Rest assured, Imperials aren't any better.

On my first charecter I admit that I was an imperial that joined the legeon. I thought I liked Balgruuf until the last few of my developed charecters when I actually started seeing Balgruuf for the crappy person he truly is.

Balgruuf trying to act all brave by telling the dragonborn to return Ulfrics axe in a way of showing that the war is on in whiterun. Balgruuf goes off and ask for backup from the imperials when he probably knew that he [censored] up, and that he put his own people at risk instead of trying to reason with Ulfric. Yeah hes a GOOD man alright.... by making poor decisions, and causing his own guards to die. No i'm not trying to say that Balgruuf should kiss Ulfrics ass.... I'm simply saying that if Balgruuf truly cared for his people he would've had a 1 on 1 meeting with ulfric to have a serious discussion.

Also have you guys notice how Ulfric spared Balgruuf's life? He should be [censored] thankful that he didn't die on that day. All he can spill out is that he will pay with his blood. Ungrateful [censored]!

"know where he stands"? have you played the imperial side? baalgruff hates having to turn to the imperials. he's pretty clear about it. you know where he stands. you're the courier and he loses his temper, and turns you away at first. like most sane people, he doesn't want anything to do with a war. it hardly qualifies being a "snake", when you're pissed off, have a monkey on your back, and you just want to be left alone.

when people start preparing for invasion though, he's worried. he doesn't have his own army. he has police, at best. so he begrudingly accepts imperial help. he isn't ulfric, who's built up a private army that can rival the Empire in skyrim. he's just a major of a town. what else is he supposed to do? join ulfric? it's that simple to you, right? wtf is the point of even having choices in the game then. "everyone should follow this one path, else you're a snake." give me a break.

I felt bad about siding with the Stormcloaks on my first character for much the same reason. Whiterun was my first home - and my first thaneship. It felt like a betrayal. I also didn't much like killing the legion guys and never really warmed to Galmor or Ulfric. When it got to the battle of Solitude, I'd had enough and refused the chance to kill Tullius myself. I felt happier siding with the Legion on my second character - Whiterun didn't get trashed and I had no problems offing Galmor and Ulfric.

But there are good and bad parts to both sides. As a previous poster has noted, siding with the Legion puts the Blackbriars in charge of Riften. Not good. It also keeps that useless Siddgeir in Falkreath. But then siding with the 'cloaks puts the Silverbloods in charge in Markath. Didn't much like those guys either, especially after being chucked in Cidhna Mine.

There's also the Thalmor to think about and the ban on Talos worship, vs the oppression of the non-human races in places like Windhelm. Swings and roundabouts, really, and good arguments for taking either side. However, on an emotional level, I was much happier taking the Empire's side. (My first two characters were both Nords, for the record).

I had similar, conflicting feelings on Whiterun. I was also a bit annoyed that there was no way to sway the "neutral" jarl of Whiterun with arguments or ... gasp ... diplomacy (speech). After all, I was Thane, I owned a house in Whiterun and I had saved his city from a dragon, so he should have reason to take me seriously.

Given that Tullius was at Helgen, my character considered him responsible for ordering the attempted murder on my character, so it felt a lot like revenge. That character did believe a lot in eye-for-an-eye.

Without that moral gray area, it would be difficult to make the civil war believable. If a large number of people are going to lay down their lives for a cause, they really need to believe that it is a good cause.

My first character was a Dummer, it makes all the sense in the world for him to side with the Empire and while I found completing the civil war rather ineffective for the empire, it didn't assault my senses like it is doing for the Stormcloaks.

I think Balgruuf has a pretty objective point of view regarding Ulfric. The man is bloodthirsy and wants the High King seat no matter what. Heck, the most decent Jarl supporting him, Law-giver (who admittedly is rather clueless about what is going on in her own city), doesn't like Ulfric either.


Problem with the Stormcloaks is that they don't really offer any realistic alternative to what the Empire should have done. They are just outraged about what happened. Having the head cut off an Empire tends to throw things into absolute chaos and undoubtedly would have led to the end of the Empire itself and likely a lot of causalties along the way (even if it hurt the Thalmor in the process). Far from a great way to go.

Look at it this way - at least Balgruuf's monster children will never inherit the throne.

Given that they hardly have any dialogue, I don't think one can judge them based off the extremely limited interaction the Dragonborn can have with them.

Well, one is a psychopath because of Daedric influences.

The others are just kids.

I think their dialogue is intended to be representative. Just like when you first walk in on Tullius in Solitude and Ulfric in Windhelm and listen to them talk its meant to be representative of their position and intent.

