I've only seen the one Imperial torture chamber in the beginning and two cases of beheading, one being the case in Solitude, the other at the start of Unbound. Mind you, both of those things paint the Empire in a bad light, but they don't have any illusions about those things being glorious. The people involved (aside from the sadistic torturer and the Redguard captain) seem to be rather remorseful about having to go to these lengths to end the war Ulfric started.

Sure, I don't pretend Ulfric is some kind of saint, and what sort of ruler he'll make is still up in the air.

Eh, if he had to then I'm sure Ulfric would do the same. He's not as ruthless as some seem to think, though. I expected to see heads rolling after the Battle of Solitude. Tullius actually struck me as more bloodthirsty at the end of the imperial line, bragging that he's going to send Ulfric and Galmar's heads to be put on spikes in the Imperial City. That might have just been speechifying, though, since he never does it.

I cannot recall any other instances off hand, but I do recall talking with the Redguard Captain (Ahtar) after he beheaded Roggvir and he made it clear that he enjoyed beheading people and I thought he made a remark about torturing them as well. I do remember that he impressed me so much, that I followed him home and assassinated him in his sleep. He was the first (and so far the only) named NPC I have killed in Skyrim that was not required to be killed in order to complete a quest.

However, even if the rank and file soliders are by and large remorseful of using torture to extract information from political prisioners (and I agree that some of them are remorseful about it, Hadvar being a good example) that doesn't excuse the Empire's behavior.

Have you seen any case where a Stormcloak was torturing anyone for information? I haven't but I would be interested if someone has.

One of the biggest turn offs for me is how he deals with General Tullius if the Stormcloaks take Solitude. He refuses to let his enemy surrender and thinks of what will be the best way to kill him for any songs that will be written. To me that seems pretty twisted. But the major thing is that he refuses to allow Tullius to surrender, as if it's never an option. You either fight and win, or die trying. Except for the fact that you find him bound and gagged at the start of the game after he surrendered to Tullius. He surrenders to his enemy, but doesn't give him the same courtesy when the roles are reversed.


While he's not an active member of the Stormcloaks, the brother of Ulfric's right hand man and a retired veteran Stormcloak Soldier threaten that Dumer woman in Windhelm in a way that convinces me that they're threatening to r-pe her for being a "spy," and I think they even say they'll do it to make her talk. At the very least they're going to attack and beat her, but it really sounds like they're threatening to go much further than that.

I'm not the kind of person who goes "Well he's retired, so he's not a reflection of the organization anymore." I don't think everyone in the Stormcloaks are like that, just like I don't think everyone in the Legion is like that Redguard captain.

Eh, what? Tullius was going to execute him. Ulfric only surrendered so that his men wouldn't be slaughtered, but look how that worked out- they were all going to the block anwyay.

It's the exact same situation, in Helgen and also if the imperials win the civil war. Tullius never offers to let Ulfric and Galmar surrender and go into exile or something. Ulfric does try to get Rikke to surrender- he practically begs her to do so, and I imagine he would let her go into exile if she wasn't willing to come over to his side. For Tullius, it's just pragmatic. He was the imperial governor, the buck stopped with him, and Ulfric's not about to let him go back to Cyrodiil to plot an imperial invasion. In my Stormcloak game, my dovahkiin took Tullius' head herself as payment for Helgen.

Also I think you're mixing up some dialogue. Ulfric doesn't mention songs in that scene. He says that when he's facing his own execution, asking that the dovahkiin do it so that at least there might be songs written about it. I can see how that strikes people as self-centered but I see it as a Nord thing. Nords value facing death with honor. Being executed is a humiliating death, and if he has to die then he wants a hero to do the job, not some slimy imperial.

Wait, wait. Angrenor is a veteran of the Great War. AFAIK he was never a Stormcloak. I checked the wiki and apparently he does say that he was. Rolff is not a Stormcloak. The only indication he's even Galmar's brother is the last name- there's no dialogue about it that I know of. And I find it really funny that you consider these two idiot drunks are indicative of some dark Stormcloak plot. If you beat Rolff up, he considers you his best friend. This is not indicative of deep cunning. LOL

As I said I don't think Ulfric is above roughing somebody up or using torture, even if we never see it. He might be more sensitive to the issue because he himself was tortured, but Nords and imperials are from the same culture and it's just what you do in Tamriel.

Oops. You're right. He only mentions songs when he tells you to make Tullius' death a good one. But even Galmar calls him out on being obsessed with a "good ending for a story," and delaying killing Tullius, since he's savoring the dramatic moment.

And while it's true that Ulfric was going to be executed no matter which way the Imperials got him (be it his surrender at Helgen or his death in Windhelm), killing Tullius just seems like a bad move. Negotiating the treaty for Skyrim's independence and sending Tullius, a renowned general who everyone thought would be more than capable of quelling the rebellion, back to Cyrodiil in disgrace would make a much more powerful statement. It makes the Nords seem powerful, but not blood thirsty. Sending Tullius back would be seen as a token of good will that an independent Skyrim doesn't want to be enemies with the Empire, and would probably make the Empire more likely to reach out through diplomacy and trade.




I don't consider them to be indicative of some dark Stormcloak plot. I'm just saying they threaten a woman in a way I don't see anyone do on the other side. I may not approve of Ulfric, but I give him enough credit to believe if they actually carried through with their threats that even he'd have to do something about it.

Can you blame Ulfric after the way he was treated by Tullius after Ulfric surrendered to Tullius? Ulfric surrenders and Tullius orders him summarily executed without trial.


Sure, every organization has its bad apples. But I am talking about the organization itself. It seems like the use torture on political prisoners is an acceptable practice for the Empire but not the Stormcloaks. At least I have not seen any evidence that the Stormcloaks make an acceptable practice of torture.

