This whole "What you do in game is actually relevant to the storyline"-thing is a concept entirely new and obscure to me. I was under the illusion that it doesn't really matter if you choose Empire or Stormcloaks because Bethesda will just pick one for the canon Dragonborn in lore regardless. Makes sense, anyway.

I think one of the main problems in the civil war is whether the Nords should follow their own laws or the Empire's laws.

On one hand, Skyrim is part of the Empire, and should follow its laws to the letter.

On the other hand, the Empire's laws disregard the traditional Nord laws and customs.

But then again, some of the old laws seem a bit outdated.

And then it is important to consider that the Nords value tradition and honoring one's ancestors...

Alot of good points on both sides, really.

Given the amount of outrage over the event, from other Nords, I'd be willing it bet it's one of those rules that is "on the books," so to speak, but hasn't been used in such a long time it's not looked well upon anymore.

Supporting the Empire is definitely the smarter choice. If Tamriel is split up into a bunch of independent provinces, there's no way they will ever defeat the Thalmor. The more division there is, the easier it is for the Thalmor to gain more control. The Empire is the last hope for the provinces to unite and actually have a chance to fight back.

This is not the time for the Nords to fight for independence, even if they deserve it. The way I see it, they're either going to be ruled by the Empire (if they accept the Empire's control and fight the Thalmor) or the Thalmor (If they kick the Empire out and leave themselves too weak to repel the Thalmor invasion). And the Empire seems like they would be the less oppressive rulers.

Don't really care about anyone's reasons in game, their all kinda stupid. IMO stromcloaks are the only moral route to take. Downside to them is their super racist, but that can be fixed over time. The Aldmeri dominion is evil and want to tell everyone what to do. Forcing religion on people or in this case not letting them practice it can never end well.

imho.

If I may be a son of a lady dog, the Stormcloaks think that anyone who isn't with them on their supposed holy war is the enemy. Two sides of the same religious persecution coin between them and the Thalmor.

The moment you win the war for stormcloaks they make it pretty clear they have no intention of attacking the empire. The thalmor are their only target.

It's less join me or die, and more join me or get out of my way.

I only ever played through with the Imperials because the Stormcloaks kinda drove me up the wall, so I didn't notice that. Maybe I'll give the Stormcloak army a go on another character to see what that's all about.

The Empire is crumbling, anyone who cannot see that is denying the truth. What proves that a united Imperial Empire is the best chance that Tamriel has against the Aldmeri Dominion? Clearly not the Great War, because the independant Redguards were able to fight off the main Aldmeri army. The Dominion is so weak that the military strength of the side that you fight for does not matter, rather it comes down to a choice of morality and/or your beliefs.

And if strength does matter, keep in mind that the Leigon is 'strecthed as thin as it is these days' and is 'forced to recruit locally.'

Respectively, this is not the time for the Empire to further subjegate its citizens.

I didn't mean attacking the court. I meant raising his army of Stormcloaks to wage war against the people who don't support his claim to the throne.


I'm not sure it's so cut and dry, considering the amount of Jarls who are opposed to Ulfric. If killing Torygg was all it would have taken for him to legitimately be named the High King, only Elisif would be opposed to him becoming High King, mostly out of love for her husband. If killing the High King made you the next High King automatically, I think there would be much more civil unrest throughout Skyrim's history. I think that after the High King dies, whether it be in a duel, old age, or war, a moot has to occur to proclaim the next legitimate ruler.

I think that if the people of Skyrim really felt that Ulfric had a leg to stand on, the Jarls would at least be able to hold the moot without Imperial interference, lest the Empire upset the whole of Skyrim and have to fight all the Holds, rather than the 4 that follow Ulfric. That's why I want to see in game proof regarding who made the first move after Torygg's death. If Ulfric declared himself High King before the moot, he's overstepped the Nord ways and is launching a coup rather than following the due process of Nord customs. If the Empire immediately launched an attack against him, that'd be against the Nord ways. So why aren't the Jarls intervening?

The fact that there are more Jarls not with Ulfric then there are with him suggests to me that a moot would likely not go in his favor, and I looking at how he conducts himself, I doubt he would really want a moot to take place, since the main thing he is after is not an independent Skyrim and the restoration of Talos among the Divines, but an independent Skyrim with him as leader.

A united empire is the best way to beat the dominion

A moot is conveyed if the High King declines the challenge, because in declining the challenge his leadership is put into question. Torygg could've declined, kept his skin, and Ulfric probably would have become High King through and through. But the Imperials (whose presence is strongest in Solitude) do not care for ancient Nord traditions, Skyrim is part of the Empire, so the Empire declares what goes. They Empire branded Ulfric a traitor and a murderer (just like they did in the Markarth Incident), and that's when the civil war started.

According to Sybille Stentor, he was going to be arrested and tried, but he escaped. Roggvir, the gate guard, ended up being executed for opening the gate for Ulfric to escape. He was also branded a traitor.

