The problem is it doesn't. Most people don't care about the war and you're acting like they support the empire. And in grey cases you give it to the empire too. If you're making an absolute claim you need actual proof. Making vague statements does not support your argument. Half whiterun is for stormcloaks so might as well swing it stormcloak instead. And would you look at that, it puts the balance in the stormcloak favor instead.

You're trying to make an argument but refuse to do the work to substantiate it.




She did that because Sibbi disobeyed her. Not to follow the law.

"A quick note regarding my son, Sibbi. He's to be treated as I'd expect you to treat any one of the Black-Briar family and all of his requests are to be honored without question. However, if he wishes to be released, you are not to do so unless I expressly authorize it. Sibbi needs to learn his place, and the only way that will happen is if he's kept under lock and key."

Found in the following location: Mistveil Keep on a table in Anuriel's room

Seems to me like she is trying to teach him a lesson of actions having consequences. That's no so bad. With she having even the Jarl of Riften in her pocket, she could have just let him walk free and do jacksh*t about the case.

EDIT: This dosen't make her a good person of course but at least she did this one thing right. Even if nothing else.

Nah she put him in jail because she didn't approve of Sibbi's relationship.

It's basically Maven saying, "Next time listen to mommy."

I would say it's the other way around, the killing of Torygg was the start of full-blown hostilities but at least by the moot where Ulfric was speaking out he was declaring himself as being against the empire. But as I said to REL, to me it's semantic and I don't see why it matters.


Lied about what? About being thrown under the bus by the imperials because the Thalmor told them to jump?

Agreed.


The vendor at Bits and Pieces says "just between you and me, he wasn't even a very good king." No one seems to shed any tears over him, though they're shocked at his killing, understandably. Young or not doesn't matter- the buck stopped with him, he did nothing either way to prevent his country from being occupied by Thalmor and descending into civil war. He could have helped put an end to the conflict by either arresting Ulfric and trying him for treason, or declaring for independence as Sybille said he wanted to do. He was what the imperials had made him, a figurehead only, and not a real king which is what a country needs at a time of war and unrest.

As I said, this is understandable given that Skyrim is the birthplace of the empire. The Nord- Cyrodiil alliance is what made the empire. Yet according to game dialogue, prior to Tullius' arrival the Stormcloaks had the momentum, and even with the arrival of a legion there is only stalemate. I would never dispute the idea that a lot of Nords are pro-imperial even after the WGC, only Elven Princess' assertion that there is a large majority which is not supported by the game's dialogue and setup.

I have to respectfully disagree with you here. Religious persecution and ethnic cleansing trumps everything. If it was a mere question of property rights, Wallace wouldn't have become such an icon himself. The fact that Ulfric can't garnish swathing support for his cause despite having the best revolutionary banner available to him says something about the level of trust his own people have in him.

So what are you trying to say? That Ulfric's cause isn't universally popular? That goes without saying and I don't see anyone on the Stormcloak side disputing that. There's a stalemate, the country is evenly divided, and only the dragonborn's support tips the scales one way or another. The WGC is unpopular but it's counterweighted by the fact that Skyrim and Cyrodiil are the core of the empire. Medieval Scotland and England don't have the same affinity, rather the opposite, so I don't see your comparison to Wallace applying.

In think he is trying to say that more people would support the cause if Ulfric weren't the one behind it. He isn't trusted it seems. I think Laila' Law-Givers son(the one that supports the Empire) put it in a good way. "The cause may be true, but the man is a lie." At least that is what I think he is saying.

Okay. Who else is there that could have done it?

P.S. Ulfric himself disputes the idea that he thinks he's some kind of god-appointed ruler. He says "Skyrim needs heroes, and there is no one else but us." As he sees it, someone had to step up and thrown down the gauntlet. He also says that he would gladly retire from the world on the day when there's no more need for exercise of power. Whether you believe him or not is, of course, up to the individual player.

Honestly I don't know.

Something I find funny is the amount of speculation on each side of this argument. Not that I mind, but it is funny since we have no idea what will happen next. We don't know if the Empire will be able to counter an attack from the Dominion if they don't attack first. We don't know if an independent Skyrim will stay peaceful, or if it will achieve an alliance with Hammerfell. We basicly know nothing about what will happen except that if the Legion wins they will bide their time and of Ulfric wins Skyrim will be hostile the Dominion, unless that is just bravado, but I doubt that,

While I get the impression that no one is happy with the empire in Skyrim. I don't get the feeling that everyone is thrilled with the Stormcloaks either.

I get the impression that many see it as a choice between two evils and they simply side with the one they think is the lesser one of them.

No argument there.

