Just curious because this doesn't get much explanation.

The depiction of Ulfric here is of a genocidal baby-killing psychopath.

It's a lot bigger issue, to me at least, than whether the Thalmor support him or not.

Plus, there's the irony that the Forsworn just want the same thing Ulfric wants (an independent Reach) only to get put down in a particularly savage way by Ulfric.

It makes him an enormous hypocrite.

I wasn't sure on this either when I first read that book, but being a staunch supporter of Nord independence I have to inform you that the book is considered propaganda by all Nord intellectuals.

It's propaganda. It was written by an IMPERIAL scholar who helps the Emperor after the Civil War. Don't you think that would make it biased. As for the Forsworn, even the Empire lovers wanted them out. Just ask Jarl Igmund.

I beleive everything I read. It must be true- it was written down. Nobody would ever take the time to write down something that wasn't true. It's inconceivable.

Sarcasm is funny. If not, then take a look at this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden

There might be a grain of truth to it, but there are claims about him in the book that are things he has proven himself to not do and be against. For example, the book claims that he slaughtered everyone in Markarth, including innocent Nords who happened to be there because "If you're not with us, you're against us." But every single other actino from Ulfric has shown that he does not feel this way - he goes out of his way to spare Nords, even ones who disagree with him or fight against him, particularly if they are shown to be honorable. He made sure to spare Jarl Balgruuf, Elisif, and even Legate Rikke (who refused to accept it and fought to the death anyway). There is nothing that Ulfric has done to show that he would ever slaughter women and children and innocent people. When Aventus Aretino's mother died his property was held for him to reclaim when he was 16 years old, and he isn't even a Nord. If you retake Solitude for the Stormcloaks, it's not like Ulfric goes around executing everyone who supported the Empire - the only person he kills is General Tulius, and Legate Rikke ONLY because she wanted to fight him to the death, though he told her not to do it and that she was free to go.

Ulfric doesn't crap rainbows and cuddle bunnies, but that doesn't mean that he's an evil bastard who does evil things for the sake of being evil because he is evilly evil.

Based on how Ulfric has operated in the past, I think it is likely that he ordered the killing of anyone who actively picked up a weapon against him and cleared everyone else from the city and told them to take a hike.

Also, the Forsworn themselves are giant hypocrites as well, considering the fact that they slaughter anyone who comes near them, be them Nord or Breton or whatever race, even people who would be sympathetic to their cause. They kidnap children, they violate dead bodies, they sell themselves out to the Nords and get paid to execute people who are enemies of the corrupt leaders of Markarth. And that isn't propaganda, it's stuff you can see in the game for yourself. It's not the Forsworn you should pity, but the Reachmen, the native peoples who are not violent but just trying to live their lives while being discriminated against.

I don't know, because in the mines you actually get to speak with a guy whose family was slaughtered by the Nords (who everyone agrees was lead by Ulfric) and the King of the Forsworn comments that he's heard that story countless times from different lips. While it's possible he could be lying, I think it's more likely that Ulfric was exceptionally brutal in putting down the uprising.

After all, they weren't Nords but Bretons.

Why is it likely, though? You have a ton of evidence that points to the fact that the book is an exaggeration and propaganda, and you say it's highly likely that it's true? My observations are based on evidence. The books states that Ulfric slaughtered Nords who were living in the city. I showed that this is false and against his character. If the author is prone to exaggerating claims in the book, then all of his claims are untrustworthy without evidence to back them up.

I'm always having to tell people on this forum that wishful thinking does not make fact. Just because you want to believe that Ulfric is evil in every way and slaughtered hundreds of people doesn't make it true. You have to look at actual evidence and come up with a conclusion. And while actual evidence in no way makes Ulfric look like a saint, it doesn't point to the contents of this book being the truth either. And if you're going to believe that the book is true no matter what concrete evidence people provide to show otherwise, why even make this thread?

PS: The people who killed that guy's family were under the command of the Jarl of Markarth, not Ulfric. The Jarl is definitely an [censored].

Well there's ample supporting evidence it's within Ulfric's character.

Also, I don't believe Ulfric is an evil psycho. I think he can be a deeply complex character who is capable of doing many things both great and horrible.