Eh, a good bit of the dialogue (and other stuff) in the game seems to be chosen because the Devs find it funny, and they have a bit of a twisted sense of humor.

That's not what I said or meant. If he chooses neutrality and doesn't want to ally with either side in the conflict, he should take the consequences of that choice and be ready and able to look after his own security. And not call on the Empire to help him when he refused te help the Empire before.
He annoys me because he gets his high horse moraility precisely from his passivity. He pretends to be opposed to the the WGC but does nothing against it. He says he opposes the Stormcloaks, yet remains passive. He refuses to get his hand dirty and even get all preachy when you do make your choice and do your part.

Ulfric pushed the issue. Balgruuf was okay with staying out of the war until Ulfric said he was invading.

Oh QQ. Who isn't against having to give up to the Thalmor? No one is "for" that, but when it is a choice between that and the chaos of a disintigrating Empire, well, you go with the lesser of two evils. Balgruuf merely understands that line of reasoning and frankly agrees with it. He's not a hypocrit for being angry over what the treaty enforces, but realizing the alternative was worse. I don't think he'd necessarily be against an uprising to overthrow the WGC if his alternative was better than Ulfric, but he's rightly hesitant to turn against the Empire, the legacy of Talos, the vital trading partner to Skyrim, etc.

The most you can really accuse him of is indecision. I think he views the civil war as absolutely horrible for Skyrim and is hoping it just goes away without him having to take sides or get involved (and thereby cause some of his people to get killed). When push comes to shove To be fair, if he did get involved earlier, then the whole thing would have gotten very bloody very quickly. By keeping a more neutral stance, he made the whole war difficult for both sides, which buys times for everyone. I think he just hoped that would be enough for an alternative to appear. Granted a lot of this is speculation, but it seems consistent with his character. Sadly, we don't get to hear much of his thoughts on the matter, save that he thinks there is merit to what Ulfric SAYS is his cause and that he thinks Ulfric is a bloodthirsty bastard who really just wants to be High King more than anything.

There's also a bit of the whole Nord concept of honor, which interferes with his thinking (and the thinking of other Nords, quite frankly). That makes it difficult for him to accept help defending against Ulfric from the Empire, and he only ends up doing so when he realizes that he really needs it. So if you really want to go after him for anything, I'd say it would be his prickly sense of honor that has some silly ideas in it.

Anyhow, it is ridiculous to expect him to try to be neutral, then when push comes to shove just have all his people suffer by not getting help when one side decides to attack him. Remember, that Ulfric forced the issue and was intending on making another example out of Balgruuf and Whiterun one way or another. Ulfric talks a big talk about the people of Skyrim deciding their own fate, then when natives of Skyrim disagree with him he goes after them -- he really just wants to decide their fate, and he'll remove anyone that gets in the way. You can hardly blame Balgruuf for asking for Imperial aid after Ulfric makes clear he won't accept Whiterun's neutrality.

The problem isn't the Beth writers, it's the whiney "I want to be an ultimate hero" players.

Sorry, there is no clear cut "good guys", no knights in shining armor, or any of those other cliches.

Where you feel like you did it wrong, I feel like I did what I had to do with no regrets.

This

It seems most of the complaints about Skyrim are how you can't be the ULTIMATE PALADIN WARRIOR KNIGHT OF PEACE JUSTICE!!!. I think it's a bit of fresh air that we aren't able to solve every problem in the game. Helps build the setting. I wonder how many complaints there would be if say the DB made you give candy to strangers and the TG made you rain money for beggars.

Eh, the game artificially not allowing you to be a good guy is pretty grating. You can get proof that Jarl Law-giver is being duped by her subordinate and Maven...can you then use that to clean up the city? Can you even show it to the Jarl? No. There are dozens of things like that. There's more if you add to it the fact there are times when you should at least be able to try to do better, even if it is extremely difficult.

I don't mind difficult decisions where you are constrained by the game's reality. It's all the artificial restrictions that bug me. A lot of them seemed to be aimed at people who'd like to be good, whereas people who want to be evil get a lot of options.

It is pretty easy to understand how this might upset some when the main quest easily sets up the classic hero role...except the rest of the game doesn't even let you TRY to be a hero half the time, because even the most blatent of heroic options is denied for no reason. Even if that option is just handing someone a piece of paper you picked up or having a conversation.