I think bringing up figures like William Wallace just confuses the issue, because nationalism that came much later turns such men into golden boys whereas the real situation was much more complex. Real civil wars were never clean. Even a closer parallel, the Romans vs. the Germanic tribes and Gauls, is in reality complicated by the fact that some of the "barbarians" fought for the Romans. Bethesda did a pretty good job of making a realistically grey situation. I would not like the story setup nearly as much if it weren't so.

That's pretty much why my first character still hasn't joined any side. She has chosen as I would, and I would stay out of it.

But I found it's actually more fun to make a character and ask myself what he/she would choose. So now I have one Stormcloak, one legionnaire-to-be and one planned character who will start with the Legion, then change her mind.

Thank you. Precisely.

^ I agree.

The problem is that I just don't see anything but rationalization and self-delusion on the part of Imperials.

Nor do I see any real evidence that Ulfric is a racist or a liar...or arrogant (beyond what is to be expected of a warlord).

Admittedly, both positions are two sides of the same coin.

In truth, I don't know what the other coin looks like. I've stood in the shadows in the palace in Windholm and listened to Ulfric. I'm not fond of his "steward" (?) but Ulfric himself has not said anything that makes me doubt his sincerity.

It's awfully easy to say something like "His cause may be true but the man is a lie." It's clever but ultimately self-serving. You have to ask yourself which comes first...the hat or the cattle? No man can lead other men or put his own life and future on the line without embracing some or even most of the principles that he asks others to believe in.

Ulfric seems to bring out the extremist in NPC's and players alike--devotion or antipathy. I suspect that Bethesda planned it that way. But, equally, I'm not sure that there is any good reason for either sentiment, except emotionalism. I don't love or look up to Ulfric...I am waiting to see. That said, I am unwilling to accept the word of people who have a dog in the fight or have already expressed a deep enmity to whatever it is he represents to them.

That said, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of appeasemant and the myopic dismissal of Thalmor intentions that seems to infect the other side. I think that colours my position more than any other aspect.

For a man who doesn't think he's a god-appointed ruler, he sure doesn't seem to be rebuking his followers for saying so, even in his presence. Just step into the Palace of Kings and listen to the dialogue that takes place between he and Huggy Bear (just before he gives his cliched speech of why he fights). Huggy Bear explicitly declares Ulfric the true King of Skyrim with no rebuke from Ulfric at all. Nevermind the repititious bard song in the Candlehearth Hall that crescendos at "All Hail to Ulfric! You are the High King! In your great honor we drink and we sing!".

If the man had the humility that you'd expect of one who didn't actually want the title or fame, he'd ensure that accolades such as these were tempered down or denied altogether. This is not the case and it lends creedence to what the Nords who believe him to be false and full of ulterior motives. I might add that speaking to the priestess of Talos about Ulfric's devotion you'll find that it's rather superficial.

With regard to him being "racist". I probably wouldn't slap that label on him. Rather, I would say that he is indifferent to the sufferings of any other race but the Nords in his land. Brunwulf, a man who has fought along side of Ulfiric, attests to this.

Ulfric's on words really don't carry much weight in this situation. To use the quote T-droid brought up, "The cause my be true, but the man is a lie." In other words, he's an ambitious man wielding a righteous cause to further his goals.

When you look at it from the direction, what Ulfric says becomes little more than the carefully chosen words of a cunning and charismatic politician. The words are clearly chosen to inspire people. To make them believe that they are fighting for a greater cause, a righteous cause. But he also has to convince them that he is worthy to lead this cause. He has to paint himself as the righteous hero that's only doing what needs to be done. That's why he's quick to add that "he would gladly retire from the world on the day when there's no more need for exercise of power." Let's be honest, though. We all know that that day will never come.

Well like I said, people will interpret as they will. You can view Ulfric's words (which are uttered not in a speech but in a discussion with his friend) are insincere or posturing if you so choose, doesn't matter to me. I see them as him voicing that he cares more about the cause than about his personal power. That doesn't mean he doesn't want power- he needs it in order to accomplish his goals. If that makes him a "megalomaniac," so are the imperials.

So he's supposed to disagree that he should be king? If he didin't think that, he wouldn't have challenged Torygg for the kingship. And he doesn't control what bards sing about him, whether positive or negative. The only people who get thrown into prison for singing songs are those who dare to sing about Talos in an imperial hold (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Flight_from_the_Thalmor).

I think his attitude toward these things is also shown by what he says about leaving the Greybeards to fight in the Great War. He couldn't just sit by and not do anything.

She says he prays for strength. But I don't think he's a religious zealot. Is that supposed to be a count against him, too?

Exactly right. Ulfric doesn't ever get a chance to defend himself in this matter. His own words are regarded as insincere almost before they are out of his mouth and that's the end of it for some people.