They don't have to negotiate anything- they won the civil war. We don't see mass executions of imperials, so I imagine that the legions (barring holdouts that stay in the mountain camps) are allowed to lay down their weapons and go home. That's gesture enough. After Helgen, Ulfric has more than enough right to execute Tullius. If he had really wanted to exploit it politically, he could have put him up for a show trial and done the execution in public- as Tullius was doing at Helgen, or display his head- as Tullius threatened to do when the tables are turned. I don't consider Ulfric's handling of it extreme at all. You're picking at straws.

Is it? I remember some torturing going on in Cyrodiil 200 years before, but I remember it primarily being done by vampires and generally frowned upon by decent folks.

EDIT: Now I am getting interested in doing another Oblivion run!

I think partially this and partially that he chose a grand stage to demonstrate his power. Just so only one side starts attacking me: I'm Pro-Stormcloak.

My memory of Oblivion is foggy. I mean you see torture racks in all the dungeons, but since Hadvar does say something like "I wish we didn't have to do this," obviously it's not completely accepted.

By "all the dungeons" are you referring to places like where they throw prisoners in major Stormcloak cities like Windhelm? I know they torture people in Solitude, but that is an imperial City, so any torture racks in their dungeon could be explained by Imperial influence. I must admit, I have not broken into Ulfric's dungeon in Windhelm to see if there is a torture rack in there. Add one more thing to my to do list . . .

I think I recall Valyn Dreth in oblivion mentioning torture in some of his intro speeches depending on your race/gender.

Well, I wouldn't take anything he says too seriously. I just checked the UESP and they have all his dialog listed and apart from a vague reference to "special" treatment the guards might give an Imperial I did not see any reference to torture. He does tell everyone that they are going to die in prison.

Aww, I'd forgotten about him. I have a soft spot for Dunmer men, even when they're jackasses.

I've never played Oblivion, but I've been wanting to for a while now. I only have a PS3 though, and I've heard some things that make me nervous. Is it mostly stable?

Get the GOTY edition and you should be fine. That's what I got and I have never had a real problem, and I have got over 1,000 hours in Oblivion on PS3. Every once in a while it freezes and you have to reboot but that's fairly rare and the loading screens are kind of long, but the same thing happens on Xbox. I have it on both PS3 and Xbox and I don't see much difference between the two, but the PS3 version seems to run a little better than Xbox. I would not bother with the 5 year edition unless you want the swag because the game is the same as the GOTY. I'd definately get GOTY over regular edition though because you get Knights of the Nine and Shivering Isles.

EDIT: The vampire cure bug makes it impossible to cure once you become a vampire, so becomming a vampire is permanent on a PS3.

I've seen torture racks in all the dungeons in Skyrim, so it's not an Imperial only thing. I mean, why else would they have all those racks down there? Do the guards operate a massage parlor on the side?

Well, I have only seen torture racks in Thalmor prisons and Silver hand prisons, but I admit not to have looked in Windhelm's City dungeon (although I plan to look when I get a chance).

In any event, it is one thing to have an old torture rack in your dungeon that might be used to torture a murderer or a rapist as a form of punishment or that might have not been used at all in many years for all we know.

It is quite another thing to torture someone for political reasons. AFAIK, only the Empire and the Thalmor torture political prisoners for information. That's one of the many things the Empire and the Thalmor have in common.

But if you do Season Unending and one or more Stormcloak holds are given to the Empire as part of the ceasefire agreement, the Empire will immediately do exactly the same thing - replace the pro-Stormcloak Jarl(s) with those they know are loyal to the Empire and will NOT support Ulfric's claim to the throne in the Moot or anywhere else. When holds change hands during the negotiations, it's actually said outright that the new powers that be in that region will toss out the old Jarl and install one who supports them.

The same thing happens if you win the war for the Empire - all the Jarls who supported Ulfric are tossed out and pro-Imperial Jarls are installed in their places. Nobody has the moral high ground on this issue; both sides want to ensure that whatever happens in the Moot happens in their favor and will juggle Jarls whenever possible to that end.


Aaaaaand I now have an image in my head of a Skyrim full of juggling Jarls.


Edit: regarding what happens to Tullius if the Stormcloaks win the war and take Solitude... personally, I think in that situation he should have fallen on his own sword.

What, too Roman?

Maybe so, but that's exactly what I'm arguing. Ulfric is doing the exact same thing people criticize the Empire of. He isn't fighting to free Skyrim, he's fighting to control it. Two very different things.

Of course he's fighting for control, in the sense that *someone* will have to rule Skryim once the Empire is out of the picture. But a Skyrim that is ruled solely by a High King elected by a Moot of other local rulers who are not beholden to a foreign power is a whole different thing than a Skyrim ultimately controlled by an Empire for which Skryim is not "home" but, when push comes to shove, just a valuable military and economic asset. (Whether or not you agree with that assessment of the Empire's interest in Skyrim is irrelevant, as those who want the Empire out *do* indicate that they believe exactly that and it's part of their motivation for seeking independence.) He is fighting to free Skyrim from Imperial rule. That it will then be ruled by someone else, whether it's Ulfric or not, is a given. You don't fight and win a war for independence and then say to your countrymen, oh well, you're all free now, everybody just go about your business and solve your own problems however you like because nobody's in charge any more.

You might just as well say that the US founding fathers weren't fighting for independence from Britain, but rather for control of the former colonies because they really just wanted to run things for themselves. Well, yeah, they did want to run things themselves, that was kinda the whole point of the revolution.

The Dwemer have some pretty elaborate devices complete with 'bleachers'.

While this may cause the conversation to devolve into a shouting match in which neither side may claim victory, do you care to list other things that the Empire and Thalmor have in common?