Forums » Elder Scrolls

• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  February 28, 2015 8:49 PM EST

  Killing someone doesn't automatically make you a murderer, particularly in a culture where something like honor duels are prevalent.

  If you're an Imperial sympathizer, you're likely to think he was wrong no matter what method he used; it doesn't matter if the duel was fair, because fair or not it was still wrong.

  An Imperial sympathizer can think it's wrong and still not have the grounds to argue that. If two men duel each other under certain agreed terms and one dies, you'd be hard pressed to justify calling it murder. They both took their lives into their hands when they went in. That's what a duel is, gambling your life that you're better than the other person.

  If you support the Stormcloaks, you probably either think killing Torygg was a good thing anyway...or that the ends justify the means and if one man had to die for Skyrim to be free, so be it.

  And this stands on the ideas that Torygg stood in the way of Skyrim's freedom, for which no evidence is ever offered in game, meaning we either assume that Torygg is guilty of impeding Skyrim, or innocent. That is important to know, for me. Why? Because instead of framing the Civil War around "The Nords should rise up to free themselves from the oppressive Empire" vs "Skyrim should be united with the Empire to be able to confront the Dominion", it's framed around "Did Ulfric murder a dude?", and everything else is made into a just a backdrop for it.

  We don't have the details, so we look at what we do have and try to extrapolate. Of course we won't always be right, but it's a juicy chunk of story that can't just be ignored because so much draws attention right to it.

• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  February 28, 2015 9:00 PM EST

  We're going to have to agree to disagree here, because I do not see it that way at all.
  
  As far as I'm concerned, the game makes it perfectly clear that the duel was valid according to Skyrim's traditions. The only thing under debate is whether or not that excuses what he did; The idea that he "broke the rules" is 100% a meta-argument that holds no interest for me.
• Deleted Member

  
   

  February 28, 2015 9:07 PM EST

  Even if Ulfric was a murderous usurper, I'd be ok with it. Somebody needs to whip the Empire into shape. Might as well be someone they've wronged.
• Matt Feeney the New Guy

  

  • 1124 posts
   

  February 28, 2015 9:33 PM EST

  Yeah. Like the Dragonborn...

• Deleted Member

  
   

  February 28, 2015 9:34 PM EST

  See, we say that, but could he really?

• Matt Feeney the New Guy

  

  • 1124 posts
   

  February 28, 2015 9:38 PM EST

  You guys are all about strength. Dragonborn is the strongest mortal around.

• Deleted Member

  
   

  February 28, 2015 9:41 PM EST

  Yeah. That's good for Skyrim, but I'm talking the Empire. Dragonborn could sweep his frozen horde south and take out Cyrodiil. 

  How do we know he's a better leader than Ulfric, and not just a wrecking ball? 

• Paws

  

  • 1595 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 2:52 AM EST

  Torygg was not elected High King, he inherited it. By killing him, Ulfric would have forced the Moot to reconvene and presumably send people out to recover the Crown of Freydis.

• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 2:53 AM EST

  Technically, both.

• The Master Wolf

  

  • 23 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 2:56 AM EST

  He didn't force any moit because he feared he would not be elected he prefered to split skyrim in two to be high king!
• Paws

  

  • 1595 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 3:00 AM EST

  Borom said:

  That's part of Ulfric's point, I'm sure. He's going back to tradition before the Greybeards and Jurgen Windcaller, when using the Voice in war was common practice among the Tongues. In some ways, its as much a denouncement of the Greybeards and Way of the Voice as it is of the Empire.

  This got me thinking of something I've been noodling through over the last few days. I can't help but see a few parallels between Ulfric and Wulfharth.

• The Master Wolf

  

  • 23 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 3:06 AM EST

  In war ya use the voice hell in normal combat we all use the force but to prove that you are worthy to be high king be fair and prove your strengh by sword because as I said if a kid knew how to use the force he could become the high king then?
  If Ulfric would have beaten Toryyg in fair combat with no voice all of skyrim would have backed him up
• Paws

  

  • 1595 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 3:12 AM EST

  the Moot's failure to appoint the obvious and capable Jarl Hanse of Winterhold sparked the disastrous Skyrim War of Succession, during which Skyrim lost control of its territories in High Rock, Morrowind, and Cyrodiil, never to regain them. The war was finally concluded in 1E420 with the Pact of Chieftans; henceforth, the Moot was convened only when a King died without direct heirs, and it has fulfilled this more limited role admirably. PGE 1Ed

  Don't believe Abdul-Mujib Ababneh's lies  

• Vaaljørn

  

  • 92 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 8:47 AM EST

  Reading this debate, I feel like Balgruuf . . . taking notes without taking a side. Correction: I've taken a side already, but I love it when people challenge my positions. Great debate, everyone.

• The Master Wolf

  

  • 23 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 8:48 AM EST

  May we know yours?
• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 11:58 AM EST

  Again, who's to say that, from the Nord point of view, using the Voice isn't fair? What makes sword-skill any more "correct" as a measure of strength than the Voice? They're both skills that take years to master, and both have a rich history of use among the Nords.
  

• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 12:00 PM EST

  I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in-game that there was a Moot when Torygg was crowned. That's where Ulfric made his case for independence for the first time, yeah?

• HumanOfPrey

  

  • 168 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 12:08 PM EST

  And do you want to know why? Because if you use the liquid Tiberium bomb to wipe out NOD, as well as killing millions of innocent people in the process, the man who gave the bomb to you will promote you to general and will proudly say "history is written by the winners".

• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 12:34 PM EST

  I have no idea what you're talking about, but the game we're discussing here is called The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.

• Rogue

  

  • 743 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 1:17 PM EST

  I'm with Wolf, may we hear your side?

• Matt Feeney the New Guy

  

  • 1124 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 1:36 PM EST

  How do we know Ulfric is a better leader than Torygg, and not just a wrecking ball?
• Asks-Many-Questions

  

  • 278 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 2:07 PM EST

  Well, we don't. But, we don't really have any information on Torygg's reign at all; Ulfric implies that he spent a lot of time hanging out with Elisif instead of actually ruling...but, obviously, Ulfric is hardly an unbiased source.

  We can speculate about whether or not Torygg was a good king until the cows come home, but the truth is we just don't know. We have little more reason to believe he was any good at the job than we have to believe he was bad.

  Ulfric, on the other hand, has lots of information on his style of leadership- both good and bad. 

• Deleted Member

  
   

  March 1, 2015 3:22 PM EST

  I'd say that If the Empire allowed the moot to pick him, he was a bit like Elisif. A figure head.
• Borommakot

  

  • 1217 posts
   

  March 1, 2015 3:23 PM EST

  Where is this notion that the Empire runs the moot coming from?

• Deleted Member

  
   

  March 1, 2015 3:34 PM EST

  The Emperor puts in his input, and the representatives from the hold kinda have to go along with it.
  
  Wasn't that a paraphrase of an in game quote? I know I've seen it before.