In addition, one does not merely challenge the High King because they want to be the leader of Skyrim. The issuer of the challenge thinks that he can lead Skyrim better than the current High King, and I'm pretty sure that they have to be a Jarl.

It's less about subjegating and more about quelling an insurrection.

A significant portion of Skyrim's population still support the Empire and as citizens of the Empire they have every right to look to the Empire for assistance in dealing with the Stormcloaks. And seeing has how the Legion is recruiting locally, it's clear that they have no shortage of "Sons of Skyrim" willing to fight to remain part of the Empire.

The fact that the imperials were going to arrest Ulfric and try him after the duel- a duel that Torygg accepted- shows that the system was so corrupt that it couldn't function as it was meant to. Ulfric makes the point that all the jarls had been bought off by imperial coin- which we know from Balgruuf is true- and the system was stacked anyway. Sybille says that when Ulfric brought up independence at a moot, his words were "just shy of treason"- so a moot could not fairly decide on independence when even bringing up the subject would be considered treasonous.

I don't think there was any way this could not have gone to civil war, unless Torygg had declined the duel, stepped down and endorsed Ulfric as king.

It's half and half, and according to Rikke "more join him every day."

Don't try to pin that on the Imperials. There are plenty of Nords that find Ulfric's actions to be unacceptable. Like I said, I'd be willing to be this is the case of an old tradition that has not actually been practiced in a long time. So the supporters of Ulfric can say, "It's tradition, so Ulfric is right." And those that oppose him can say, "No, we're not savages. We don't operate that way anymore. That was murder." An old tradition that has become socially unacceptable except to those who want to use it to further then own goals.

Obviously it was acceptable to Torygg and his court, up until he lost.

I agree, but only because I think Ulfric is power hungry. I doubt he would have encouraged Torygg to separate from the Empire, because it removed his entire basis to try and take the High Throne for himself.

I'm not saying the Stormcloaks are wrong for seeking independence, or that the Empire didn't fail to honor their obligations, but I feel that Ulfric Stormcloak himself is a corrupt man seeking to become a despot. His whole "You're either with me or against me" attitude is the exact same reason I abandon the Blades.

I think Torygg was Ulfric's strongest ally for an independent Skyrim and his biggest obstacle to a Skyrim ruled by him, and his desire for power overruled his desire to have Skyrim free under its legitimate ruler.

Measuring on Logos, the Civil War is foolish because it cripples both the Empire and Skyrim, hurting chances of defeating the Thalmor and retracting the White-Gold Concordant.

Measuring on Ethos, Skyrim should be allowed to leave the Empire because the Empire has failed to live up to its social contract with its provinces.

Measuring on Pathos, Ulfric strikes me as a narcissistic and power-hungry brute who takes a just cause and perverts it to his own end, and is willing to destroy the lives of so many of the people he claims to be fighting for, if it means getting power, whereas Torygg strikes me as big picture thinking man who is willing to die for his honor.

That's why I can't side with the Stormcloaks, because while I feel Skyrim should be independent, its better off under the Imperial banner than it is under Ulfric Stormcloak.

No, it wasn't. They just didn't know what he was planning until it was too late.

If you read my post, I suggested it was still in the rule book, but largely considered unacceptable. Once Ulfric invoked it, Torygg had to step up as a matter of honor. It was a rule, after all and honor matters. Especially in the High King. It's very clear, though, that to many people, Nords included, the fact that Ulfric invoked that rule in the first place was unacceptable and tantamount to murder.

If they had no intention of respecting the outcome of the duel, then have Ulfric arrested for treason. If it was illegal, ARREST HIM. Hard to make a bid for the throne of skyrim when you're stuck in an imperial prison. Or go to the moot if you like. Present your case that the duel should be outlawed in nordic law. The nords knew the value of their traditions. Until they established the moot, and succession rules, they had civil wars all the time. Succession claims were handled easily and they didn't even come close to war again until the events of skyrim. And the moment they decide to break their tradition, guess what happens. Civil war.

Seriously? That's the argument you bring to the table?

The Stormcloaks would've done the exact same thing. Possibly even worse than that.

I don't think it's so much the duel they have the problem with as it is the use of the Thu'um in the fight. It was completely unnecessary and overkill, not to mention a gross misuse of the power taught to him by the Greybeards.

Wasn't that their intention? Until a certain guard opened the gate and let Ulfric out?

Ulfric wants power and he doesn't have enough support among the Jarls to guarantee that he will be the next High King. Hence the civil war. Once he wins and replaces the Jarls that oppose him with new Jarls that will support him, he's guaranteed to be voted High King.

I highly dislike all three jarls that support him. Skald is an [censored], Laila is a puppet for the Black-Briars and she doesn't even know it (LOL oblivious), and Korir blames the College for everything.