Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[feliciano182]

Unfortunate that they do not... It does not bother the Colovian that Argonian will conquer. That Aldmeri waits with hungry intentions. That the Tullius needs more resources. This Empire is cheap.

Ozan findsgreat warmth in rebellion. Though Ozone stated the Stormcloak Jarl would not truly allow absolute freedom to Khajiit, he doubts he would further prevent Khajiit. Or at least inspire Rebellion in Cyrodiil, Morrowind, High Rock, perhaps Elsweyr... revolution to liberate all. A global revolution. This shall suffice for Khajiit.

You know, a lot of this is going around in circles and circles that we've touched upon before......countless times

First, there's no indication within the game that The Empire is not bothered by an argonian invasion, by what we have we could perfectly accuse The Stormcloaks of the same damn thing.

Second, The Empire is anything but unpreoccupied by The Aldmeri Dominion, several times in the game it is stated that The Empire is gathering it's forces for a conflict that may very well come in the future, and third, that is precisely the reason why one could perfectly speculate Tullius is frustrated with being sent to Skyrim, because things in Tamriel are happening which are far more important than worshipping some asswipe god as loudly as the nords want, a war is brewing, and rather than being sent to a province he has little interest in, he wants to be in Cyrodiil for when the real war starts.

*SUDDEN LOUD GASP FOR AIR*

I mean, if The Empire had been demanding nord people to worship a god of their own centuries before The WGC, if imperial lords had been taking the nord maidens' virginities on their wedding nights, or actively suppressing any part of nord culture by force.

BUT THEY DON'T

Really, this entire matter is about worshipping an idiot god in public by a megalomaniac prick that wants to rule Skyrim simply to have songs made to him.

 

[Moris]

One might say Stormcloak has supporters precisely because so many Nords believe that statements like those above are representative of the Empire's position.

Asswipe god, eh?

Them's fightin' words, them are.

 

[feliciano182]

One might say Stormcloak has supporters precisely because so many Nords believe that statements like those above are representative of the Empire's position.

Asswipe god, eh?

Them's fightin' words, them are.

Anyone who believes freedom of worship is worth more than the lives of thousands of people is nothing short of a raging lunatic.

In my humble opinion !

Frankly, I don't want to think I'm getting too deep into what the writers intended to communicate with the story in The Civil War, but I think it's really an issue about contesting Benjamin Franklin's statement about Security VS Liberty, it might very well be another Order VS Chaos metaphor, but I'm very intrigued this has been tackled from an "american ideals" angle, it seems very interesting to me that someone would want to stick it to the founding fathers in a videogame, then again, that's assuming The Empire is evidently right, which is not the case.

Also, where the hell is Docta Corvina ?!

 

[Moris]

Anyone who believes freedom of worship is worth more than the lives of thousands of people is nothing short of a raging lunatic.

In my humble opinion !

Frankly, I don't want to think I'm getting too deep into what the writers intended to communicate with the story in The Civil War, but I think it's really an issue about contesting Benjamin Franklin's statement about Security VS Liberty, it might very well be another Order VS Chaos metaphor, but I'm very intrigued this has been tackled from an "american ideals" angle, it seems very interesting to me that someone would want to stick it to the founding fathers in a videogame, then again, that's assuming The Empire is evidently right, which is not the case.

Also, where the hell is Docta Corvina ?!

Welcome to just about the entirety of human history, driven forward by nothing but raging lunatics, I guess.

The trouble with proclaiming that religious freedom isn't worth dying over is that, if you can say that in public without fear, you are exercising your religious freedom, and thousands already did die over it. Religious freedom doesn't just protect believers. It protects atheists and agnostics too, countless numbers of whom have also died on the pyres for their beliefs, which is why so many of us believe that it's critical to support and encourage it no matter what we worship or don't worship.

I don't see anything particularly American about the CW story at all. But then, I'm not American.

 

[feliciano182]

The trouble with proclaiming that religious freedom isn't worth dying over is that, if you can say that in public without fear, you are exercising your religious freedom, and thousands already did die over it. Religious freedom doesn't just protect believers. It protects atheists and agnostics too, countless numbers of whom have also died on the pyres for their beliefs, which is why so many of us believe that it's critical to support and encourage it no matter what we worship or don't worship.

