I'm sorry but "I have to because my honor would suffer otherwise" means that he and all of the bystanders accepted the challenge as fair.

Roggvir's fate and Helgen shows what their intention was.
And that is nothing more than what the imperials have already been doing, stacking the deck and twisting the laws so that their interests come out on top. In a dirty game the man who plays by the rules loses, and in this case loses his head.

No, it means they didn't want to interfere with the duel or were too shocked to act, but then freaked out when it was over because "Holy crap he killed the king!".
The King's dead. In their eyes they were 'avenging' him or something.
Like it or not, what Roggvir did was treason. Roggvir betrayed the Empire and recieved a punishment befitting such a crime during that time period.
And Helgen was something last minute. They could have gotten everything sorted and set up in the Imperial City if it wasn't for the damn Thalmor breathing at their necks...
If the Imperials do it, then does that justify the Stormcloaks in doing it to? And Ulfric has shown that he is willing to play less than fair (Torygg and attacking Whiterun) when it comes to war and politics.

The Thalmor harrass the Empire until it makes a concession that Skyrim hates. More than a few Imperials probably hate it too. Ulfric could have raised arms against the Thalmor in Skyrim and gained wide support, both in Skyrim and the Empire. Neither sees the Aldmeri Dominion as anything but an enemy. He could have flouted the one new law the Emperor declared, the single thing the Stormcloaks have any reasonable grudge against, and probably gained a wide following. His cause could have been just. Instead, he decides to war against everyone and everything -- not just the ban on Talos worship -- having to do with Imperial rule. He decides to go murder Nords and Imperials as though they were all ready to defend Thalmor policies, as though there aren't better enemies to deal with.

Which is completely out of line. You either respect the ruling of your high king, or you have him reprimanded. What good is a law if you're unwilling to enforce it when the issue comes up? Or only enforce it selectively?

This I agree with, Roggvir broke the law. I think it's a BS punishment though, and the crime more akin to insubordination.

How exactly were either of those situations unfair? Just because Torygg never trained in an art typically known by high kings doesn't make it unfair. He could've used magic if he'd known any.


You guys really don't seem to grasp that supporting a group of your own citizens that attacks a treaty partner is akin to saying the treaty's off. The empire has already shown it doesn't want to go to war yet, the stormcloak militia would've been branded criminals and executed/imprisoned in order to keep the peace.

If I'm not wrong, I think Elsweyr lost something very naturally sacred (a moon or something like that), and after a while it returned to Elsweyr. The Aldmeri Dominion took credit, and the Khajiits thanked them.

They were either extremely gullible or did not have the numbers to hold back the Thalmor.

Either way, the Dominion has Elsweyr under their fingertips, so it's not shocking to see Khajiit operators in the Thalmor.

True, but if the legitimate ruler of Skyrim had not been killed by Ulfric Stormcloak, Skyrim probably could have peacefully seceded from the Empire, and which point it wouldn't be the Empire's problem and they could do whatever they wanted, same as Hammerfell. The reason there's a war at all is because the Empire isn't letting a man who isn't High King determine whether Skyrim is part of the Empire or independent.

Torygg never had any intention of seperating from the empire. While he agreed with Ulfric's motives, Sybille does note that he still thought sticking with the empire was the better choice. Ulfric's talk at the moot where he mentioned separating just shy of treason was back when Torygg's father died. Torygg had a good deal of time to come to a decision. He felt Ulfric's words were just, but that in the end the empire was the right course. If the moot could be called in matters other than succession upon the death of the previous high king, there could've possibly been the chance of peaceful resolution. You may not like their laws, but that's the way they settle things. That duel did not mean Ulfric was high king. He had a claim sure, but the moot still had to decide it for themselves.

The empire interrupted Skyrim's procedures instead of letting the locals decide in according to their custom.

The characters suggest that Torygg could have been swayed by Ulfric if he had taken the time to try any kind of diplomacy. If the Empire immediately tried to go after him before he had done anything besides killing Torygg, they are in the wrong for that, just as they are for failing to protect their provinces properly, but even if they did so, Ulfric is still an usurper. Not for killing Torygg, but for proclaiming himself to be High King in direct defiance of Nord customs. We don't have all the details about that day either, but I have a feeling that he may have declared himself to be High King after winning the duel. If that's the case, the Empire is entirely justified for trying to capture him.

Like I said, I'm not so much a supporter of the Empire as I am anti-Ulfric. Not only did Ulfric resort to violence against his High King before he exhausted his diplomatic options, he used the Thu'um against someone he had no reason to use the Thu'um against. He could have easily defeated Torygg without it. There was no "True need" to justify a Shout, and in doing so he not only disrespected the Greybeards who taught him, but all of the Nords. It was overkill to prove his own brute strength, and I think the brutality and senselessness of him using the Thu'um is what turned a lot of Jarls against him.

