So the laws of the land shouldn't apply to the King himself? Methinks you are a bit biased towards Ulfric here.

This is the problem with Ulfric in general, imho. He represents a lot of backwards and unenlightened thinking. Him coating it in a pretty package doesn't change that.


If Torygg had gone to Windhelm and challenged Ulfric to combat and killed him, I'm pretty darn sure they'd have put Torygg to death. That kind of crazy behavior isn't something they'd tolerate in a ruler. The matter is slightly different when you are the one defending yourself in a duel, and it is harder to say what the Empire would have done there -- Torygg could claim self-defense for one, which isn't something Ulfric can claim.


When you talk to the people that were there, they all still seemed to be shocked by what happened. No doubt they were even more shocked when it happened. By the time they came to their senses, I am sure Ulfric was out the door.

Given the fact that Rogvir was killed for knowingly allowing the killer of the High King to escape, I think it is pretty clear that people were trying to stop Ulfric before he reached the gate. Rogvir doesn't try to defend himself by saying he didn't know about it or that he didn't know the law/superiors said he should stop Rogvir. Nor does he claim to have been in shock or appear to have been in shock when it happened. He defends himself solely by stating Ulfric should have been let go because of an ancient (and quite apparently non-lawful) custom.

You can't compare the two situations and pretend the same factors are at play, because the game clearly doesn't present that as the case.


Quite right, which is a terrible argument even in fantasy worlds.


I think we have some wrong genre savvy going on here. TES isn't a world where Might Makes Right, or the simple solution is best. Nor is it one where the Old Ways are Best. Nor is violence always the best resort. Ulfric had other options and he didn't even try them. Rogvir defending that and allowing the killer of the High King to escape IS treason, and it makes sense for him to get killed over it. If someone freely gave Ulfric a horse to ride off on and knew who he was and what he did, then that too would be treason.

If you read step 8 again. I mention that Roggvir may not have been told to stop him.

Assuming he somehow knew Ulfric challeaged and killed Torygg. Given that he believes in the old ways, and also that no one actually bothered to stop Ulfric, it is quite possible he assumed the duel is legitimate and Ulfric is within his rights to leave.

Remember, Torygg himself approved the duel so it was considered legitimate at that point. That the court would suddenly reverse it's stand after Torygg's death and ruled that Ulfric murdered the High King and that Roggvir would suddenly became an accomplice was a betrayal of the foulest sort.

What? That's the entire history of the empire.

No more than it is the "entire history of the United States" or something like that...which is to say, not at all.

Being strong and successfully using force certainly doesn't mean you are ethically correct/good in TES in general or the Empire in particular.

Applying real world ethics to TES series is a terrible idea.

Sovngarde sure seems to reward might makes right. Actually the entire mythic structure rewards might makes right. Talos is considered the god of humanity. Know how he came to be? Tiber betrayed his general and had his best friends kill each other then conquered Tamriel with a giant stompy robot.

The Tribunal murdered Nerevar and rewrote the world so that they were always gods. As such, Vivec can claim he did not murder Nerevar, Vivec the mortal did.

The entire concept of CHIM is based around have a big enough ego to retain individuality when you realize you're part of everything.

I'm no expert on the lore and what not but from what I've understood is that in order to challenge for a duel you need to ask in person.

The city guard wasn't executed because he let Ulfric out, he was executed because he let him IN without orders to do so. Clearly as a setup to force a duel.

He never became a Greybeard, so we don't know if he took any oath or not. It doesn't matter as far as legalities in Solitude go.

Not according to Elisif's courtiers. I believe it's Sybille who says "if we had known he came to challenge Torygg, we would never have let him in." That means he was allowed in because they expected he just sought an audience.

It's not just a terrible idea, it's against the LAAAW of the forums (as is views of real world religeous views, factual biased, right wrong or taken from a newspaper that tells you if you're standing on the cracks of a pavement you are a social ignoramus, you will die a sad lonely death and you believe it.) -No I'm not a religious zelot.

But it is TRADITION! to mention these things anyway. (Sorry, Not a Fiddler on the Roof fan either). Because people feel they have a good reason for doing so.