Ah ! So many paralells with real life !

To my understanding, freedom of speech encompasses freedom of religion, that doesn't mean all speech is naturally religious, and neither that it is being defended by religious law.

As for "thousands already did die over it", I'm not getting how that allusion to real life has anything to do with the discussion, no harm meant.

I don't see anything particularly American about the CW story at all. But then, I'm not American.

Neither am I, but the phrase from Mister Franklin keeps ringing as I play through The Civil War:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

 

[Moris]

Ah ! So many paralells with real life !

To my understanding, freedom of speech encompasses freedom of religion, that doesn't mean all speech is naturally religious, and neither that it is being defended by religious causes.

As for "thousands already did die over it", I'm not getting how that allusion to real life matters has anything to do with the discussion, no harm meant.



Neither am I, but the phrase from Mister Franklin keeps ringing as I play through The Civil War:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

You are the one bringing up "real life" parallels. If your own points are not even to be discussed, then you're just mumbling to your own echoes. Do you want a conversation or not? I could just put you on ignore in order to eliminate the temptation to reply to you, if you'd prefer.

About religious freedom. It does not just encompass freedom TO worship. It also includes freedom FROM the requirements to worship. (How would you like to be forced to attend Sunday school every week and attend weekly worship of a god you don't believe in? Because that' can also happen when you don't have freedom of religion.) Religious freedom also includes the right to make disparaging remarks about mainstream or official beliefs. Freedom of speech, which should give you that right, is very weak on its own, when blasphemy is still a punishable crime. Likewise, freedom of religion is weak without freedom of speech. And both are weakened when there is no freedom of assembly -- that is to say, when there is no freedom to exercise those rights in gatherings, in public, before your fellow men and women.

 

[feliciano182]

You are the one bringing up "real life" parallels. If your own points are not even to be discussed, then you're just mumbling to your own echoes. Do you want a conversation or not? I could just put you on ignore in order to eliminate the temptation to reply to you, if you'd prefer.

You are doing so as well, you are speaking of religious freedom, which is precisely an ideological matter that mirrors events that happen or have happened in the real world.

I am not accusing you of anything nor mocking you, I was merely pointing out how you, as well as others, find personal, real reasons, to support one side or the other in The Civil War, and none of that is impossible to do so because the story in question is fictional.

And speaking of "mumbling to your own echoes", you're only fighting by yourself miss, so go ahead with putting me on ignore or just take an aspirine and relax.

About religious freedom. It does not just encompass freedom TO worship. It also includes freedom FROM the requirements to worship. (How would you like to be forced to attend Sunday school every week and attend weekly worship of a god you don't believe in? Because that' can also happen when you don't have freedom of religion.)

Yeah, I'm not sure about that, regardless, what does this have to do with The Civil War ? What are we trying to get at here ?

 

[Moris]

This is what I am getting at:

If you are not protected by some variety of legal prohibition on the establishment of an official religion, your right to mock or criticize that religion, possibly any religion, or even the idea of a religion is tenuous at best, even if you have some sort of equivalent legally established right to free speech. No government permits all speech. If a government has permitted the establishment of an official religion, it may easily define your anti-religious complaints as seditious because when there is an official religion, it has historically become an organ of the state (or all too often, the state becomes an organ of the church). Under such circumstances, blasphemy may become treason. This is less true today, as we have largely abandoned the idea that religious administration may have a hand in civil government, and how fearful or how confident you may feel publicly expressing your thoughts may rest on how benevolent or tolerant your government is. But governments change, and benevolence can't always be counted on. That is why I said that you likely owed your fearless public disparagement of these concepts to others who fought over the ages to bring us to the point in the 21st century where most of us living in democracies can essentially, and with very few restrictions, say whatever we please, even if it is explicitly and purposefully offensive. Whether you feel any debt of gratitude to those who fought hundreds of years ago, perhaps in countries thousands of miles away, is entirely a matter of your own personal conviction. It's not fashionable these days, I understand, to respect the accomplishments of people hundreds of years ago. So perhaps you also care very little, if at all.

What has this got to do with THE Civil War?

I am explaining why I, personally, find religious freedom an important doctrine to support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but religious freedom (of a sort) is something that, I believe, comes up from time to time in Skyrim.

