Dragonborn should be High king/Queen of skyrim

  • Welcome to Skyrim Forums! Register now to participate using the 'Sign Up' button on the right. You may now register with your Facebook or Steam account!
The High King/Queen of Skyrim does not seem like an absolute monarch to me. After all, the Jarls usually keep to there respective holds. And in the end the High King has swears fealty to the Emperor. Jarl Elisif, who is supposedly the High Queen of Skyrim seems more like a figurehead to me.
 
Well Jeremius, Ulfric as High King would be much different than Elisif. Skyrim would be an independent nation under Ulfric unlike Elisif, as Skyrim would still be a part of the Empire.

Ulfric unlike Elisif would be able to have more power as High King than Elisif ever would.
 

Osena

Member
My dragonborn is member of the companions and a officer in the imperial legion he would make a good King
 

Raijin

A Mage that loves a Templar
My current high elf Dragonborn would not suit well for the status of High king of Skyrim. Hes in skyrim to try to build a relationship with the nords, and to earn their respect, which isn't easy at all. Not all nord trust my Dragonborn, in fact their deeply offended that a High elf was chosen to be the next Dragonborn. Some even think it's a curse from the gods.
 

ryguy90

Member
Well by "rule" do you mean what they did in Fable 3 when all you did was make a few choices that change the way the game ends but never really makes you feel like you are in charge or do you mean actually lead men into battle and have more than two choices on every decision you have to make.
 

i K33L n0085

Destroyer Devour Master
The idea of sitting on a throne all day listening to peasants complain bores me.
I would much rather continue my adventures.

Unless I could get a steward to run things for me, and pass a bunch of awesome laws.
Guards will no longer be allowed to say "I used to an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee."
All the NPCs I find annoying will be publicly executed.
Followers that get in my way when I'm trying to exit a room will be publicly whipped.
And shopkeepers must give me items for free.

What do you know? I'm already going mad with power.
 

Osena

Member
The idea of sitting on a throne all day listening to peasants complain bores me.
I would much rather continue my adventures.

Unless I could get a steward to run things for me, and pass a bunch of awesome laws.
Guards will no longer be allowed to say "I used to an adventurer like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee."
All the NPCs I find annoying will be publicly executed.
Followers that get in my way when I'm trying to exit a room will be publicly whipped.
And shopkeepers must give me items for free.

What do you know? I'm already going mad with power.

Id like to have haskill back to help run things for me lol
 
The Moot is held to chose who amongst the Jarls becomes the High King of Skyrim. The DB is not a Jarl, and has no option to become one. Also, whatever the DB has done depends greatly on what the Player choses. So, you would include the possibility of being hunted in every Hold, (an achievement) and a 4th stage Vampire in "Everything the DB has done," regardless of which side of the Civil War s/he supported? I've seen this argument on every forum I've discussed Skyrim. It still doesn't hold water.
 

Gowsh

Old Fart
You know who I think deserves the role?
Brunwulf Free-Winter, the nicest guy in Skyrim, who replaces Ulfric Stormcloak as Jarl of Windhelm if the Empire wins the civil war. Within hours of assuming his post he meets with the local dark elves and promises to develop and renovate the ghetto-like Grey District they've been forced to live in. He also retains most of Ulfric's court staff since they know their jobs well enough and offers lodging to the Jarls that were deposed for supporting the Stormcloaks. He then takes charge of Windhelm and doesn't lose that sense of modesty or approach-ability.
Basically he's in the running for the best person ever award.

Win the war for the Stormcloaks and he's no picnic.

Whenever you're within a few feet of him, he calls you a milk drinker and then gets even more belligerent.

Like most of the NPCs that throw mealy mouthed insults, no options are available to redress your grievance. :sadface:

And besides, I want to be the High King, darnit! :cool:
 

Dagmar

Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
The High King/Queen of Skyrim does not seem like an absolute monarch to me. After all, the Jarls usually keep to there respective holds. And in the end the High King has swears fealty to the Emperor. Jarl Elisif, who is supposedly the High Queen of Skyrim seems more like a figurehead to me.
Elisif the Fair is the Jarl of Haafingar not the High Queen of Skyrim, she notes this in her dialogues when she acknowledges that the position must be determined by the Moot.

To be the High King/Queen of Skyrim the Dragonborn would have to be of noble blood. Restricting a players's backstory like that would severely limit a player's roleplaying options.
 

Osena

Member
The Dragonborn is far more then noble blood DB is a Dovah he/she is a Dragon in a mortal body there Voice is all that is needed to rule
 

The Fatalist

Destroyer of goats
The Dragonborn is far more then noble blood DB is a Dovah he/she is a Dragon in a mortal body there Voice is all that is needed to rule
Not true. That is the same belief that the old nords had, not the current ones. Titus Mede proved that.

My Dragonborn is a High elf. How would that work? Or an Argonian?
Sure, having the Dragonblood means something, but with all of the other variables, It'd be implausable and impractical.
Implausable, because there is no way that the nords would accept an Argonian to rule their province, plus they'd want way more leadership experience than what the Dragonborn currently has. (Which is why Jarls are the only ones up for the position.)
Impractical, because even if Alduin is gone, the dragon threat is still at large and gameplay would really lessen the credability of the position. For example, you don't want to simply be signing documents forevermore and if you went off adventuring it'd be hard to believe, at least not without the entire 2nd legion.
 

