As Celan points out, we've actually seen this on earth quite a lot. More often than hereditary kingship, I'd say.


He hardly has the resources to be proactive - there aren't enough guards to chase a serial killer, and the city's not in the best shape, economically. And he is the leader of half the country, as well. At any rate, his apathy is not evidence of racism.


His war record speaks for itself. Imperial Legion veteran; captured fighting in defence of the Imperial City. Tortured by the Thalmor, did not break. Studied the thu'um. That's more impressive than any other Jarl.

That makes it clear that "Law-giver" is a bad judge of character. Elisif seems to be a good one and so has good advisors and knows who in her court isn't to be trusted.

There's no evidence the Empire runs Solitude. The Empire is running the war and Tullius is a leader in that respect, but the operations of Solitude itself are another matter entirely. I understand how it might be fashionable for people who hate the Empire to say supporting them is a bad thing, but that seems like a very biased place to start making judgments from.



I think there's a good point to be made regarding the burning of King Olaf so soon after the High King was killed especially when the origin of that celebration isn't known (and Elisif isn't the only one that thinks this). She does change her mind when the origin is discovered and made clear, however. I don't think that's being ruled by emotion.

Erikur says it when you ask about Jarl Elisif: 'let's just say I have every confidence in General Tullius's leadership.' It seems to be Tullius and Firebeard who control the city as military and civil commanders, respectively. Elisif is just a friendly face for the people.

But you guys are forgetting about 'The Markarth Incident'...

Oh, and I almost forgot about what he did to High King Torygg...

Ulfric has established himself. What of the other Jarls?

Erikur is also the selfish double-dealing careless noble who would say such a thing without offering supporting evidence.

Exactly. Elisif is a nice girl, but she's a pawn. She's a pretty facade for the Empire's rule.

And Tullius doesn't make decisions regarding how the city is run or how the region is run. He's making decisions about the war. You even get to see how the court is run and there's no represenative of Tullius there. So like I said, there's no evidence that Tullus RUNS the city. He's in charge of the war effort and the military and that's a quite different thing.

One could make an argument that Firebeard runs the city, but of course that's in his capacity as a trusted advisor for a inexperienced Jarl. It seems like you are trying to make this seem insidius, when it isn't.

If the only real thing people have against Elisif is that she supports the Empire, then that's not anything, imho. Do those that say this also make excuses for Ulfric and how the Dunmer and Argonians are treated?

Falk Firebeard also gets very angry if you question whether Tullius respects Elisif. He protests too much. You can see who's got the pants on during the cease fire negotiation. Elisif starts to object about Ulfric being there, and I thought- maybe she has some backbone after all- then Tullius chides her and she caves immediately. It's a wonder he didn't pat her on the head.

Strawman.

Her inexperience at ruling has already been stated multiple times.

I mentioned four Jarls in that post. What are you trying to say?


Several NPCs in the city mention that General Tullius has the real power in the situation. Of course Elisif is going to deny it. I don't WANT this to be true, because I actually like Elisif, and was sad when I saw what was going on. She is a better person than Ulfric is, but it doesn't amount to anything when she can't make her own decisions. Every single time she makes a decision in the game, her advisors step in and tell her she's wrong, and she changes it. Except when she appoints you Thane, which is just a title.

That ceremony is all heretical lies, intending to slander a High King. I'd ban it too.

Erikur is not a military leader: when he says it's Tullius in command, it's the city he's talking about. We never see Tullius make decisions, granted, but nor do we see Elisif.


He also knows the intricacies of the Imperial court inside-out.


Falk and Tullius support the empire, too, and I still say they're the power behind the throne.

Against the wishes of your subjects? Knowing it'll decrease commerce and trade?

It's tainted money. The people who run it are profiting from an innocent, heroic man. They probably know it too. The only way you convince Elisif to run it again is by lying.

The thing is, regarding Elisif, there's no point in being on the throne if you rely on advisors and people to tell you what to do almost 100% of the time. Perhaps Falk Firebeard should be Jarl of Solitude if he is doing so much. A leader needs to know what is best for their subjects and have some idea about how to protect and serve them. If Elisif can't do these things, she isn't fit to be Jarl. Sitting there relying constantly on advisors really does make her a pawn. I like Elisif, and think that eventually she could be a great leader. But she isn't ready now. She isn't the Jarl of Solutide - her gaggle of advisors and General Tullius run the show, just like what happened with Torygg.