About the real life thang...

If your persistent quips about "real life" issues has something to do with my refusal to pick which fictional faction I, in "real life", would join, I do believe you have misunderstood my point. I never claimed that we should not discuss "real life" issues in relation to the fictional civil war in Skyrim. In fact, that would be impossible because our very language is based on "real life" experiences, without which the words we're using would make very little sense.

My argument with your scenario came from your assertion that we must leave Nirn and pretend somehow that the factions existed "in real life". I find that absurd, for the reasons I already explained (I don't join pretend armies in real life.) But as long as we're willing to recognize that the factions do exist in Nirn, and that they are best examined within of the context of the game, then I see no barrier to bringing up "real life" issues.

And finally:

I am disagreeing with you. That does not mean that I am upset or angry. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have very little emotional investment in your response to me because you are a stranger to me. I'm arguing because it's entertaining for me. Not because it matters.

 

[feliciano182]

What has this got to do with THE Civil War?

I am explaining why I, personally, find religious freedom an important doctrine to support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but religious freedom (of a sort) is something that, I believe, comes up from time to time in Skyrim.

Well, you obviously find that personally important, that's really as far as I can get.

Frankly, I don't believe worshipping Talos loudly should be the cause for a war no one really needs, but I can acknowledge that's only my take on it.

My argument with your scenario came from your assertion that we must leave Nirn and pretend somehow that the factions existed "in real life". I find that absurd, for the reasons I already explained (I don't join pretend armies in real life.) But as long as we're willing to recognize that the factions do exist in Nirn, and that they are best examined within of the context of the game, then I see no barrier to bringing up "real life" issues.

It was figurative speech, I wasn't trying to say we should remove ourselves and the factions completely from the game world, I was only asking for personal judgements to be shared, it's quite random you interpreted that from my original post, no matter anyways, it's all clear now

 

[Moris]

Well, you obviously find that personally important, that's really as far as I can get.

Frankly, I don't believe worshipping Talos loudly should be the cause for a war no one really needs, but I can acknowledge that's only my take on it.



It was figurative speech, I wasn't trying to say we should remove ourselves and the factions completely from the game world, I was only asking for personal judgements to be shared, it's quite random you interpreted that from my original post, no matter anyways, it's all clear now

I would support the free worship of Talos so that those who don't worship Talos would not be forced to worship him or anyone else. In real life I am agnostic. I have an extremely strong interest in maintaining my freedom not to believe. Does that mean I'd support a war? In real life, no. Peace is always the preferred outcome. If I transplanted myself, in pixel form, into Tamriel, I would counsel Ulfric to engage in non-violent protest, and hope that the increasing pointless loss of Nord life to the Thalmor justiciars would prick the Empire's conscience into action. If he refused, which he likely would (unless this new non-violent faction gained so much support that he was forced to take note), I would found this faction of protesters. Well, that is, if my pixelated self wasn't eaten by a sabre cat on day one. But I would be protesting the Empire, vocally and disobediently. In all likelihood this would preclude joining it.

But the characters I play are not me. They weren't raised with (what they would likely consider) quaint 20th century notions of peace and progress. And of course these options are not available to them. The only peace is in non-intervention, as the Greybeards. Or in complete victory.

Violence is the currency of debate in Skyrim. I play violent characters. Very violent characters. They eventually choose a side, some more easily than others, because of who they are.

 

[Raijin]

OK y'all I need some help here

As part of my new years resolution I promised myself that this year I will have at least 1 character that is heavily devoted to being part of the Imperial legion.

I just created a Redguard character named Cyrus. Granted I created him for the fun of it, and didn't bother to think of any background stories until now.

Born and raised in Hammerfell. I was thinking that he was caught convincing others to rethink their stance against the Empire, and how he wants Hammerfell to be united with the Empire again. One of his best trust worthy friends alerted him that the authorizes were looking for him, and how his crimes were high enough to be called treason against Hammerfell. If caught he would be certain to be executed for his crimes against Hammerfell. He fled Hammerfell and that's how he got caught by the legion crossing the border.

Does this make any lore sense?

He was pissed off at the legion for wanting to wrongfully execute him, but apparently as days goes past that it becomes a distant memory.

