Tamriel Vault - Debate - The Death of Torryg: Beaten in Fair Combat or Brutally

Forums » Elder Scrolls

Back To Topics

Debate - The Death of Torryg: Beaten in Fair Combat or Brutally

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next »

Asks-Many-Questions
- 278 posts
August 18, 2015 3:35 PM EDT

He's not actually High King yet. The Mood has to elect him King, and neither side is going to call t he Moot until they know their candidate will win. Those who call him High King are just being a little overenthusiastic.
Matt Feeney the New Guy
- 1124 posts
August 18, 2015 4:23 PM EDT

Fair enough. I still take issue with the "If you can't protect yourself..." bit. When does that apply and when doesn't it? Ulfric can protect himself well enough against normal threats. But against someone like the Dragonborn, he's kind of hopeless in that situation. I know you said it wasn't literal, but it still seems arbitrary. Torygg couldn't defend himself against Ulfric so he's not fit to rule. Ulfric can't defend himself against the Dragonborn but he's still fit to rule.
Deleted Member
August 18, 2015 6:52 PM EDT

The Dragonborn being High King/Queen () is not something Bethesda can leave to interpretation.

Furthermore, not everyone role-plays a politically astute character.
Librari the Wizard
- 237 posts
August 18, 2015 7:35 PM EDT

"Once the jarls start killing each other, we're back to the bad old days." - Alvor

Why would he say bad old days? This implies terrible things have happened to Skyrim in the past as a result of this law. Considering one single duel was enough to engulf Skyrim in civil war this time, it's not hard to imagine that a prevalence of jarl-to-jarl duels would lead to a period of great civil unrest.

So, Ulfric using this 'ancient custom' to his own ends and starting a civil war in the process should be no surprise. If you found a legal technicality that let you, today, in any country in the world, arrest and burn a hundred people as witches, would you do it? What if you had really good reasons to suspect them of witchcraft?
Asks-Many-Questions
- 278 posts
August 18, 2015 8:02 PM EDT

The results of this duel are rather unique. I doubt every jarl-jarl duel has plunged the region into war.

I think the second part is just nonsense.
Librari the Wizard
- 237 posts
August 19, 2015 5:34 PM EDT

Oh no, you didn't just dismiss an allegory as nonsense because you didn't want to respond to it, did you?

That's something this wizard doesn't take kindly to.
Asks-Many-Questions
- 278 posts
August 19, 2015 5:50 PM EDT

Oh no, you didn't just make a deliberately provocative and controversial suggestion that doesn't actually compare to the topic at hand in any real way and get defensive when someone doesn't want to dignify it with a legitimate response, did you?

That's something this...uh, whatever I am...doesn't take kindly to.
Librari the Wizard
- 237 posts
August 19, 2015 5:53 PM EDT

I'm just going to assume you have no desire to continue in any meaningful debate, and terminate this thread of discussion. I'm still open to anyone willing to actually discuss this topic.
Librari the Wizard
- 237 posts
August 19, 2015 6:09 PM EDT

Asks did bring up the point that not every duel is going to lead to a civil war, and I'd like to continue that train of thought. I never inferred or implied that every single one is going to have the exact same catastrophic effect as this literal act of open rebellion. However, the effect a single duel can have at its worst is an excellent example of why these duels are such a danger to political stability. Even the smaller effect of dethroning a jarl will have consequences on that hold's stability for a short time, and with enough instability, this could lead to a gradual decline of civilization akin to the Dark Ages. That's what I mean about the 'bad old days', and why I can't imagine establishing a precedent for these duels returning to be a positive thing for the people of Skyrim.
Borommakot
- 1217 posts
August 19, 2015 6:16 PM EDT

Rereading the debates in this discussion is surprisingly...pleasant. People have discussed very well in this thread.
Librari the Wizard
- 237 posts
August 19, 2015 6:24 PM EDT

It's pleasantly surprising when people keep a level head about the Empire vs. Stormcloak thing.