It's not a strawman, it's an if-then statement given the fact the topic of her inexperience was quickly dropped by people who seem keen to bash her support of the Empire. An if-then statement designed to allow those people to retract that as the thrust of their argument and substitute something else.

Her inexperience is a rather small issue given the fact she has advisors that can be trusted who have a lot of experience.


Let's be fair, the decisions she tries to make in those situations that are objected to ARE bad decisions. Her changing her mind when someone points that out is a good thing. Or is a leader supposed to stick with any decision they make, no matter how stupid?


We actually see Elisif make decisions, including but not limited to appointing Firebeard to handle certain problems.


Because Elisif WANTS them to be and given their experience and her inexperience, can we really say that's a bad decision on her part? Let's be clear though, it IS her decision. They don't coerce her into anything.

Then if every decision she makes on her own is bad, why is she Jarl? Why not have someone who can make good decisions?

Well, there's no business having a Monarchy. That's not rulership by the people, for the people. If we're going to get into this, then Ulfric and the Empire should all be destroyed and replaced with a democratically elected government. I think we can safely let this go given the nature of the game world, however.

Every decision she makes isn't bad. When she changes her mind to a non-bad decision or to trust the judgment of someone with a lot of experience and sound character, that's a good decision. When she allows the Burning of Olaf festival after it has been "proved" to not besmirch a proper High King, that's a good decision. When she makes someone into a Thane after a lot of great service to Solitude, that's also a good decision. Really, we're talking about her making what...two bad decisions in the game? Maybe three? And when she's called on it, she changes her mind.

I'm not saying she's perfect by any means. Certainly she needs a lot more experience. But given her severe inexperience, she is doing a heck of a job, imho -- the city is actually run quite well and far better than most other cities in Skyrim. Whiterun is the only competition here, I think.

I don't disagree with you. I know that given her inexperience she's doing a good job. I'm just questioning if someone else can't do a better one. Is she really the best person for the job? I just don't think she is. If it was a time of peace it would be okay, because she'd have time to mature and gain experience. But Skyrim needs more than that right now, in my opinion. I don't have a huge problem with her being Jarl but I couldn't see her being a good High Queen, sorry.

Eh, given the other cities of Skyrim...I wouldn't count on it. I mean seriously, the place is a dysfunctional mess. There is perhaps one truly good ruler, and the others all have their own problems, though the ruler of Morthal is pretty good with only one weakness. Elisif fairs very, very well by comparison, though I suppose someone might say it isn't hard given the competition. Not sure who'd be better in charge that actually wants the job, however.

Her support of the empire is relevant because she is just a puppet figure who lets herself be ruled by whoever in the room is more confident than she is. After Ulfric's victory, she swears fealty to him without batting an eyelash. At least Torygg had the courage to defend his kingship with his life. And Ulfric no doubt lets her keep her jarlship because he knows she'll do anything he tells her to.

Who says they can be trusted? Sybille Stentor surely isn't a trustworthy person, for one.

Go talk to Elisif's cook.

I disagree that this is a strawman example. That example exists; it simply doesn't excuse other wrongdoings or shortcomings of other people

edit
dammit, I type all day long on a different keyboard, and then I come here and I can't spell a damn thing without a typo

several people seem to forget that Elisif has but TWO people she takes advice from. TWO. Falk Firebeard, and the court wizard. That's it. She has a courtroom with those two, herself, her housecarl, and two thanes who walk around and do [censored] all.

She's corrected when she tries to send a legion on a menial task.

She cedes authority to tullius at the negotiations.

Other than that, you get a quest from Falk, then a quest from Elisif, then the thane questline, then a quest from Falk, plus the Olaf festival, which she herself handles quite well. Do we ever actually SEE any administrative actions other than trying to send a legion somewhere? No, I don't believe we do.

point is, we have little first hand accounts of Elisif and management of Solitude. The majority of what we have is hearsay and opinions from npcs.

And you don't think the fact she has no armies and anything else at that point is a part of that? There are lots of potential reasons to swear fealty at that point, one of the more obvious would be because it better enables revenge later.

And you're in favor of the barbaric tradition that resulted in Torygg's death? Why's that?


In what manner is she not trustworthy because of that?