Sybille also says that when Ulfric brought up independence in the moot, his words were "just short of treason." So a) it's not true that Ulfric did not try to advocate independence using "diplomatic" means, b ) we don't really know that she's right about Torygg's beliefs because no one else confirms he had any such inclinations, and c) "diplomatic means" just means a trip to prison or to the execution block- as Markarth and Helgen demonstrate. If Torygg were at all interested in independence, then he should have been the one to approach Ulfric about it, not the other way around. The buck stops with him, or it should, if he were a real king rather than a puppet. This logic makes no sense to me. If everyone, even Torygg, agrees that Ulfric could win anyway, then I don't know why people assume that Ulfric used the thu'um to "cheat." He obviously had other intentions by using it. I believe it was to show the Nords that they have power in their ancestral tradition that they're not using because reliance on the empire has made them apathetic and weak. "Let the legion do it." Well for Skyrim now, it's a matter of the nation's survival that they learn they can only rely on themselves when it comes down to it. edit- Also probably to help his case that he's the right man for high king.

Was a call back to the olden days of skyrim. The greybeards weren't around, a lot of nords used shouts in war and the leader commanded through strength. In fact the nords were a rather dangerous group, known for warriors that would seige their enemies with shouts and were rather successful in most of their efforts(Until they went up against the Tribunal).

He broke the greybeards teachings, but the greybeards do not dictate law. Nor was the greybeard philosophy the only one until recently. The empire was supposed to have a college of the voice in Markarth.(Something I really wish they had finished)

This makes no sense. What do you think he was doing? It was the emperor who decided to subjugate imperial interests to the Thalmor. As Ondolemar says (at the embassy party), the empire conveniently made it not just heresy but treason to worship Talos and oppose the Thalmor's interference. Unless the empire is willing to rip up the WGC or at least get out of the way, then you have to fight them in order to oppose the Dominion. It's been thirty years and those waiting for the empire to grow a backbone are understandably beginning to doubt they ever will.

Once Ulfric started his rebellion, the empire had a choice. They could have recognized that their false peace was not only not working, it is pulling what's left of their lands apart at the seams, and renounce the WGC. They even could have let Skyrim secede and washed their hands of it all, as they did with Hammerfell. They chose to bleed Skyrim instead. I understand why they felt they had to do it, but like I've said elsewhere, it takes two to dance and this is their war as much as the Stormcloaks'.

We don't know the details of that moot. For all we know, Ulfric's words were along the lines of speaking about how much he wanted the Emperor/the Empire to die, which is pretty close to treason. "We should separate from the Empire," doesn't sound like it would be considered "just short of treason" to me, which makes me think that it was probably much more heated (and with a much greater threat of violence) than what you're painting it as.

And what does Markarth have to do with the Empire at all? The deal for Talos worship was made by Jarl Igmund, and never had the consent of the Empire. When the Thalmor found out about they put pressure on the Empire. The deal was never an Imperial deal to begin with. You can't blame the Empire for going back on a deal they never made. That's all on Igmund.

And regarding the use of the Thu'um, I'm not saying it was cheating. I'm saying it was senseless overkill. He didn't need to use it, but he did because he knew it would make the duel more traumatic. It would put fear in the hearts of his opposers, since at a moot, if he didn't approve of what they were saying he could kill them with a single word. He was trying to intimidate and bully his way to the position of High King.



They may not dictate law, but what he did was in direct opposition to their teachings, and shows that he's not really grateful for the power they gave him, at least in the eyes of someone like me who watches a lot of kung-fu movies where abuse of a technique by a sociopathic student is a bit of a staple plot.

As a side note, that College of the Voice sounds really cool.

Whatever he said, Sybille says that Torygg admired him for it.

It's not clear that the empire was not involved in the deal, but they were definitely involved in the miscarriage of justice that happened afterward. Hence why it's an example that the empire plays dirty and you have to either play the game their way or you lose before you start.

Torygg accepted the duel, then Ulfric used the thu'um. Not the other way around. Sybille is our witness on this.

FWIW Ulfric sounds regretful or at least conflicted about the fact that he had to go against the Greybeards' teaching. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqAvpZTEeLo a video of that conversation.

Like I said, my problem with him using the Thu'um is that it was unnecessary. I'm not saying he did it in the wrong order or anything, I'm saying he shouldn't have done it because he didn't need to do it. If he had killed him, and then cut off his head and thrown his body into the sea, I'd be against him because that's overkill and unnecessary as well. He could have just fought the man and defeated him without traumatizing his widow. That's what my issue stems from, not that he committed a faux pas by shouting too soon.