People can't accept the game or the man the way it/he was written but have to impose an interpretation...and a emotionally over-wrought interpretation at that...on everything he says or does. They see that speech as pretentious and posturing and false. I thought it was sincere and moving.

It's a sad world where the possibility that such feeling and such motivations cannot be parsed as anything but false. But that world is not Skyrim.

Part of the problem there is that Ulfric is not a product of a cynical, self-congratulatory culture; nor is he the pampered child of a nanny-state. Nor is Skyrim that world. It is a mistake to think otherwise or leak expectations from one context tot he other. Simply put, the imposition of such sensibilities on Ulfric doesn't make sense. There's a logical disconnect...as if these accusations were really meant for someone else.

On your first point, I'm not saying or even implying that his cliche speech was disingenuous. What I am saying is that there are many people in Skyrim who believe his words to be false. I'm speaking as an observer, not someone with a stake in the Civil War either way.

Second, I rose the point of him not suppressing the songs and words of praise and his premature elevation to High King by friends and followers alike because you stated that he never wanted that title to begin with. Also, as I said, it lends creedence to the claims of others in the game that his ulterior motive for the rebellion is to officially achieve the title of High King and weild whatever power comes with it. Windhelm is his city. Candlehearth Hall is 100 feet from his Palace. If he didn't want the premature accolades attributed to him and spread throughout the land he most certainly could have control over what bards sing or recite in his city, and he would most certainly rebuke Huggy Bear for being presumptious.

Third, one can never convince an entire populace to rebel on property rights alone. It is clear that what upsets the Nords most is the infringment on their culture and their worship of a person they consider a god being made illegal and punishable by even death in some cases. Ulfric takes up this cause. If he is not devout, he is insincere about one of the major reasons for leading the rebellion. And that ties back to what so many NPCs say about him.

Lastly, I don't think it can be argued that William Wallace was probably the most prominent figure in the Wars of Scottish Independence while he helped lead it. Yet, unless I'm wrong, his followers were never named after him, nor was the rebellion. Though the relevance may be questionable, it does strike me as prideful for him to continue to accept the name of the rebellion and his followers to be his. That is a common attribute of megalomaniacs... to have their movement sealed with their name or some other ego signature of theirs.

This is a perfect example of polemics.

Okay- I have no argument with that. Never claimed he was universally praised or not a controversial figure. Pick any political leader, especially during a time of upheaval, and you're not going to find uniform opinion on them.

No, I said he doesn't think he has some divine right to it, just that someone needs to step up and he's in a position to do something about what is happening in Skyrim. He expresses self doubt in a few of his dialogues (about leaving the Greybeards, for instance, or about being worthy of his father's seat), though that doesn't mean he's not ambitious or even arrogant. His battle taunts are delightfully arrogant. He's just not the caricature of a power-mad, selfish egomaniac that the empire likes to paint him as. The reality is more nuanced.

For instance he also questions Galmar's idea that he should take the Jagged Crown because of its symbolic significance, though he goes along with it. I agree with Galmar- a certain amount of heroic aura is needed in poltiics. Why do you think the Medes wear the symbols of the Septim empire?

I think the idea that he should ban bards from singing about him kind of silly.

His speeches never make devotion to Talos a central issue, rather that the Thalmor should not get to dictate who the Nords worship or don't worship. His bug is Nord sovereignty, not religious zealotry. I don't see any inconsistency here.

Actually, I suspect that "scare quotes" language and unsubstantiated speculations are more nearly polemics than anything I said.

I called them *scare quotes* because that's a common moniker for the incessant use of quotation marks.

I intended to use quotation marks around "agent" precisely because he isn't an agent. But with the intention of saying that if your playing into the hands of the enemy in the exact fashion you want them to, you may as well be considered one.

All that's from the perception of the enemy...it doesn't make it true. Anymore than the remark by Laila Law-givers son (?) is necessarily wise or informed by anything but disgruntlement.

As I pointed out at the time, we see the dossier on Ulfric because there's a quest that reveals it. Is there a dossier on Torygg or the Empire? We don't know for sure but it seems unreasonable to think there is not. We can even infer from what is said about Ulfric that there is. What do you suppose the Thalmor dossier says about Torygg or Tullius or the Empire in general? Do you honestly think it will be flattering?

I don't know about anyone else but I would have to suspect my own judgement if I blithely accepted everything the Thalmor said...maybe anything the Thalmor said...at face value.

I suspect it is the wiser course to see every in-game comment about some essential NPC...pro or con...as an attempt to influence opinion. And the wisest course of all is to accept the game and Skyrim culture for what it is ...not what we we would like it to be. To accept Ulfric's words about his own intentions at face value...at least until proven otherwise.