*EDIT* Oh. I almost forgot: Me, I think it was Almalexia that did it cos she still wanted a bit on the side with Sotha Sil and Vivec and her husband got in the way and made rubbish decisions anyway. Just thought I'd say...

Nord tradition had been part of the law of the land, otherwise Torygg would never have accepted the duel and others wouldn't consider it fair game. And implying that the empire represents forward, enlightened thinking? That's pretty funny. I suppose they were being very progressive in Helgen?

It's not crazy behavior. You're applying modern, real world sensibility to a different place. Even so, Torygg can't claim self defense because he himself accepted the duel- Elisif's own people don't dispute this. His pride couldn't handle declining and being seen as weak, and having the legitimacy of his kingship put to a moot.

Roggvir should have taken up lockpicking. I've been hauled in by the Solitude guards and I was out of that jail inside 15 minutes.

There was no one with the authority who could give such an order. Torygg was the only one who could give such an order legally, and he was already dead, ergo that 'order' carried no legality in Skyrim. .

Eh? How do you figure that? The captain of the guard can certainly issue an order to close the gates and not let Ulric out.

More forward than ancient Nord traditions, sure. The most reasonable and enlightened Jarls think so too. It isn't like this ancient tradition is something everyone accepts or think is a great idea.


Of course it's crazy to the Empire. I'm not at all applying modern sensibility here. The Empire doesn't like destabilizing forces,* and if a leader of a province became a destabilizing force within that province, they'd put a stop to it one way or another. If a leader of a province merely accepts a duel and kills the person who initiated it, that's less of an issue because the leader wasn't the source of that destabilizing behavior -- though if this became a pattern, then Empire would do something about it. You may call that whatever you want, but the point remains there's a HUGE difference between initiating a duel and accepting a duel. Equating the two is ridiculous.

*No entrenched power does.

I think the issue is people don't realize that Ulfric isn't high king just because he defeated Torygg in the duel. The moot does still need to be called(It's always called in the event of the high king's death if there's an issue of succession, whether it's by duel or natural causes) Aldis's order to arrest Ulfric is legit by their standards. Giving Roggvir the death penalty is going way overboard, though. IF Ulfric had been high king already, Roggvir would've been obliged to follow his orders.



The empire seemed pretty ok with the argonian secession, the complete massacre of the orc homeland, the secession of Elsweyr, the conquering of Valenwood, and the destabalizing infighting of the crowns/forebearers in Hammerfell.

Acts of might being rewarded doesn't mean "might makes right" in a more general sense. Might as well say the same thing about the real world then.

And no, that's not "applying real-world ethics to TES". It's called an anology. It's where you look at one thing and compare it to another. Comparing real-world ethics and realities to the real world, and then drawing a parralel between TES ethics and realities to the TES world is not applying real-world ethics to the TES world. Anymore than saying puppy is to a dog like a kitten is to a cat is saying that puppies are a kind of cat.

Anyhow, you're make the fallacy of assuming the antecedent. Pointing out CHIM or how a guy is a divine only points out people who achieve CHIM and Talos are powerful entities. It doesn't make them right, it doesn't make what they've done in the past right. By saying it does, you are assuming Might Equals Right and then using that assumption in your argument. It's not valid.

That's the big question. I really think we need to start thinking deeper about what really happened and what everyone involved had to lose or gain from Roggvir's execution for it.



Yes, I think the court was more responsible. But because they hold clout they came out of this unscathed.



Good theory. I think that's probably it. How fast could word have travelled? I really don't think that Roggvir had any idea what happened. And even if he did; why would he stop Ulfric at the gate when the court didn't stop him leaving the Blue Palace?






Okay for the two posts above. Let's think about Roggvir's state of mind when they tell him he will be punished by death for this. How do we know his 'confession' is really true? Why is he saying he knew? Could it be that he doesn't want to see anybody else (i.e. family) get hurt over this? Could he have more than his own life at stake? Did he feel like he really was the villain once he found out what Ulfric REALLY did? Was he feeling suicidal? Was he ashamed that he failed in his duty and couldn't face life as a homeless beggar with a bad name?
The possiblilties are endless here. I really don't think that Roggvir knew that Ulfric had challenged Torygg and used the Thu'um AT THE TIME. I think he confesses for other reasons. But hey, maybe I am overthinking it.