Regarding Markarth, if the law of a lower part of a country is in direct confrontation with a higher law, then that lower law is invalid. You can't contradict the national policy at the local level, because then there's no point to even having a national policy.

I don't begrudge Ulfric going against the Way of the Voice when it comes to things like the Great War, and even Markarth (though that's a little iffy to me). In those cases, he is in conflict with the Way, but going against it towards the betterment of Skyrim. That I can understand and respect. But using it against Skyrim's High King, and plunging it into Civil War is not towards the betterment of Skyrim. It hurts it deeply. I can't see it being good for the area in the short or long run, and that is the kind of gross misuse I can't abide. It's just flaunting power for its own sake.

I cant seem to understand you're stance against Ulfric using the Thu'um on Torygg, and Traumatizing his widow? please... you'r the Wife of the high king the most powerful(puppet) man in Skyrim and let you'r witty feeling's take over what has happened? grow a back-bone! or not and be just like the Imperials.

If i was in Ulfric's position i would have done the same thing! why? to show that I AM WORTHY to be High King and that the Old are weak. Keep Torygg alive? that would be more of a hassle than him dead. And how is a war for independence not good for Skyrim(or any other subject province) in the long run? a people fighting for "their" country rather than the "Imperials" interests?

I guess that's a matter of opinion. In his opinion, the Nords need to man up or they're going to lose everything. He's not just showboating, and he doesn't express any hatred for Torygg. What he did was calculated and IMO the whole duel setup was a perfect check mate. No matter what Torygg did, Ulfric would achieve his aim. Of course if you don't agree with his ends, you're not going to consider his means acceptable, either.

Igmund's father was the empire's representative and he made a deal with Ulfric's men. If those men- legion veterans- were to be punished for the deal, then justice would say you either punish the jarl, too, or you slap both on the wrist and call it a day.

I think the fact that Toryyg accepted the duel is an indication that the duel was legal. When Skyrim joine the empire I think there was an understanding that Skyrim would be allowed to keep their Nord ways. If that was not so then the idea of a challenge would have died away long ago. If duels were illegal for 200 years or whatever it was then Toryyg would never have accepted the challenge. So this means the duel was not only legal by Nord standards, but also by the standards agreed to by the empire. The empire reneged.

The people in Markarth only say that Ulfric was promised freedom to worship Talos. Nobody, however, said anything about them making the offer in the first place. What little we've seen it's actually more likely that Ulfric demanded it and they agreed to make the promise.

I think you have it backwards. The Jarls are not the representatives of the Empire. If anything, they are their Holds representatives to the High King of Skyrim, and to the Empire itself. Their the heads of the local power, and only tentatively connected to the federal power. But regardless, you're right. The Jarl of the Reach should have been punished for overstepping his authority, much more so than Ulfric and his men. However, I would say the same thing regarding Ulfric, as he overstepped his authority not by killing Torygg, which I agree was perfectly legitimate, but by preventing the moot from taking place. He's using this war to block the moot until he either kills or replaces the Jarls who would stand against him, so that his usurpation will be viewed as a legitimate revolution.

I'm not against an independent Skyrim, but I am against a Skyrim ruled by Ulfric.

I dont think that is relevant. In a negotiation I can make a demand or I can just refuse to agree until you figure out what I want and make the offer. Works out to the same thing.

Every Nord has the ability to shout. The ancient Nord customs and the Thu'um existed and were being used long before the Way of the Voice was conceived. The Way of the Voice is a philosophy/religion (similar to Buddhism in that one follows a certain path, trying to achieve a balance). Ulfric did not have to use it defeat Torygg, but he was being as traditional as ever in doing so. I would assume he did it to prove a point, perhaps reminding the Empire about forsaking Talos and disrespecting the Nords.

Using the voice was not what started the Civil War.

'We offered them free worship in exchange for helping retake the city. It seems foolish looking back to it now.' -Jarl Igmund

This goes both ways. The empire is using gold, force and shenanigans to make sure that the political process in Skyrim goes their way. The system is too corrupted by imperial influence to function. Ulfric sat in Cidhna Mine for years and learned that lesson well. He's not a fool. You can't play by the rules with people who get to change the rules whenever they feel like it.

Taken straight from the Creation Kit:
Given he had been contacted by the Thalmor prior to the incident, and that The Bear of Markarth states that he demanded the Empire give in to his demands, I suspect it was him who insisted on it. And don't tell me that "it must be completely false because it's propaganda".

The process isn't "corrupted" by Imperial influence. As part of the Empire Imperial law and Imperial process is very valid. Those in charge chose to work with the Empire and play by their rules. And when the rebellion happened, half of Skyrim demonstrated that it'd rather remain with the Empire than side with Ulfric.