Can't Decide between Stormcloaks or Imperials...

[Zyphur]

I went with the Imperials. The new dialogue I got from various NPC's in Windhelm because of it (especially the argonians and the new jarl) means that I have no regrets.

But I did escape with Ralof at the beginning. When a dragon miraculously saves you from execution and your choices are to escape with your captors or escape with the other prisoners......

 

[Dagmar]

It is a book designed and created to attack Ulfrics personality and spread libel. So there is no need to talk about the civil war since what he is acused of doesnt hapen during civil war but before.

This is simply a fabrication of your mind. The book is a historical account of what happened at Markarth written by a scholar irrespective of your inability to recognize that fact. It's lore and canon for the facts to which it speaks because it stands completely uncontradicted by any other content in the Elder Scrolls universe. Lore content isn't arbitrarily rejected just because a player doesn't like what it says. If that absurd basis was applied we would have almost no lore at all for the games. If you want to pretend in your own roleplay that lore documents are false that's your prerogative but in a discussion about what actually is lore from the games such assertions are invalid.

Ulfric killed everyone in Markhart, Nords and Bretons, only those who fought with him remained.

First of all the people remaining in Markarth were not only those that fought with him. The book says anyone that didn't support him was executed not everyone. It's a criterion. It's evident when you read the passage that follows that it was an ongoing process and the reason why the Imperial Legion assented to his demand for open worship of Talos in the city was so that it could reclaim the city from his men and put an end to the mounting death toll each day as he executed more and more people.

Second of all that took place 24 years ago. The city has since largely repopulated.

It is imperial propaganda, created to be a book equivalent of "Nords arrise!" to mantain the discussion as a gray area.

It takes a truly distorted perspective to draw that kind of conclusion. It's not even remotely equivalent to Nords Arise! That book purports on its face to be a Stormcloak recruitment essay, i.e. a self-professed opinion piece, and not a historical accounting.

On top of that the few facts it observes are accurate, i.e. that High King Torygg accepted the terms of the White-Gold Concordat during his brief reign, the Aldmeri Dominion waged war with the races of men, Saarthal was sacked by the Falmer, and Ysgramor and his army of Companions returned to wage war on them and cast them out of Skyrim. Nothing in the book is libelous (for your edification slander is the term for oral defamation, libel is the term for written defamation) either so even if one were to accept your completely incorrect statement that the two books are in anyway similar in nature it still doesn't support the notion that the contents of The Bear of Markarth are in any way untrue.

 

[Mookie]

Or, something that you probably never even thought of. It is possible that seeing how Torygg had no training in the Thu'um at all, he was completely unprepared to face an opponent who knows the Thu'um. Correct me if I am wrong, but Ulfric used Fus Ro Dah to knock the high king to his knees, and before the high king could of even recovered from the shock, Ulfric's sword pierced his heart. Furthermore, it only takes a coward like Ulfric to use the Thu'um to stagger or incapacitate his opponent and kill him. Had Ulfric attacked first with his Sword and ensured with a melee for a few minutes than used the Thu'um, than my opinion would be different. However, seeing as Ulfric just used the Thu'um to incapacitate Toyrgg so that he in fact could not defend himself shows that Ulfric is not fit to be high king. In fact, there are several people who could challenge and defeat Ulfric if he does not use the Thu'um; however, with him using the Thu'um, the only people who can defeat Ulfric would the the Dovahkiin and Grey Beards.

You also state that Toyrgg was a weak king, but Toyrgg himself states that he knew himself that he was going to die that day, and had accepted his fate. It is the same thing as Martin Septim accepting his fate to die and become the Avatar of Akatosh to defeat Dagon.

Arent you as dovakhin the greatest of all the cowards?
You use the thuum on bandits, mages, vampires, animals, all unprepared for such a force.


Now let me demonstrate something:

Exibit A:

A big ass man, physicaly fit and strong, probably stronger than most of us here.

And exibit B:

Probably weaker than exibit A

Now, destiny places B as high king of Skyrim, and Exibit A isnt able to challenge him because he is stronger and more powerfull. And no one will be able to challenge him untill a man of equal power as exibit B shows up.
That is what you are saying. And if Exibit A does challenge B then A is a coward because he had more power?
WTF?
The very rule that kings can be challenged was placed as a means to ensure that the most powerfull takes the throne.