 

[Crooksin]

OK y'all I need some help here

As part of my new years resolution I promised myself that this year I will have at least 1 character that is heavily devoted to being part of the Imperial legion.

I just created a Redguard character named Cyrus. Granted I created him for the fun of it, and didn't bother to think of any background stories until now.

Born and raised in Hammerfell. I was thinking that he was caught convincing others to rethink their stance against the Empire, and how he wants Hammerfell to be united with the Empire again. One of his best trust worthy friends alerted him that the authorizes were looking for him, and how his crimes were high enough to be called treason against Hammerfell. If caught he would be certain to be executed for his crimes against Hammerfell. He fled Hammerfell and that's how he got caught by the legion crossing the border.

Does this make any lore sense?

He was pissed off at the legion for wanting to wrongfully execute him, but apparently as days goes past that it becomes a distant memory.

I made a Redguard as well. At first I was thinking the Stormcloaks, as what happened with Hammerfell and the Empire. I read up about the lore and it seems as though the Redguards have a very shaky history with the Nords. So really, Redguard would probably be neutral, but would pick the Empire if they had to, Imo, anyways.

 

[ChildoftheSky]

I know both sounds like a hard feat.. But this game is so immense that I have had no problem playing different characters and taking different sides.. Its the only way to fully experience all this game has to offer!

 

[Ozan]

If one sacrifices freedom for safety, do they deserve either?

Perhaps it is better to acknowledge war as an avalanche. Something so powerful can be started by a simple word. When the sands roll down, it destroys so many. Many who are not involved are swept up, destroyed by coincidence, albeit massive. Yet, wherever one runs and hide is a mountain with unstable sands, waiting to become an avalanche. One can blame the wind, the witches, the gods, but who would blame the build up of sand?

Ozan supports the Stormcloak because he knows that though there breath began the movement of sands, others placed the sands there to be moved.

They are not the Legion. They are Stormcloak, viewed as extremists but not liberators. They are savages, scum at it's worse. Pariahs of a dying age.

This shall suffice for Ozan. He cares not what happens to the Empire of Man as the Empire of Man cares not for her subjects. Redguard, Nord, Bosmer, Khajiit, Dunmer. For so long, these races were under the Empire's banner, yet the sun is hot and this banner provides only shade for so few. Redguard fights alone, Dunmer lives in exile, Bosmer can not flee, Khajiit was allowed to be fooled, and the Nord suffers religious oppression with public executions being justified with little evidence, claims that a man murders when a duel to the death is accepted, unclear massacres with each side blaming the other. Most impressive how far the distance one side must go to create a massacre. Quite inconvenient.

Ozan is not an Imperial because the former Legion belongs to the fat Colovian lords. No need for a warrior people, not when a people may be bought. Such a shame the people of private armies are involved in such an uproar.

Ozan has said this once so it shall be said again. Ideas are more dangerous than spears. If we are not allowed spears, why would we be allowed ideas?

 

[Moris]

One must respect Khajiit for the formidable ability to hit their targets, even when they use stories to do it, and their targets are not the ones you might expect.

 

[Ozan]

Khajiit makes everything look magnificent.

 

[Crooksin]

The Khajiit are a crafty folk.

 

[Raijin]

Khajiit can be cocky at times, and so they must be put into their places from the local wildlife Bunnies

 

[Docta Corvina]

I realize that this is likely not his intention at all, but the more I read Ozan's very articulate posts about supporting the Stormcloaks and opposing the Empire in every way possible, the more depressing the whole picture gets. Like, Tamriel is really just one clusterfl*ff of assorted asshattery at every turn that needs to just get eaten by Mehrunes Dagon already so the All-Maker can start over again.

We all know that if that happened, the Khajiit would be the only ones to survive and found a new society.

 

[Raijin]

I realize that this is likely not his intention at all, but the more I read Ozan's very articulate posts about supporting the Stormcloaks and opposing the Empire in every way possible, the more depressing the whole picture gets. Like, Tamriel is really just one clusterfl*ff of assorted asshattery at every turn that needs to just get eaten by Mehrunes Dagon already so the All-Maker can start over again.

We all know that if that happened, the Khajiit would be the only ones to survive and found a new society.

That domain rightfully belongs to Lord Sheogorath Daedric Prince of Madness.

Now shut up and have some CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE!