I'm not sure what your point is. Ulfric isn't just anybody, he's a prominent jarl. And the Dovahkiin manages to get an audience everywhere. You don't even need to mention dragons, just that you're looking for work.

As Curly Howard would have put it, "Low man again!"
No doubt he was probably on the lowest rung of the social ladder, as well as military rank, therefore, he is the one to be scapegoated, rather than the higher-ups.
'Twas always thus, and likely always will be.

My point was kinda in the part that you didn't quote.
Just like the "Dovahkiin knocking on everyone's door" example you've brought up, we're dealing with obvious illogical/unrealistic roleplaying issues here. In many ways you have to fill in the blanks (ie: roleplay!) to make sense of the world. Because the game isn't always a 100% clear on matters like these.

• If I play as an Imperial I could easily roleplay that Ulfric bribed the guard to let him in against the direct wishes of the high king.
  
• If I play as a Stormcloak sympathizer I could easily roleplay the execution is just another example that the Imperials are corrupt and do anything to silence the opposition which is why Skyrim needs to be liberated.

The game gives you a template to work with in most cases. Fill in the blanks as you see fit. Roleplay.

I don't see what's so outrageous about saying someone's cultural context matters a great deal, and can lead them to making stupid decisions. One could also say he valued a concept of honor particular to the Nords not just more than his life, but more than the lives of everyone killed in the civil war. "Honor" isn't some absolute concept, but differs from culture to culture. It's not always a good thing to value honor highly, and it is even easier to find problems with it when you look at particular aspects of what is considered honorable in a culture.

In comparison, ignoring that and pretending that people somehow make decisions from some sort of objective viewpoint divorced from their upbringing, culture, genetics, society, etc, is laughably unrealistic.


Clearly you haven't been reading my posts. Many times I have said the Empire is far from perfect. I've said this in threads you've read and commented in, in posts I believe you have even quoted. If I think they're generally quite a bit better than Ulfric as far as ethics goes, that's pretty much true, but it is a very different thing from thinking they are remotely perfect. For instance their use of torture is wrong, their handling of the Thalmor is far from perfect (they should really have set up resistance cells), and they have numerous other problems. It's just my judgment that Ulfric's problems are far, far worse, and he ignores many of the realities of the war because his ego is so big.

I find it hilarious that you view the player penal system as an example of the penal system in general. It's especially funny given that all the examples of how it works in the lore and even in the game for NPCs is totally different.

What's your ethical base here? That seems to be the big misunderstanding. Seems Kantian to me.

In a situation like the one at solitude the empire would've done the same thing. Hand over solitude or we'll kill you. Ulfric at least gave him the opportunity to debate it at the moot.


Because so many wealthy people end up in jail in TES games. 1000 gold isn't small change you know. Plenty of rich criminals in the game that somehow avoid going to jail like those poor serfs.

Half of Skyrim opposes Ulfric. It doesn't matter if their ways are as "traditional" as Ulfric's or if they support the Empire, their opinions are just as valid as those of the Stormcloak supporters. In Solitude's case, they've a long history of being close to the Imperials, so I can see them executing a man for letting Ulfric go, thus starting an entire rebelliion (which Tullius, unlike Ulfric, can see is exactly what the Thalmor want) and getting away from killing their king.

I guess everyone wanted to blame someone, and who better then the man who is to blame?

Context, motives, and that sort of thing matters when judging the moral worth of a person or of actions.

Certainly, I agree that the formation of the Empire had many elements of barbarism in it. There have been times of barbarism in its history as well. That doesn't make Ulfric better than the Empire as a whole or the current Empire, however.

"Opportunity to debate it at the moot". Wow, that's priceless. All Torygg had to do was something any with romantic notions of Nord tradition would view as completely and utterly dishonorable, for which the moot would be called. And Ulfric "kindly" offered him that option. Why...that's so thoughtful of Ulfric. He's not a jerk intent on making an example out of someone who could potentially of been an ally at all. It's not at all like Ulfric planned on using that psychological and cultural leverage to kill the High King. I've completely changed my perspective now! I mean, what was Ulfric to do otherwise? Wobble his meat flaps while forcing air out of his lungs? Then have the High King do the same. Then continue on back and forth for a long while? Can't see the point of that when you can just stab someone in the heart instead with your pointy metal stick.


The rich criminals, all of them that I know of, avoid going to jail by corrupting the system. Paying to get let go for murder or multiple murders isn't in the cards if you are caught and arrested though.

That's but one viewpoint of ethics though. You subscribe to Kantian ethics. Ulfric's motives are to destroy the thalmor. He doesn't believe the Empire will ever do this. If the empire doesn't ever do it, the thalmor will undoubtably return with enough force to destroy mankind.



Yeah, Ulfric should've talked to Torygg and gotten thrown out instead and then been refused entry afterwards so that the high king would never be challengeable. Good plan indeed. It's the king's duty to lead, not follow. If Torygg believed in independence, he should've done it. Ulfric had brought it up several times at moots, if the king agreed he never supported him.

You always have a choice. The empire wouldn't have given him even a chance to debate it.

How do you come to that conclusion? The challenge Ulfric issued was done in accordance with honorable custom, and the challenge was willfully accepted, no matter how Ulfric pressured the High King. There was no "escape" that Ulfric had to make. Ulfric didn't murder the High King at all. He killed the High King in what was essentially a sanctioned duel. Roggvir's "right" to "feel" a certain way has no bearing, and he didn't "feel" that Ulfric should be "allowed" to "escape". Ulfric won the duel. I don't care if you like Ulfric or not, that is the custom and Roggvir didn't violate it.