 

[Mookie]

This is simply a fabrication of your mind. The book is a historical account of what happened at Markarth written by a scholar irrespective of your inability to recognize that fact. It's lore and canon for the facts to which it speaks because it stands completely uncontradicted by any other content in the Elder Scrolls universe. Lore content isn't arbitrarily rejected just because a player doesn't like what it says. If that absurd basis was applied we would have almost no lore at all for the games. If you want to pretend in your own roleplay that lore documents are false that's your prerogative but in a discussion about what actually is lore from the games such assertions are invalid.
First of all the people remaining in Markarth were not only those that fought with him. The book says anyone that didn't support him was executed not everyone. It's a criterion. It's evident when you read the passage that follows that it was an ongoing process and the reason why the Imperial Legion assented to his demand for open worship of Talos in the city was so that it could reclaim the city from his men and put an end to the mounting death toll each day as he executed more and more people.

Second of all that took place 24 years ago. The city has since largely repopulated.
It takes a truly distorted perspective to draw that kind of conclusion. It's not even remotely equivalent to Nords Arise! That book purports on its face to be a Stormcloak recruitment essay, i.e. a self-professed opinion piece, and not a historical accounting.

On top of that the few facts it observes are accurate, i.e. that High King Torygg accepted the terms of the White-Gold Concordat during his brief reign, the Aldmeri Dominion waged war with the races of men, Saarthal was sacked by the Falmer, and Ysgramor and his army of Companions returned to wage war on them and cast them out of Skyrim. Nothing in the book is libelous (for your edification slander is the term for oral defamation, libel is the term for written defamation) either so even if one were to accept your completely incorrect statement that the two books are in anyway similar in nature it still doesn't support the notion that the contents of The Bear of Markarth are in any way untrue.

It isnt a fabrication. A man is a Forsworn suporter. And he is expected to write an objective book about Ulfric who defeated his little friends?
Come on man you cant be serious.

IF you read the ongoing passage, yes you come up to that part which in detail describes slaughtering of anyone not suporting Ulfir (how quaint), and then all of a sudden city is full of people 20 years later, not just people who moved in as you claim, but older people, reachmen, suporters of Forsworn, Nepo etc..
I dont feel like repeating everything all over again, its 1:30 am here, I am going to sleep. read everything up, what you are asking has allready been talked about and went over. Even mage accepted it.

 

[Two Bears]

Ulfric Stormcloak = Donald Trump

I think that wraps up thread.

 

[Dagmar]

When I say double standards I dont mean about your personal attack. I mean that if someone dies in the war its stromcloak fault without the slightest imperial fault.

This is a straw man. No one has said that if someone dies in the civil war it's automatically the Stormcloaks' fault and not the Imperial Legions. The more obvious understanding is that when Stormcloaks intentionally kill other Nords in the Imperial Legion, or the City Guard of Capital Cities, or other Nords simply for not siding with them, those people's deaths are directly attributable to the Stormcloaks and they are killing Nords on an exponentially larger scale than the Thalmor are. That's not a double standard, it's simply an accurate observation about what's going on in the game.

When Thalmor take someone its stormcloak fault,

I never said that. The Thalmor are culpable for their own actions. When Stormcloak supporters claim that it's the Empire's fault for allowing it to happen it's simply pointed out that it wouldn't be happening on the scale that it is but for the actions of Ulfric and the Stormcloaks. That's an accurate observation supported by game content.

... Whiterun is attacked -stormcloak fault.

I fail to see how this is refutable. The Stormcloaks made a unilateral unprovoked attack against a non-hostile city simply so Ulfric could make a statement about the strength of his armies. Not even players who support the Stormcloaks contest this rather obvious fact (at least not the intelligent ones).

 

[Tyer032392]

Arent you as dovakhin the greatest of all the cowards?
You use the thuum on bandits, mages, vampires, animals, all unprepared for such a force.

Except that Akatosh gives the Dovahkiin those powers to bring balance to the world, which is something specifically stated by the Greybeards. It was Dovahkiin's destiny to be born with the dragon blood and therefor be able to defeat Alduin and his fellow dragons. Heck, even the Greybeards tell you after their initiation that you should not shun your gift and use it the way Akatosh bestowed it upon the Dovahkiin. How he wants to use it is left up for debate, but the overall consensus is that the Dovahkiin is a hero and that he uses it for good, though not all the time. Besides, it is entirely stupid of you to try to assert your claim by stating opponents that are usually hostile out in the wild, and therefor forfeit that chance to have an honest fight.

Now, destiny places B as high king of Skyrim, and Exibit A isnt able to challenge him because he is stronger and more powerfull. And no one will be able to challenge him untill a man of equal power as exibit B shows up.