That's another thing too. I'm sure they were all worried about another war with the Aldmeri Dominion. I mean, the current empire has lost so many provinces already and is at its weakest in history. Tensions are flaring with Hammerfell. The Markarth incident started the civil war and almost started another war with the Admeri Dominion. They already failed to execute Ulfric at Helgen. And now the same man comes into Solitude and challenges their High King ally and defeats him, outsmarting them all and making them all lose face in one fell swoop.
If Roggvir isn't a scapegoatin this then I don't know what is!

You're speaking from very biased POV. By enlightened jarls I take it you mean imperial supporters. Even those will defend Nord tradition, as in the conversation with Balgruuf about the Greybeards summoning the Dovahkiin. Balgruuf's brother reacts angrily when Proventus Avenicci dismisses Nord traditions.

Obviously Torygg accepted this particular tradition, and his court should have respected his decision if they really believed he was a legitimate high king. The only reason they're questioning the tradition is because Ulfric won.


I don't see it. All Torygg had to do was decline. At that point if Ulfric attacked him, it would be murder. But Torygg would also have lost respect and it probably would have triggered a moot. The destabilizing force in Skyrim is the empire, who is allowing their enemy to dictate policy.

I will grant that the Empire as many say is stretched quite thin, and can't keep the peace as it once did. Pointing out it is stretched thin doesn't change the fact they abhor destabilizing forces as all powers must. It is much easier to handle one leader who is acting erratically than it is to handle an entire region that's pretty unified in opposition to the Empire or other large military forces.

TES is NOT the real world. What Ulfric did was ethical by nord standards. The empire isn't the be all end all shining bastion of moral good.

This is a world where it's acceptable to pay 1000 gold to absolve yourself of a murder.

I'm only talking about Balgruuf and Ravencrone, both of whom are Jarls that are wise, experienced, and run their holds better than the others. They aren't corrupt, inexperienced, or bloodthirsty. I'd note that Balgruuf's brother is equally vigorous about wanting to crush the killer of the High King. You can't act like all traditions are viewed equally well by everyone. I'd note that Balgruuf's brother perhaps isn't the most level-headed person however, and so I wouldn't use him as an example of enlightened thinking.

Torygg got cornered into accepting it because of how Nord honor works. If he had known a challenge would have been made, he wouldn't have met with Ulfric, which is how the Nords (and many other cultures) handle a barbaric tradition such as this; find a face-saving way to avoid the situation altogether rather than face it head-on.

Also, you have zero basis to say the only reason they reject it is because Ulfric won.


I'm tremendously amused that you both act like the traditions are extremely important, noble, and cherised, and then act like Torygg could easily ignore them. That's not how people work.

Then again, your attitude on war is much the same. Sometimes the enemy does dictate policy or you die, and you just have to deal with it. Yelling about it and crying out to resist at all costs sounds great to some, but it's not really worth everyone dying and civilization ending in ash.

Wow, maybe you should actually read my post before replying.

Also, I'd be a bit hesitent about accepting gameplay contrivences as solidly part of the lore. Pretty sure there are no lore examples of them just putting a murderer into jail for a span of days and then letting him go. Certainly not as a matter of course.

Poor Torygg. He had to do it. This is the kind of reasoning I use when staring at a piece of cheesecake.

He valued his honor more than his life. That's very Nordly, even admirable of him in my view, but making Roggvir pay for his decision is unjust.

I find it pretty unrealistic for a King to receive an audience with such a prominent figure without any kind of knowledge about it beforehand. It's not normal to just let in anyone who knocks on the gate.

As with many of the mainquest details in Skyrim it's not as black and white as some would like to think it is. Same applies in this execution. Both a guilty and not-guilty Roggvir are defensible and most certainly role-playable.

I have been reading your posts. You've been using the empire as the basis for all moral good in the world. It's a ridiculous standpoint. You're approaching from the viewpoint of the empire every single time. This does not make them right.

Every guard has done this in every game. It's rather well explained that the gold goes towards compensating the injured party.