Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[Jeremius]

I think the Stormcloaks are blinded by Morrowind Duels, which are not the same at all, and applying that stuff to the "ancient traditions." but then again, wouldn't those duels be considered treason against those specific factions because of the actual law?

Nah, Morrowind was protected by the Armistice Treaty, unlike the other provinces which were either conquered or joined willingly with no conditions. Morrowind allowed Great House Law etc.

Still kind of proves my point. They look at the fact that Morrowind allowed you to kill your commanding officer in a duel for his position, yet not get in trouble for it, especially in the legion. Then the Empire comes in in skyrim and calls treason, when they allowed the Nerevarine to kill the leader of the legion in Morrowind and take his spot, effectively committing treason against the legion for it.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Still kind of proves my point. They look at the fact that Morrowind allowed you to kill your commanding officer in a duel for his position, yet not get in trouble for it, especially in the legion. Then the Empire comes in in skyrim and calls treason, when they allowed the Nerevarine to kill the leader of the legion in Morrowind and take his spot, effectively committing treason against the legion for it.

Yeah that would fall under the many inconsistencies in TES. Try not to over think on that situation too much, Bethesda did the Legion in Morrowind like Knights if I remember right.

 

[Jeremius]

Still kind of proves my point. They look at the fact that Morrowind allowed you to kill your commanding officer in a duel for his position, yet not get in trouble for it, especially in the legion. Then the Empire comes in in skyrim and calls treason, when they allowed the Nerevarine to kill the leader of the legion in Morrowind and take his spot, effectively committing treason against the legion for it.

Yeah that would fall under the many inconsistencies in TES. Try not to over think on that situation too much, Bethesda did the Legion in Morrowind like Knights if I remember right.

I believe so. Alright, but I was simply explaining the Stormcloak side of the duel/murder and treason argument.

 

[DrunkenMage]

but when a couple of nobodies from Windhelm threatens to interrogate a potential Imperial spy, it becomes an issue and the Stormcloaks is considered a tyrant that needs to be stop by the ole mighty Imperial Legion.


What reason did the Imperials had for torturing this man to death in such violent way that he had to scream for weeks? And why are their skeletons inside cages? Do the Imperials love the smell of decomposition?

What concern do they have? Someone or a group of people are spying on the Stormcloaks that resulted in the capture of the leader. Someone tip off the Imperials at the exact location that Ulfric would be at a certain time. It's safe to say that it was most likely someone from Windhelm.

Put two and two together and seeing the Imperial legion gear in the Dunmers tavern is substantial and crucial incriminating evidence that could even warrant a potential execution.

Feel I should address this more clearly.

There is a very big difference between the Windhelm issue and the Helgen torture issue. The Imperials aren't arresting and torturing just because of race. The Dunmer are being threatened with possible torture solely based on being elves.

Do you see a difference?

If the Stormcloaks have concern, why is Roff involved? You've been telling me he's just a drunken lout, not a Stormcloak. Not only are you contradicting, but you're defending a xenophobic racist and using 'Imperial spies' as an excuse for his actions.

You say the Legion gear is the reason, but how come it is not the reason we're being given?

Asking if he really believes that the Dark Elves are Imperial spies he will say "Wouldn't surprise me. They've done nothing to help in the fight for Skyrim's freedom. Those Thalmor are elves, too. I bet they're working together. Maybe I should round up some men and take us a few prisoners to interrogate." http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Rolff_Stone-Fist

You see, I wouldn't have so much an issue if the reason given wasn't the fact... That they're god damn elves.

 

[Rimfaxe96]

He uh... tripped... and fell on an arrow?

 

[LegateFasendil]

What Skyrim's Laws are has no bearing on the fact that he broke IMPERIAL LAW, as in the the law of the Empire.

IF Skyrim was truly independent at the time, then you would have a point. But since Torygg was the representative of the Empire at the time he was killed, Ulfric broke IMPERIAL law killing him, no matter the circumstances.

Is it truly Ulfric's fault that Torygg was too stupid not to realize that what he was agreeing with was against Imperial law? Or was the sleazy little Torygg pulling a fast one by entrapping Ulfric to commit a serious crime?