Osena

Member
Not true. That is the same belief that the old nords had, not the current ones. Titus Mede proved that.

My Dragonborn is a High elf. How would that work? Or an Argonian?
Sure, having the Dragonblood means something, but with all of the other variables, It'd be implausable and impractical.
Implausable, because there is no way that the nords would accept an Argonian to rule their province, plus they'd want way more leadership experience than what the Dragonborn currently has. (Which is why Jarls are the only ones up for the position.)
Impractical, because even if Alduin is gone, the dragon threat is still at large and gameplay would really lessen the credability of the position. For example, you don't want to simply be signing documents forevermore and if you went off adventuring it'd be hard to believe, at least not without the entire 2nd legion.

my frist Dragonborn was a Imp and i helped the SC's and as dragonborn your race dos not matter you are like Talos too them no mater what race you are you all still dubed Ysmir dragon of the east just as talos was
 

Dagmar

Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
The Dragonborn is far more then noble blood DB is a Dovah he/she is a Dragon in a mortal body there Voice is all that is needed to rule
A Dovahkiin is not a Dragon in a mortal body. He or she posseses the blood of a Dragon as detailed in The Book of the Dragonborn by Emeline Madrine of the Order of Talos and by Trials of St. Alessia and the Voice is not all that's needed to rule. The lore makes it quite clear that the Moot selects the High King when there is no living heir and that they do so from the members of the royal family.
my frist Dragonborn was a Imp and i helped the SC's and as dragonborn your race dos not matter you are like Talos too them no mater what race you are you all still dubed Ysmir dragon of the east just as talos was
Nothing in the game implies that anyone sees you as akin to Talos nor are you ever dubbed Ysmir. That's merely self- aggrandizement by you of your character. If you want to pretend that it's true that's your prerogative but it's not canon or supported by lore.
 

Dagmar

Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
you do know that Ulfric Killed Torygg, so by ancient right He is the royal Family now. just saying, but if the Moot chooses someone else, then that ancient right means nothing.
Killing the High King doesn't make you royal family anymore than killing John F. Kennedy makes Lee Harvey Oswald a member of the Kennedy family. If you're talking about the right of challenge, that tradition has never bequeathed the right to the High King's Throne to the victor. It's a challenge to the authority of the High King, not the assertion of one's own authority. Ulfric is qualfied for selection by the Moot because as a Jarl he's already of royal blood.
 

Dagmar

Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
and yet by right Ulfric killing the high king makes him high king by default, except that the imperial Jarls want and imperial Jarl for high queen (elisif) read the book Skyrim's rule, it states that if the high king is killed in trial by combat, the victor of that trial becomes high king.
No it doesn't. I have read Skyrim's Rule and it says nothing of the sort. To the contrary, it makes it quite clear that the High King is selected by the Moot.

The author Abdul-Mujib Ababneh is a Redguard foreigner who, as the sub-title of the book implies, is merely conveying his personal perspective of Nord society from his limited experience in Skyrim. It's quite clear he doesn't have an accurate grasp of the function of the Moot as he thinks they always appoint the successor to the High King when they don't have the authority to do so unless there is no lineal heir. He's confusing the ceremonial role of the Moot when a lineal heir takes the Throne (as described by Sybille Stentor) with their authoritative role when they actually do select a High King. The Jarl of Haffingar (not Solitude, which is further evidence of the author's ignorance) has held the seat continuously because up to the death of Torygg, there has always been direct lineal heir to the High King.
 

El Fonz0

Active Member
In my opinion, the Dragonborn has as much a claim for High King/Queen of Skyrim as Lokir. Why would a High Elf or Argonian or Orc be High King/Queen of a land of Nords?
 

Dagmar

Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
and yet by right Ulfric killing the high king makes him high king by default...it is an ancient tradition. Trial by combat=victor becomes high king...
No it's not. You're saying it is doesn't magically make it so. There is zero lore to support this claim and plenty of lore to refute it including the words of Ulfric himself. Both he and Elisif (who is a Nord not an Imperial) tell you what must happen for there to be a new High King, i.e. the Moot must convene to select a High King.
Also, the Jarls are not actually Royalty so it makes not sense to call Ulfric Royalty unless he is related to the high king.
The Jarls are royalty. The very same book which you cited states that the Jarls are the kings of their respective Holds. In general, you can find references in books that describe the Jarls that alternatively use the term King. Given that nobles customarily marry other nobles and would want to marry outside of the family to expand their influence and form alliances (and to an extent limit incestuous marriages) many, if not all of the Jarl houses can probably trace their lineage to Torygg's royal family to some extent.
 

Dagmar

Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
Maybe, but there is some one that actually is going to Join the rebellion saying that Ulfric has the "right of it (being high king)"

that should be enough proof for you all...
That's not proof of anything except some random Stormcloak supporter expressing their opinion. The Stormcloak oath of loyalty hails Ulfric as the true High King of Skyrim but that doesn't make it so. It's well established by the lore that the authority for succession in this situation lies with the Moot. It's been that way since the Moot was established over 4,000 years ago. Even when it resulted in the disastrous War of Succession, that singular power was still left to the Moot by the Pact of Chieftans. For all his perceived flaws, Ulfric recognizes that authority, which is why he wont allow the Moot to convene until he can replace all the Jarls that support remaining part of the Empire.
 

Recent chat visitors

Latest posts

Top