Thing is though, the high king was far weaker than Ulfric, who had legion experience and Thu'um experience under his belt. The only training the high king had was probably decent swordsmen training to defend himself; however, how can you expect to defend yourself when your enemy brings an unfair advantage, thing is you cannot.

That is what you are saying. And if Exibit A does challenge B then A is a coward because he had more power?

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that because Ulfric knew he could beat the high king without so much as a fight, he is a true coward. Only a coward preys upon the weak and young to fit their own needs.

WTF?
The very rule that kings can be challenged was placed as a means to ensure that the most powerfull takes the throne.

While it is true that kings can be challanged, Ulfric's reasons were not for Skyrim, but for his own selfish agenda, which is even mentioned by some of his fellow soldiers.

 

[Dagmar]

It isnt a fabrication. A man is a Forsworn suporter. And he is expected to write an objective book about Ulfric who defeated his little friends?

The author isn't a Forsworn supporter. The fact that you would claim to the contrary is only a testament to your poor reading comprehension skills. Arrianus Arius is a scholar so when he begins his study of the Forsworn he does so with an open mind, which means he dispenses with any negative prejudices about them. However by the end of his study and the lore document The "Madmen" of the Reach it's clear that both assert and support many of the negative things reported in prior documents as accurate:

In time, I was able to create trust with many more natives in my search that corroborated the old woman's story. By chance, one of them arranged a meeting between myself and what I thought was an elder member of his village. I was shocked to find that I was led to a camp, filled with the animal skulls, severed heads, and still beating hearts that I had read about from the military reports back in the Imperial City. There, I met Cortoran, a Forsworn, who seemed amused at the prospect of me writing down his story. Which I quote in full below:
"You want to know who the Forsworn are? We are the people who must pillage our own land. Burn our own ground. We are the scourge of the Nords. The axe that falls in the dark. The scream before the gods claim your soul. We are the true sons and daughters of the Reach. The spirits and hags have lived here from the beginning, and they are on our side. Go back. Go back and tell your Empire that we will have our own kingdom again. And on that day, we will be the ones burying your dead in a land that is no longer yours."

There is nothing biased in his writings. You simply don't like aspects of what you read from them and are trying to distort them to support your transparently false claim that they aren't reliable as historical lore documents. Because your attempts are entirely dependent on those distortions you've failed.

IF you read the ongoing passage, yes you come up to that part which in detail describes slaughtering of anyone not suporting Ulfir (how quaint), and then all of a sudden city is full of people 20 years later, not just people who moved in as you claim, but older people, reachmen, suporters of Forsworn, Nepo etc..

This is more reading comprehension failure on your part. That's not the ongoing passage. It's the same passage intiially described in my post. The one that accurately points out that anyone is not the equivalent of everyone. Your lack of mastery over English is severely undermining your ability to understand what's been conveyed by me and the lore documents.

Anyone who lived in the city, Forsworn and Nord alike, were executed if they had not fought with Ulfric and his men when they breached the gates.

This is followed by the passage:

So when a "grateful" Empire accepted Ulfric's victory and sent soldiers to re-establish the rule of law in the Reach, it was no surprise that he would demand to be allowed to worship Talos freely before the Legion could enter. With chaos running through the streets of Markarth and the reports of deaths rising every day, the Empire had no choice but to grant Ulfric and his men their worship.

Taken together this means that the execution of civilians by Ulfric was a gradual and onging process which the Imperial Legion was trying to end. The fact that you and even Drunkenmage didn't understand what the book is saying doesn't change the fact that this is what the book is depicting.

The fact that you would refer to the passage of time that spans well over 20 years as "all of a sudden" is truly LOLable. It's also another straw man, something you're largely dependent upon because you can't address the actual points made that totally undermine your weak arguments. The passage of time and repopulation of the city was an ancillary point. It's not and never was a claim to suport the premise that a every person in the city or even most people in the city who didn't support Ulfric's Nord militia had been executed because I clearly pointed out that Imperial Legion prevented that from happening. That does nothing to discount the fact that Ulfric had a significant number of civilians killed simply because they didn't support his Nord Militia.

I dont feel like repeating everything all over again.

There's no need to repeat falsehoods, distortions, and misinterpreations about the lore over and over again. You can stop anytime you like.