Me, I've been taking a more long-term view about it recently due to lots of research into lore about the Towers. It's not about which is better for 'short term' things like surviving the Thalmor anymore, it's about the survival of Mundus. That has been shifting my perspective considerably, and takes most of the emotional investment out of the choice.
Borommakot
- 1217 posts
August 19, 2015 6:28 PM EDT

The collapse of Mundus would be a great story, and probably make a great game, too, but I don't think it'd go over well as an ending.
Librari the Wizard
- 237 posts
August 19, 2015 6:30 PM EDT

I think literally saving Mundus from collapse would be a pretty epic ending to the series. I don't want the series to end as long as Bethesda is demonstrating the ability to make quality games, though.
Veloth the Prophet
- 641 posts
August 19, 2015 6:32 PM EDT

A game based on Landfall is what I want most in this world.
Librari the Wizard
- 237 posts
August 19, 2015 7:33 PM EDT

Agreed, though this is getting pretty far off topic. :P Landfall as a justification for choosing a side in the civil war even is only semi on topic.
Asks-Many-Questions
- 278 posts
August 19, 2015 8:00 PM EDT

I guess my problem with that argument is that we're basically getting into ex post facto condemnation; that is, it's saying that the duel is illegitimate based on bad stuff that happened as a result of it rather than the rightness/wrongness of the act itself.

Ulfric obviously hoped that he'd be able to assume control quickly in the wake of Torygg's death. He knew it was risky, but I think it's pretty clear he was desperate by that point.
Asks-Many-Questions
- 278 posts
August 19, 2015 8:01 PM EDT

Careful you don't scrape the ceiling, what with your nose so high in the air.
Librari the Wizard
- 237 posts
August 19, 2015 8:26 PM EDT

I think he's pretty stupid if he thinks all of Skyrim is gonna suddenly fall in line behind him just because he killed one person.

I won't disagree with the premise that, according to ancient Nord custom which we have every reason to believe is still valid, the duel was legal. What I'm questioning is whether the law only continued to exist because no one had a reason to challenge its existence. If Skyrim previously had 'bad old days' and moved on from them through cultural uplifting, it may be that duels simply fell out of favor and were more or less forgotten. We can't really say for sure, though, since there's so little information about the duels and their prevalence in Nord history. I'm just speculating based on the known effect of one duel, and comparing to real-world existence of legalized duels to the death and how they impacted society.
Jo'daro Zahir
- 66 posts
August 19, 2015 8:26 PM EDT

At least it is not going to happen, ever.
Librari the Wizard
- 237 posts
August 19, 2015 8:29 PM EDT

Why'd you reply to the other thing first and then come back to reply here? I posted the two things in the opposite order.
Asks-Many-Questions
- 278 posts
August 19, 2015 8:41 PM EDT

I think the Empire was pretty stupid if it thought all of Tamriel was going to suddenly fall in line behind them just because they signed a piece of paper.

When Alvor says that "jarls killing each other" is like the "bad old days," I don't think he's talking specifically about the cultural/legal practice of duels. I think he just means, "Hey, when things have gotten so chaotic that our leaders are murdering each other, it's a pretty bad sign!" Which...well, yeah.

But Skyrim's problems aren't all the result of just this one action. The White-Gold Concordat was already in place, and the unrest resulting from that was already going on. The Thalmor were already kidnapping/murdering people, and the Empire was already cracking down on those who threatened the peace. The duel is just another symptom of the "bad old days" returning; it's not the cause.
Asks-Many-Questions
- 278 posts
August 19, 2015 8:42 PM EDT

It took me a while to think of that comeback. >_>
Rogue
- 743 posts
August 19, 2015 9:17 PM EDT

Sorry to interefere, but AMQ is winning this debate in my opinion.

Don't mind me.
Borommakot
- 1217 posts
August 19, 2015 9:42 PM EDT

A high king with allies outside Skyrim is the right decision, for Skyrim and Men. But yeah, the Medes are pretty garbage.
Rogue
- 743 posts
August 19, 2015 9:49 PM EDT

In - game he was attempting to gain the Breton's allegiance, but I don't think they ever said yes.