Can we all QUIT ARGUING over the duel? We have no way of knowing the rules for this specific duel, so until there is something that says what was agreed upon as accepted weapons, we can only classify Ulfric as a coward for using a RARE weapons with little to no defense, even if that weapon is respected.

I am really NOT trying to be argumentative and I agree there should be rules in place in such a combat. For this I refer back to an earlier post. The challenged should/would in my estimation have the right to place stipulations on weaponry used and Toryyg did not. Whether for good or ill he knew he was going to die, refused to levy a stipulation and paid for it. Were I Toryyg I would have REFUSED to allow the Th'uum in combat as it gave an unfair advantage. The stipulation clause is a no-brainer as is refusing to allow the Th'uum in the duel. It was a catastrophic oversight for Toryyg and led to his death. I do not agree nor support Ulfric personally but feel I am right on this point and wil leave it at that as I don't want to stir up any hard feelings.

I won't argue against this because I don't know the lore. In any event, if it's true then Torygg is an idiot and deserved to die. You talk about these ritualized fights, but if one side knows martial arts, or some fighting technique while the other doesn't, the person that knows said skills isn't required to gimp themselves for their opponents benefit. But let's say these rules forbade Ulfric from shouting, which I doubt, Torygg knew he could and as such he should have been planing for that eventuality. That all goes back to preparedness, Torygg wasn't, Ulfric was.

This is a good point, interesting.

Isn't that what this topic is about though? Whether or not the duel was legitimate, and furthermore, whether it gives Ulfric a legitimate claim.

Although the first part might be a stretch on my part.

WE do not even KNOW the stipulations. For all we know, it could have been a knife fight.

My point was about the Th'uum, nothing more.

So was mine. You have no way of knowing what was accepted in the duel or not. ALL we know is that Ulfric challenged Torygg to a duel then used the voice and killed him. Whether the voice was actually responsible and that it was accepted is unknown because we have no way of knowing all that.

I don't think it would have mattered whether or not Torygg could muster the time (being that only Ulfric woke up that morning knowing a duel was going to take place) to work out stipulations. Even if Torygg had said, "No thu'um bro, let's test our skill as warriors" there's no guarantee Ulfric would have agreed to do that. In fact, I can pretty confidently say that he wouldn't.

Torygg could have taken the easy way out and not accepted the challenge, but on the bright side, because he did, Torygg found his way to Sovngarde.

Hilarious

You know, maybe Ulfric should have just killed Torygg with his sword, then tore the body to pieces with the Thu'um. That way, there wouldn't be this talk of it being unfair.

But then people would just say Ulfric was disrespectful I guess. Darn arguments never end!

Is he the rightful High King?

Of course not. He hasn't been elected by the Moot.

Does he have a claim to the throne?

Of course he does. He's a Jarl. He has just as much of a claim to the throne as Siddgeir does.

Or maybe there needs to be some documentation on what was legal in the duel and what was not. Unless they just agreed to duel with no restrictions, which would have made it a free for all and thus Ulfric fought fair.

If he had not agreed to the stipulations then Toryyg woukld have every right to refuse the challenge without losing face. As far as "Time" is concerned I hardly think it would take a lot of 'Time" to think through clearly what he was getting into. ~Hmmm. Ulfric has the Voice, perhaps I should cut it from his arsenal~

As I said this is a no-brainer and doesn't take more than a few seconds to think through. I am now fininshed and will no longer post on this thread as I have said all there is to say in defense of my point of view and am now rehashing what I've already gone through.

Peace gents!

again, the only thing we know is that the duel happened, though it sounds like Torygg immediately accepted. Shouting was fair then.

That isn't how Nordic law works.

Killing Torygg is in absolutely no way treason, especially because he accepted the duel knowing Ulfric was a better warrior and knowing Ulfric was a Tongue.

Jarls can challenge the High King for the throne. That's what happened. High King Torygg betrayed his people to the Thalmor and Ulfric put him down in a way to show that the new High King would be a powerful defender of Skyrim - by using the Voice, like the Tongues of old.

If I remember correctly, the moot has only been called once after a High King was defeated? At least, that's what I read from another poster a long while back. Seems like Moots didn't become common place until the Empire started bribing jarls with imperial coin.

We have been arguing this forever now, and I keep saying that we have NO DETAILS about what actually happened, just that Torygg accepted a challenge made by Ulfric who then used the voice and boom, Toygg was dead.

Plus For all we know, the tradition of "Kill the high King, you become high King" was done with back before this mess happened, maybe since TALOS and the Empire as we know it was started.

Why does it matter how Torygg died? He could not have possibly killed Ulfric even without the Thu'um, so it doesn't really matter. The stronger man killed the weaker betrayer of Skyrim.

You said that Jarls can challenge for the throne of high king, but gave no proof that that tradition is still official/recognized. until you do, you failed.

Lets try this again.

The Moot decides the new High King. Defeating the old High King does nothing other than require a moot to be convened. That is Nordic law.

Edit: And the moot is only a formality when the High King has an heir. It's been this way since the first Nordic Empire.

Well, can you say that it was outlawed? That to me would have to be proved first.

Until the proof either way is there, it is technically 4-3/5-4 against Ulfric, so he still is not High King.

That's fine, but that wasn't my argument really. I was just saying that telling him he has to prove it's recognized is ridiculous, as proving it was ever discontinued would have to be proven first in my opinion.

Tradition no matter when majority of jarls hate you for killing the High King.

Also, what HAS Torygg done to warrant such a challenge, other than trying to keep the peace my following what has to be kept with the WGC, since that is law too. SO, Torygg betrayed Skyrim by Following a technically Imperial law, seems like Ulfric being a crybaby to me.

Apparently you're not understanding me, so I'll leave you to your own thoughts.