 

[Mookie]

The author isn't a Forsworn supporter. The fact that you would claim to the contrary is only a testament to your poor reading comprehension skills. Arrianus Arius is a scholar so when he begins his study of the Forsworn he does so with an open mind, which means he dispenses with any negative prejudices about them. However by the end of his study and the lore document The "Madmen" of the Reach it's clear that both assert and support many of the negative things reported in prior documents as accurate:
There is nothing biased in his writings. You simply don't like aspects of what you read from them and are trying to distort them to support your transparently false claim that they aren't reliable as historical lore documents. Because your attempts are entirely dependent on those distortions you've failed.
This is more reading comprehension failure on your part. That's not the ongoing passage. It's the same passage intiially described in my post. The one that accurately points out that anyone is not the equivalent of everyone. Your lack of mastery over English is severely undermining your ability to understand what's been conveyed by me and the lore documents.
This is followed by the passage:
Taken together this means that the execution of civilians by Ulfric was a gradual and onging process which the Imperial Legion was trying to end. The fact that you and even Drunkenmage didn't understand what the book is saying doesn't change the fact that this is what the book is depicting.

The fact that you would refer to the passage of time that spans well over 20 years as "all of a sudden" is truly LOLable. It's also another straw man, something you're largely dependent upon because you can't address the actual points made that totally undermine your weak arguments. The passage of time and repopulation of the city was an ancillary point. It's not and never was a claim to suport the premise that a every person in the city or even most people in the city who didn't support Ulfric's Nord militia had been executed because I clearly pointed out that Imperial Legion prevented that from happening. That does nothing to discount the fact that Ulfric had a significant number of civilians killed simply because they didn't support his Nord Militia.
There's no need to repeat falsehoods, distortions, and misinterpreations about the lore over and over again. You can stop anytime you like.

The author isn't a Forsworn supporter. The fact that you would claim to the contrary is only a testament to your poor reading comprehension skills. Arrianus Arius is a scholar so when he begins his study of the Forsworn he does so with an open mind, which means he dispenses with any negative prejudices about them. However by the end of his study and the lore document The "Madmen" of the Reach it's clear that both assert and support many of the negative things reported in prior documents as accurate:
There is nothing biased in his writings. You simply don't like aspects of what you read from them and are trying to distort them to support your transparently false claim that they aren't reliable as historical lore documents. Because your attempts are entirely dependent on those distortions you've failed.
This is more reading comprehension failure on your part. That's not the ongoing passage. It's the same passage intiially described in my post. The one that accurately points out that anyone is not the equivalent of everyone. Your lack of mastery over English is severely undermining your ability to understand what's been conveyed by me and the lore documents.
This is followed by the passage:
Taken together this means that the execution of civilians by Ulfric was a gradual and onging process which the Imperial Legion was trying to end. The fact that you and even Drunkenmage didn't understand what the book is saying doesn't change the fact that this is what the book is depicting.

The fact that you would refer to the passage of time that spans well over 20 years as "all of a sudden" is truly LOLable. It's also another straw man, something you're largely dependent upon because you can't address the actual points made that totally undermine your weak arguments. The passage of time and repopulation of the city was an ancillary point. It's not and never was a claim to suport the premise that a every person in the city or even most people in the city who didn't support Ulfric's Nord militia had been executed because I clearly pointed out that Imperial Legion prevented that from happening. That does nothing to discount the fact that Ulfric had a significant number of civilians killed simply because they didn't support his Nord Militia.
There's no need to repeat falsehoods, distortions, and misinterpreations about the lore over and over again. You can stop anytime you like.

You can quote it as much as you want, its a book designed to tarnish Ulfrics name and justify imperial treachery.
The game designers dont do something on accident, and it is no accident that author of the bear of markarth also wrote pro-forsworn book. And it is no accident that he justifies any murders the forsworn might have done as just and fair revenge.

 

[Two Bears]

The game designers dont do something on accident

Bethesda's devs do all kinds of things by accident and on a whim. That's why the lore is so sloppy.

 

[Mookie]

Except that Akatosh gives the Dovahkiin those powers to bring balance to the world, which is something specifically stated by the Greybeards. It was Dovahkiin's destiny to be born with the dragon blood and therefor be able to defeat Alduin and his fellow dragons. Heck, even the Greybeards tell you after their initiation that you should not shun your gift and use it the way Akatosh bestowed it upon the Dovahkiin. How he wants to use it is left up for debate, but the overall consensus is that the Dovahkiin is a hero and that he uses it for good, though not all the time. Besides, it is entirely stupid of you to try to assert your claim by stating opponents that are usually hostile out in the wild, and therefor forfeit that chance to have an honest fight.