As a high king you're suppose to be highly skilled in politics and law, and Torygg had neither skill. He purposely entrapped his citizen by breaking the law when he agreed to fight him in the traditional way. His agreement had only cost his life, but created a civil war in Skyrim because Torygg accepted a traditional fight that meant nothing by Imperial law.

"I challenged him in the traditional way, and he accepted. There were many witnesses. No "murder" was committed. " http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x000c347e

Murder and treason are not the same. I could challenge the leader of Russia to a fight, and beat him up, but I would still get in trouble because I broke the law of Russia by fighting their leader.

Same here. Ulfric may not have "murdered" Torygg, but he broke imperial law by killing him, committing treason in the process.

Right. Because the King is not above the law himself. THIS. Maybe Torygg was deceived, even though he still went for the duel, it was illegal. This makes sense because there was no due process, no Olive Branch petition or public forum to discuss Cession or anything else of the sort and Skyrim wasn't at war.

We have to remember that wits make the man, not nec physical strength, so the duel itself is not an accurate tool for finding the measure of a man. Just because Ulfric won the duel doesn't mean anything because it wasn't lawful or approved by the Moot. And the old law is fine and good however whose to say if it was being interpreted/administered correctly?

High King Torygg had no business letting Ulfric drag him down because he WAS the High King. If a duel was not required for him to become King, then legally his Kingship cannot be undone by a duel. And because their society is Feudalistic, the King has to get approval from the local Lords before he can do anything official and if Torygg didn't face him, Ulfric was going to call another Moot, which Ulfric actually refused to do after Torygg's death. So it was all just another lie. And Torygg looked up to Ulfric so he thought he had to prove his honor. Nice. Makes sense or I should say makes better sense now.

Thanks Jeremius!!!

 

[DrunkenMage]

What he means is the need a man of the people, like Ulfric. Someone who's able to round up support through his anger and words. Really the Empire should hire him for recruitment, as long as they pledge to leave Skyrim.

Wouldn't be able to keep the Empire together. Men of the people end up dead when their crowd is swayed slightly. Ruling the Empire is deadly, as many Emperors have learned.

Tiber Septim was dishonorable, knew how to play politics. He had a great long reign. Next comes his grandson, second Emperor of the Third Empire. Emperor Pelagius, great man and glorious rule... assassinated within 3-4 years of being crowned.

Uriel VII greatly loved Emperor, besides members of his Legion plotting to assassinate him.

The Empire needs a devious Emperor, not a poster boy with words that inspire.

Though on the subject, men of the people make the best tyrants. You will hear Imperial supporters call Ulfric a would be tyrant, naturally you'll reject that and say "Ulfric does nothing that shows this" and that is true, Ulfric doesn't say anything incriminating.

Neither did the Thalmor, you do know how they came into power right? Oh they were loved, great with words, had massive support, people cheered them. Bet they're not cheering anymore, not after the ethnic purges, the executions, assassinations and the 'reeducation' as the Thalmor call it.

It won't be what Ulfric says that points to the tyranny, it is what his supporters say and do.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Being a true Nord means fighting when you know you are going to lose. Ulfric did not do that. Therefore, he is absolutely not a true Nord, and thus a coward/

How do you know true Nordic values, Imperial?!!

I am neither an Imperial nor a Nord. A true Nord does not Surrender. Did Ysgarmor Surrender to the snow elves? Did Talos surender to the first Aldmeri Dominion? If not, then Ulfric surrendering to the Empire is not the sign of a true Nord. Ulfric surrendered for his beliefs, while Torygg died for his.

I was just reading through and catching up when I came across this.

Ysgarmor did not only surrender, he FLED. He did so so that he could return with more warriors though, and live to fight another day.

Talos didn't even militarily defeat many of the other countries in Tamriel, he compromised and made deals with quite a few of them. And also, didn't he use dwarven technology in the form of Numidium to help fight the Aldmeri Dominion for him?

With those facts in mind, you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit by calling Ulfric a coward and these two men "True Nord Heroes!" as by your logic they are ALL cowards if they didn't fanatically charge head first into fight after fight until they died.

 

[LegateFasendil]

How do you know true Nordic values, Imperial?!!