Everyone involved was a grownup, heeding accepted tradition. Roggvir was made into a political football by the Imperial faction and was the only victim of murder in this entire episode. The Empire used his actions to legitimize their own actions and intents in Skyrim and made him a scapegoat for political ends.

Yeah but Ulfric won the duel then rabbited out of there because probably everyone and his brother wanted to kill him for killing the High King. Roggvir assisted him. THAT's why he's a traitor.

For Roggvir's sake it was better that he was beheaded. If he was imprisoned instead he would probably have been brutalized and treated badly by the guards.

that's faulty logic. You're agreeing with my premise that Roggvir did no wrong, but then you label him as "traitorous".

If the High King accepts and loses that duel, and its an accepted practice, then there is no treachery, regardless of the haste or laziness of Ulfric's departure. I don't feel that you're thinking this through. Your argument for Roggvir being a traitor relies on, well, Roggvir just simply being a traitor. That was claimed, but I see no proof that supports it. You treat it as a foregone conclusion

The very first time I walked into Solitude I walked up to the executioners and got too close to me so they attacked. I killed them, fled and reloaded.

Security guards observe and report and are meant to deter by their presence. They do not intervene...a COP would've been a better exmaple.

So am I.

Now, I don't feel so bad. ...and now that you mention that I think I saw Roggvir's head just rolled off without action from the NPCs. I chalked it up to lag.

"in" is how I understood it too.


From what I've heard ingame: Any jarl sitting (read slouching ) on his/her throne must accept a challenge to a duel. So no laws broken.

I doubt jarls from any of the holds are forbidden from entering other holds. This would be cowardly and un-Nordlike and probably against protocol.

Ulfric capitalized on the above tenets by challenging a jarl he knew he could defeat (Ulric admits he knew he could defeat Torygg to us in one of our conversations) so he kinda' loopholed himself into the situation, but broke no laws in the strictest sense.

Since I believe the challenge protocol and doubt jarls are forbidden from visiting, Roggvirr broke no laws by letting Ulfric in or out since Ulfric broke no laws and therefore shouldn't have been detained. If anything, the Empire was violating Nord laws/tradition by trying to prevent a non-puppet jarl into Solitude for a duel they suspected Torygg would lose.

Most of our laws are based on tradtion so you can't dismiss tradition with a clever statement. It was tradition to not murder, rpae, and steal in human socities long before any codes of laws had been transcribed.

Edited for usage.

Actually, I'm a utilitarian, but in terms of evaluating a PERSON motives certainly matter as far as predicting future behavior goes. In Kantian ethics, context actually matters very little, btw, but it is a very utilitarian thing.

And I don't think you can state with certainty that Ulfric's motives are to destroy the Thalmor. It isn't like he's leading a group against the Thalmor. He's fighting the Empire and the two are NOT the same. He definitely wants to be High King though.



What a bizarre view. What stops Ulfric from issuing a challenge if the conversation doesn't go well? NOTHING.


To debate what? You are tossing around really vague nations about the Empire's behavior here along with very vague scenarios about how they'd crack down on people. Without any context, I can't really judge the merit of your attempted points against them.

That explains a lot. I was really confused, a lot of what you said sounded utilitarian(Supporting the empire despite their encroachment on freedom in the claim that it'd work out for the best in the end) and you turned around and started talking Kantian when we discussed Ulfric.

Ulfric: "Skyrim will lead Tamriel against the Thalmor."
Ulfric doesn't plan on attacking the empire at all, he states as much to you directly. He can't create a fighting force that'll actually defeat the thalmor though if the empire won't support it.



"Guards arrest this man for treason"


See: Tiber's conquest of Tamriel.

Ordered by who - Tullius or Elenwen?

Probably Aldis. Tullius wasn't in Skyrim at the time.

Actually, if anything murder, [censored], and theft is a tradition between human cultures. Certainly many cultures throughout history have done this to their enemies.

And again, a tradition does not make something legal, nor does it make it good. It merely means it is something that is done, that's it.

It isn't just tradition though. It's nordic law.

You missed the point. ...and subjugated civilizations aren't protected by the victor's laws.

They're not a subjugated civilization. They've been at the heart of the empire for hundreds, if not thousands of years. This whole "ancient tradition" stuff goes back to a time even before the Alessian empire. It's moved on for quite some time. These people who are trying to revert to tradition don't even truly know what that tradition is, firsthand. They're just revivalists.

Everyone is getting off-track. I was referring to the "tradition" of murder, rpae, and theft of a people defeated in a war that the poster who got off-track of my post about laws being based on tradtion. I'm gonna' stop posting in this thread and just read.

Ah. Well, I think I'll stop posting and just read too.

High King Torygg ruled Skyrim. It was part of the Empire, but it was under his rule. He accepted the duel with Ulfric, and thereby negated any law regarding the murder of either combatant.

Sure, it was an ancient custom, but the ruling party not only acknowledged it, but accepted it as well. That makes it law. Roggvir should not have been executed as he was not guilty of any crime. His execution was simply a way for the Empire to exert dominance over Skyrim (with help from the Jarl of Solitude) and "restore order".