throwing the question out there.

Revolution? Jeremius plez. It's called the civil war for a reason.

 

[Jeremius]

Ulfric's High Treason was what started the Civil War, but if Ulfric had even only conspired to attack the Emperor or some other person who causing harm towards counts as High Treason (such as the High King), then that would also be counted as High Treason by Imperial Law.

Perhaps, but the fact that it caused a war is what makes me think it is the war itself that is treason. If there wasn't a Civil War attached, I personally would just call it murder. Remember, Treason is often a political thing, not just a rule of law thing.

Personally, I see Ulfric as more of a terrorist against the empire and not a traitor.

 

[Squirrel_killer-]

Perhaps, but the fact that it caused a war is what makes me think it is the war itself that is treason. If there wasn't a Civil War attached, I personally would just call it murder. Remember, Treason is often a political thing, not just a rule of law thing.

I previously posted the definition of High Treason by Imperial Law from a Canon source, if the war was started with the intent of harming the Emperor or other Sovereign, then it would also be an act of High Treason.

 

[Jeremius]

I previously posted the definition of High Treason by Imperial Law from a Canon source, if the war was started with the intent of harming the Emperor or other Sovereign, then it would also be an act of High Treason.

Which once again bring up the question of is it really treason because a man was killed, or was it treason because of the war that was started by it?

 

[Docta Corvina]

Personally, I see Ulfric as more of a terrorist against the empire and not a traitor.

I don't know why he can't be seen as both, really. I don't see those things as mutually exclusive. If he previously swore allegiance to the Empire - which he did, as a Legionnaire - then he's certainly a traitor.

 

[Squirrel_killer-]

Which once again bring up the question of is it really treason because a man was killed, or was it treason because of the war that was started by it?

He committed High Treason the second he issued the challenge, tradition or not. Any actions in the War are just additional crimes.

 

[Flint firestorm]

Some people say torygg wasn't a true king but he was voted in by the moot.