I am neither an Imperial nor a Nord. A true Nord does not Surrender. Did Ysgarmor Surrender to the snow elves? Did Talos surender to the first Aldmeri Dominion? If not, then Ulfric surrendering to the Empire is not the sign of a true Nord. Ulfric surrendered for his beliefs, while Torygg died for his.

I was just reading through and catching up when I came across this.

Ysgarmor did not only surrender, he FLED. He did so so that he could return with more warriors though, and live to fight another day.

Talos didn't even militarily defeat many of the other countries in Tamriel, he compromised and made deals with quite a few of them. And also, didn't he use dwarven technology in the form of Numidium to help fight the Aldmeri Dominion for him?

With those facts in mind, you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit by calling Ulfric a coward and these two men "True Nord Heroes!" as by your logic they are ALL cowards if they didn't fanatically charge head first into fight after fight until they died.

I wouldn't focus to hard on that one point. A page or two before I had basically said Ulfric was a true Nord, just perhaps a different kind of Nord. What is of significance is that Ulfric goes around deciding upon himself whose a true Nord or not. Which is a deception.

 

[Jeremius]

How do you know true Nordic values, Imperial?!!

I am neither an Imperial nor a Nord. A true Nord does not Surrender. Did Ysgarmor Surrender to the snow elves? Did Talos surender to the first Aldmeri Dominion? If not, then Ulfric surrendering to the Empire is not the sign of a true Nord. Ulfric surrendered for his beliefs, while Torygg died for his.

I was just reading through and catching up when I came across this.

Ysgarmor did not only surrender, he FLED. He did so so that he could return with more warriors though, and live to fight another day.

Talos didn't even militarily defeat many of the other countries in Tamriel, he compromised and made deals with quite a few of them. And also, didn't he use dwarven technology in the form of Numidium to help fight the Aldmeri Dominion for him?

With those facts in mind, you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit by calling Ulfric a coward and these two men "True Nord Heroes!" as by your logic they are ALL cowards if they didn't fanatically charge head first into fight after fight until they died.

Ysgramor was not really a Nord, as the word was not even invented at that time (he was ATMORAN, not NORD). There are some debate over Tiber Septim's race, and many people start mistaking the MAN, Tiber Septim, for the GOD, Talos. What Ulfric did was back down and showed weakness. Tiber used his strength, known as intelligence, to better his advantage. Ysgramor came back ready for a fight, as he did not actually lee to flee, he "fled" to go back and get more Atmorans to get revenge. Ulfric simply gave up.

Being a "true Nord" does not mean only fighting when you know you can win, but fighting always expecting to lose and die.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

I am neither an Imperial nor a Nord. A true Nord does not Surrender. Did Ysgarmor Surrender to the snow elves? Did Talos surender to the first Aldmeri Dominion? If not, then Ulfric surrendering to the Empire is not the sign of a true Nord. Ulfric surrendered for his beliefs, while Torygg died for his.

I was just reading through and catching up when I came across this.

Ysgarmor did not only surrender, he FLED. He did so so that he could return with more warriors though, and live to fight another day.

Talos didn't even militarily defeat many of the other countries in Tamriel, he compromised and made deals with quite a few of them. And also, didn't he use dwarven technology in the form of Numidium to help fight the Aldmeri Dominion for him?

With those facts in mind, you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit by calling Ulfric a coward and these two men "True Nord Heroes!" as by your logic they are ALL cowards if they didn't fanatically charge head first into fight after fight until they died.

Ysgramor was not really a Nord, as the word was not even invented at that time (he was ATMORAN, not NORD). There are some debate over Tiber Septim's race, and many people start mistaking them MAN, Tiber Septim, for the GOD, Talos. What Ulfric did was back down and showed weakness. Tiber used his strength, known as intelligence, to better his advantage. Ysgramor came back ready for a fight, as he did not actually lee to flee, he "fled" to go back and get more Atmorans to get revenge. Ulfric simply gave up.