* Remember, the whole "Sparing Nords" deal doesn't prevent Ulfric from attacking Windhelm. In fact, the Bear of Markath accuses Ulfric of being of the mind that, "if you weren't for us, you're against us" which is EXACTLY what he says about that city and its attempts to remain neutral.

* The Forsworn aren't worshipers of Talos but the Daedric Princes. That may explain why Ulfric felt the need to put down the Rebellion so harshly.

* Wasn't the Jarl of Markath the guy who HIRED Ulfric in order to put down the Rebellion? Promising that he'd be allowed to worship Talos freely.

* While the book is propaganda (war crimes? IN SKYRIM?! Do they even exist?), the brutality of the put down doesn't exactly fail to match actual Medieval attacks.

I just think it adds an interesting dimension to Ulfric's character.

The Forsaken are a group of self-willed Undead people living in the ruins of Lordaeron in Warcraft lore. The native peoples of the Reach who have gathered under a common banner against the Nords are known as the Forsworn.

I actually knew that and have no idea why I did that.

Especially since I don't PLAY WoW.

You may now all throw rotten fruit at me.

Propaganda. It's written by an Imperial Scholar in service with the Empire, of course it's biased.

No one should believe anything they read in-game. That goes for the bits n pieces from the Embassy as well.

This.

Read the last paragraph. It's obviously a propaganda piece, for CYA purposes so that the empire can blame the Markarth Incident on Ulfric alone.

If you talk to Jarl Igmund, he all but admits that he was in on all of it, too. Which isn't surprising since he also hates Forsworn with a passion, and was the one who benefited the most from Markarth being retaken, along with the Silver-Bloods. As corrupt as the city is, does anyone really think they needed Ulfric to commit atrocities against innocent people? Or that they would then try to cast blame elsewhere for it? Doesn't that sound awfully familiar?

You do realize it was the JARL who executed his daughter, not Ulfric. Not to mention the fact that he is Forsworn and most likely killed many innocents. I have very little sympathy for people who literally give up their hearts for power and kill anyone who doesn't even remotely resemble a Nord (why does an Argonian get attacked? Do lizard people even remotely resemble Nords?)

Honestly, I think the entire Markath region is a collection of cannibals and Daedric worshipers as well as genocidal psychos. The entire region could be destroyed by a Volcano and Skyrim would be the better for it.

QFT. I really dislike that entire hold.

The people svck but I really like the geography.

EDIT: I think I've been inspired for a new General Kael mission: Destroy Markarth Hold!

The irony was that I went into the whole story very sympathetic to the Forsworn and HATED every time they attacked me.

(I felt like a monster when I had to wade through their village to get at the Red Eagle sword - only realizing in retrospect they were insane cultists vs. innocents)

But the Forsworn King is REALLY really bad at selling his case.

He makes me LESS sympathetic just talking to him.

Edit:

My only problem with Markath is navigating in 6-directions gives me a headache.

True, but then the geography of Skyrim entire is so much beyond anything I've ever played in the past.... You don't want to know how many times I've got dead because I was just standing somewhere starting at the gorgeous landscape....

Yeah, it's hard to criticize too hard because it's obvious whatever time didn't go into the writing went into making sure every dungeon was individualized as opposed to Bioware's habit of, "standardized everything."

Let's not forget Braig's great quote "There are no innocent parties in this, there are only the GUILTY and the DEAD!"


That sums up the whole of the dispute. Just like any good civil war or uprising, this one has atrocities aplenty on both sides. I'm sure that Ulfric did plenty of bad things to the "savages"; the sufferings of the Dunmer in Windhelm are proof positive that the man is a supremacist in the truest sense of the word.


For the record though, I support the forsworn. For the two years the forsworn were in control of the reach, things were for the most part peaceful. That's far more that can be said for the Reach under the silverbloods.

Please list, in specific, what sufferings Dunmer face in Windhelm. I'm curious if you perceive the Altmer in Windhelm suffering terribly.

To believe that, you have to take the Bear of Markarth guy at face value. I think he's a tool myself, but just ask yourself if what you've seen of the Forsworn jives with his account.