1. I believe that the duel was fair combat and not murder according to Nord Tradition and Culture. The problem is that the Imperials have a differnt cultural tradition and probably don't recognize the right to duel your way to Kingship.

2. Of course Ulfric is racist. As someone pointed out in the prior thread, pretty much everyone in this world is racist. And when you consider that the rallying cry for the Stormcloaks is "Skyrim belongs to the Nords," it rather makes the point. Ulfric doesn't order progroms against other races, but he doesn't punish the Nords who harass other races and he doesn't defend other races in his hold against bandits and other criminals. I suspect that he remains passive against other races because he doesn't have the men and material to fight two battles at once. Should he win the civil war, he might take a more active stance to expel the lesser races who infest his country. I suspect that his followers would demand it. [edit for spelling]

3. I believe that any subject nation has the right to rebel if they are opressed by the controling culture. When you consider that their right to practice their religion has been taken away from them, I think the Nords are within their rights as sentinent beings to rebel. Whether this is Ulfric's true motive is another question.

You also must ask if it is wise to rebel. The civil war will cost both Cyrodill and Skyrim much blood a treasure at a time when both need it to fight the Dominion. Sadly neither side seems to communicate with the other. Had they done so, both would have realized that each wants to defeat the Dominion--it's a question of when and how.

Although I dont agree passivity=Ulfrics apparent racism and dont think that the generic battlecry that nords were given spells that either (I'd say nords tend to be xenophobic, not racist) I do agree with most of what you said. I do believe Skyrim can defend itself from a Thalmor attack, but I agree it isn't the wisest thing to do at this moment, but sometimes the wise thing to do isn't always the right thing to do.

My views on this matter are as follows:

1. It entirely depends from what perspective and what set of laws you are looking from. According to Imperial law, it was murder, because the idea of "challenging your ruler for the right to rule yourself" does not exist and the concept is foreign to Imperial officials. Thus, when Ulfric challenged Torygg and killed him, the immediate impression was that Ulfric was a usurper and an assassin. Assassination is something the imperial court understands very well and thus they substituted their views for the Nordic one. Its a fundamental cultural misunderstanding.

For the Nords of course, it was a duel in the old tradition, and by Nordic law Ulfric was well within his rights to demand a duel. Although, I believe that he perhaps should have tried a diplomatic approach. It seems to me that I read somewhere that Torygg considered Ulfric a close friend, and likely would have been swayed to follow Ulfrics plan if given the chance.


2. As a Thalmor supporter, I think it would be hypocritical for me to comment on this so I won't.

3. National self-determination is a tricky matter, but yes, I believe he does have a right to rebel. Just like the Dominion, Argonia, and Hammerfell did. However, by the same token, I also believe the Empire has a right to defend its land and prevent its capture.

4. Again, it depends from which set of law codes you are viewing the situation. By Imperial tradition, no, he does not have the right. By Nordic tradition? Yes, he does.