You are still missing the point. And why use them as examples of true nords if you don't even accept them as true nords? Whether or not they are or not is irrelevant as they play a huge part in nordic culture. What Ulfric did was backing down, but what Ysgramor did is also backing down. And Tiber Septim backed down many times in his conquest for Tamriel. Did ANY ONE of their subordinates EVER call them out for cowardice? We may never know exactly in the cases of Ysgramor or Tiber Septim, but NOT ONE of Ulfric's followers called him out for cowardice. The speaks volumes more than whatever YOU can say in representation of the events of that day, and any motivations or feelings behind it.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

I am neither an Imperial nor a Nord. A true Nord does not Surrender. Did Ysgarmor Surrender to the snow elves? Did Talos surender to the first Aldmeri Dominion? If not, then Ulfric surrendering to the Empire is not the sign of a true Nord. Ulfric surrendered for his beliefs, while Torygg died for his.

I was just reading through and catching up when I came across this.

Ysgarmor did not only surrender, he FLED. He did so so that he could return with more warriors though, and live to fight another day.

Talos didn't even militarily defeat many of the other countries in Tamriel, he compromised and made deals with quite a few of them. And also, didn't he use dwarven technology in the form of Numidium to help fight the Aldmeri Dominion for him?

With those facts in mind, you seem to be contradicting yourself quite a bit by calling Ulfric a coward and these two men "True Nord Heroes!" as by your logic they are ALL cowards if they didn't fanatically charge head first into fight after fight until they died.

I wouldn't focus to hard on that one point. A page or two before I had basically said Ulfric was a true Nord, just perhaps a different kind of Nord. What is of significance is that Ulfric goes around deciding upon himself whose a true Nord or not. Which is a deception.

The other debates can go on around me. I am kinda bored atm, so idm a kitty debate to pass some time in between things.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Why is this 'True Nord' business being discussed? There is really no definite thing on what it actually is, since it is not written that a Nord can't surrender, can't retreat. The only thing that matters is how a Nord faces death.

Ulfric didn't cower, beg for his life etc. He surrendered to a superior force with dignity, Tullius had him out numbered five to one.

 

[Jeremius]

Why is this 'True Nord' business being discussed? There is really no definite thing on what it actually is, since it is not written that a Nord can't surrender, can't retreat. The only thing that matters is how a Nord faces death.

Ulfric didn't cower, beg for his life etc. He surrendered to a superior force with dignity, Tullius had him out numbered five to one.

And yet he did cower, from a death in the woods, in favor of one where he gets a song.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

Why is this 'True Nord' business being discussed? There is really no definite thing on what it actually is, since it is not written that a Nord can't surrender, can't retreat. The only thing that matters is how a Nord faces death.

Ulfric didn't cower, beg for his life etc. He surrendered to a superior force with dignity, Tullius had him out numbered five to one.

And yet he did cower, from a death in the woods, in favor of one where he gets a song.

Drunk, don't bother with this one.

Were you there to see how he handled it? NO. Were his men? YES. Did even ONE of them call him out for cowardice or accuse him of not being a true nord? NO. So again, your point is completely unjustified beyond your own desire to slander Ulfric.

 

[Jeremius]

Why is this 'True Nord' business being discussed? There is really no definite thing on what it actually is, since it is not written that a Nord can't surrender, can't retreat. The only thing that matters is how a Nord faces death.

Ulfric didn't cower, beg for his life etc. He surrendered to a superior force with dignity, Tullius had him out numbered five to one.

And yet he did cower, from a death in the woods, in favor of one where he gets a song.

Drunk, don't bother with this one.

Were you there to see how he handled it? NO. Were his men? YES. Did even ONE of them call him out for cowardice or accuse him of not being a true nord? NO. So again, your point is completely unjustified beyond your own desire to slander Ulfric.

They were all supportive of Ulfric, so of course they would not say anything. Cowardice is not just a lack of courage in general. It is far more subjective than any Stormcloak OR imperial will ever say.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

And yet he did cower, from a death in the woods, in favor of one where he gets a song.

Drunk, don't bother with this one.

Were you there to see how he handled it? NO. Were his men? YES. Did even ONE of them call him out for cowardice or accuse him of not being a true nord? NO. So again, your point is completely unjustified beyond your own desire to slander Ulfric.

They were all supportive of Ulfric, so of course they would not say anything. Cowardice is not just a lack of courage in general. It is far more subjective than any Stormcloak OR imperial will ever say.