Thing is though, the high king was far weaker than Ulfric, who had legion experience and Thu'um experience under his belt. The only training the high king had was probably decent swordsmen training to defend himself; however, how can you expect to defend yourself when your enemy brings an unfair advantage, thing is you cannot.



No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that because Ulfric knew he could beat the high king without so much as a fight, he is a true coward. Only a coward preys upon the weak and young to fit their own needs.



While it is true that kings can be challanged, Ulfric's reasons were not for Skyrim, but for his own selfish agenda, which is even mentioned by some of his fellow soldiers.

You bring balance by defeating Alduin, not by defeating bandits. But nevermind. You personalize everything too much. Ulfric didnt fight Toryg, he fought the High King of Skyrim. The fact that he is incompetent of defending himself is not his problem. Who is he to challenge? A greybeard? And what hapens then? What have greybeards done and why should he challenge them? No, all that makes sense is to challenge the High King. It doesnt matter who sits in it. Or do you expect Ulfric to sit around till High king grows some... and decides that it would be best to train, or even better, somehow become immortal and wait untill the high king decides to learn the thuum?
Those kind of arguments make no sense, so a better boxer should never challenge a world champion if he is stronger than the champion? A better team should refuse to play with a weaker one and give victory to the weak? A better lawyer should refuse to represent a client if the oposition isnt equaly as good?

I fail to see your point

 

[Mookie]

Bethesda's devs do all kinds of things by accident and on a whim. That's why the lore is so sloppy.

The footnotes in Elenwens notes on Ulfric for example arent accidents, many other thing which were doubtfull they tended to clarify as much as posible. In some casses it takes some thinking. But ask why use the same name, same author writing about those specific subjects? They could have just picked another name. But they didnt, which means it is done on purpose. Why?

 

[Two Bears]

The footnotes in Elenwens notes on Ulfric for example arent accidents, many other thing which were doubtfull they tended to clarify as much as posible. In some casses it takes some thinking. But ask why use the same name, same author writing about those specific subjects? They could have just picked another name. But they didnt, which means it is done on purpose. Why?

The problem that I have seen in this thread and in a number of other similar discussions that you have been involved with is that by "it takes some thinking", you seem to really mean "it takes some wild speculation". The two are not interchangeable.

 

[Mookie]

The problem that I have seen in this thread and in a number of other similar discussions that you have been involved with is that by "it takes some thinking", you seem to really mean "it takes some wild speculation". The two are not interchangeable.

When someone choses two books to have same author it isnt on accident.

 

[OrexxerO]

Ulfric Stormcloak = Donald Trump

I think that wraps up thread.

If Ulfric is Donald as least he has balls. Pisses people off, but knows how to do something.

What does that make the Empire and General Tullius? Dick Cheney's bitch like everyone thinks Bush was? (Dick Cheney being the thalmor, empire and tullius being bush) or any other puppet type state for that matter. The Empire was gutted from within by the thalmor, to say the Empire has any power over the thalmor anymore is B.S. The Thalmor allow the Empire to live on under the clear threat they can come back and finish the job they started in the war.

 

[Two Bears]

When someone choses two books to have same author it isnt on accident.

Half truths are the only things that, added together, don't make a whole. Sorry Mookie, but it doesn't hold water.

 

[Mookie]

Half truths are the only things that, added together, don't make a whole. Sorry Mookie, but it doesn't hold water.

Yeah sure man. No one forces you
Then just avoid answering on my posts if you need truth to hit you directly in a head like a brick. Send a letter to developers if you feel like it and clarify everything once and for all.

 

[Two Bears]

If Ulfric is Donald as least he has balls. Pisses people off, but knows how to do something.

What does that make the Empire and General Tullius? Dick Cheney's bitch like everyone thinks Bush was? (Dick Cheney being the thalmor, empire and tullius being bush) or any other puppet type state for that matter. The Empire was gutted from within by the thalmor, to say the Empire has any power over the thalmor anymore is B.S. The Thalmor allow the Empire to live on under the clear threat they can come back and finish the job they started in the war.

If you're this mad now, just think how furious you're going to be when TES VI holds the re-incorporation of Skyrim into the Empire as lore.

 

[Two Bears]

Yeah sure man. No one forces you
Then just avoid answering on my posts if you need truth to hit you directly in a head like a brick. Send a letter to developers if you feel like it and clarify everything once and for all.

Repeating it over and over again doesn't help either.

 

[Mookie]

Repeating it over and over again doesn't help either.

What can I do except repeat when all you peple do is repeat all and same things over and over. Am I to write a new lore?