Ulfric did want to do it the peaceful way. He gave away his chance of a surprise attack, or at least an attack without the imperial forces present, by giving Balfruuf a choice. You can hardly blame him for "going after" Balgruuf when the jarl calls in the imperials. From the dialogue with Galmar you can learn he does so only with great reluctance. He even spares Balgruuf's life after the battle.

In times of great turmoil, neutrality is a choice. And indecision can be a major flaw. Countries like Belgium and the Nerherlands thought they could be "neutral" in WW2. They were wrong.

Balgruuf, like any man, has the right to stay out of any conflict that doesn't concern him. The more so if neither side has a monopoly on virtue. But the Civil War does concern him. His people are arrested by Thalmor patrols. His country does belong to Skyrim and the results of the civil war will also be the results for his people. In such cases indecision and neutraility are almost a crime, at least a mistake. As I posted on another thread: "For evil to triumph, all it takes is that good men do nothing." (Burke)

Vignar Grey-Mane is not a bad guy. Sorry you can't take a bit of gruffness, OP. I think maybe Skyrim is too hardy for your delicate sensibilities. He's served many years in the Companions and is an honorable man- not that Balgruuf isn't.

I do wish we had had a chance to persuade Balgruuf to join one side or the other, but what happens is realistic. Whiterun is strategically positioned and a civil war is not a clear cut thing. It is brother fighting against brother.

I would have LOVED a choice to depose Ulfric in favor of Balgruuf....

Because the empire was so helpful when Morrowind was being invaded by the Argonians?

It's funny that people seem to have more trouble with the idea of Ulfric attacking Whiterun in order to win his war than the imperials allowing Thalmor to kidnap its citizens for being Talos worshippers. If you agree with the ends, the means are just what you have to do. Ulfric does not attack Whiterun lightly or with bloodthirst, in fact he's quite reluctant.

All Jarls have their lives spared by everyone. That's just a game mechanic and doesn't mean much, honestly. And don't read too much into what Ulfric says his reasoning is. He's a big showman and wants to come across as doing everything for a free Skyrim and for Talos worship, but it is pretty dang clear he's not afraid to kill tons of innocents in order to become High King. After all, if he massacres a bunch of innocents, it's the Empire's fault and that is that. He likes giving speeches though, as other people comment on.

He forces the issue with Balgruuf when he knows Balgruuf doesn't want to get involved. And it is quite clear that Ulfric has been maneuver troops to attack Whiterun for some time. The fact is Ulfric is for a Skyrim not free to rule itself, but a Skyrim that he rules. There's a big difference between the two.


This isn't anything like WW2.



The Civil War only concerns him because Ulfric wants to rule instead of the Empire and is pretty willing to do whatever it takes to make all of Skyrim bow before him. That's honestly the behavior of a tyrant. Not wanting to bend his knee to such a person is quite understandable.

Heck, the only reason there ARE Thalmor patrols in Skyrim is because of Ulfric's past actions as many people state. Before the Stormcloak Rebellion started, there were no crackdowns on Talos worship.


He's not that reluctant. He's positioning troops to do it and making speeches about how it's a shame and he'll do whatever he feels he must (to rule). He then forces the issue with Balgruuf. This really just makes him a hypocrit, since he's just as bad as he claims the Empire is -- and he's quite willing to overlook the massacre of civilians by his people.

And honestly, there's no particular evidence he's going to do much of anything against the Thalmor beyond not have them in Skyrim...which was pretty much the case before he started his rebellion anyhow. At best things will end up much as they were at the cost of a lot of lives. At worst he'll keep Skyrim in a perpetual war with the Thalmor just like Hammerfell is, with countless lives lost.

I just don't see what his worthy end is supposed to be.

Massacre? I didn't see any such thing. No non-combatants die. And he is indeed reluctant. I take it you never listened to his discussion with Galmar about it.
There's even less evidence the empire is going to do anything against the Thalmor. As of Skyrim, they're working pretty closely together in fact. His worthy end is freeing Skyrim from weak, corrupt leadership that is using its provinces as bargaining chips to save Cyrodiil.

It can come up in the negotiations and Ulfric dismisses it as being the Empire's fault if his men killed a bunch of innocents. And like I said, I have listened to that conversation. Unlike you I just don't look at Ulfric in the best light possible. His reluctance clearly starts and ends with his desire to have things go his way without expending any resources. Leaving Balgruuf alive he even openly admits is about making a statement, and not about anything else.


Eh, almost everyone seems pretty sure the WGC is only a measure of temporary peace and it won't last. It is explicitly stated it was made to give time for the Empire to build up its troops and recover.