Hadvar was there, as well as the rest of the imperials. Not one of them called him out either.

And if that is the case, you are using a definition of cowardice of your own creation, and therefore not only do you forge and deny Elder Scrolls lore to suit your needs, but you also invent definitions of real life words to suit your slandering needs.

 

[Jeremius]

Drunk, don't bother with this one.

Were you there to see how he handled it? NO. Were his men? YES. Did even ONE of them call him out for cowardice or accuse him of not being a true nord? NO. So again, your point is completely unjustified beyond your own desire to slander Ulfric.

They were all supportive of Ulfric, so of course they would not say anything. Cowardice is not just a lack of courage in general. It is far more subjective than any Stormcloak OR imperial will ever say.

Hadvar was there, as well as the rest of the imperials. Not one of them called him out either.

And if that is the case, you are using a definition of cowardice of your own creation, and therefore not only do you forge and deny Elder Scrolls lore to suit your needs, but you also invent definitions of real life words to suit your slandering needs.

I am looking at what is there. He surrendered BECAUSE he knew he was going to lose. He was given the same options Torygg was, die fighting, or don't die fighting. Torygg chose to die fighting, Ulfric did not. plain and simple.

It would be like a bully trying to steal my lunch. IF I simply walked away, I have shown cowardice, whether I truly am a coward in general or not. I was coward in that instance.

 

[The Honorable Gidian Diva of Sass]

They were all supportive of Ulfric, so of course they would not say anything. Cowardice is not just a lack of courage in general. It is far more subjective than any Stormcloak OR imperial will ever say.

Hadvar was there, as well as the rest of the imperials. Not one of them called him out either.

And if that is the case, you are using a definition of cowardice of your own creation, and therefore not only do you forge and deny Elder Scrolls lore to suit your needs, but you also invent definitions of real life words to suit your slandering needs.

I am looking at what is there. He surrendered BECAUSE he knew he was going to lose. He was given the same options Torygg was, die fighting, or don't die fighting. Torygg chose to die fighting, Ulfric did not. plain and simple.

And yet you admit Cowardice is such a subjective word that no Imperial or Stormcloak could ever say? You, my friend, fall under one of those categories yourself in this thread. That is a contradiction to yourself, for one thing.

Second, since it is subjective (I will not deny that), it also means that under different circumstances and contexts there are different lines and definitions for what is cowardice and what is not. Torygg could have made either decision and not been cowardly. People could have seen him as cowardly, definitely, but that would not necessarily make him a coward.

And by that same token, what Ulfric did was NOT cowardly. There is a difference in honor and stupidity. And there is more to cowardice than whether you die fighting or not.

You seem to be rather rooted in your own personal philosophy, as well as quite a dose of hypocrisy. But aren't we all?

 

[Jeremius]

Hadvar was there, as well as the rest of the imperials. Not one of them called him out either.

And if that is the case, you are using a definition of cowardice of your own creation, and therefore not only do you forge and deny Elder Scrolls lore to suit your needs, but you also invent definitions of real life words to suit your slandering needs.

I am looking at what is there. He surrendered BECAUSE he knew he was going to lose. He was given the same options Torygg was, die fighting, or don't die fighting. Torygg chose to die fighting, Ulfric did not. plain and simple.

And yet you admit Cowardice is such a subjective word that no Imperial or Stormcloak could ever say? You, my friend, fall under one of those categories yourself in this thread. That is a contradiction to yourself, for one thing.

Second, since it is subjective (I will not deny that), it also means that under different circumstances and contexts there are different lines and definitions for what is cowardice and what is not. Torygg could have made either decision and not been cowardly. People could have seen him as cowardly, definitely, but that would not necessarily make him a coward.

And by that same token, what Ulfric did was NOT cowardly. There is a difference in honor and stupidity. And there is more to cowardice than whether you die fighting or not.

You seem to be rather rooted in your own personal philosophy, as well as quite a dose of hypocrisy. But aren't we all?

Maybe not to you or others, but to me, surrendering in the woods is a clear act of being a afraid of dying in the woods.

Just like with the bully scenario. I walk away, I committed a cowardly act. Whether I myself am a true coward or not means nothing in that particular instance.