Elder Scrolls Skyrim Forum Fan Site
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ulfric Stormcloaks haters are hilarious
- Thread starter Raijin
- Start date
Mistressofsquirrels
Member
There's plenty wrong with the guy- you don't go through something like that and come out of it with no problems - but that's one of the reasons I like him. Few other character in the game have that kind of depth to them. Is he doing what he's doing for the right reasons? Depends on your definition of 'right', for starters. Yes, he wants power. Whether that power is simply a means to an end or whether his motives are more selfish, who knows? The game doesn't ever spell it out for you. All you have is speculation by characters who may or may not actually know the guy. Ulfric himself avoids the question when you ask him. You could argue that of course, he isn't going to come out and tell you he's nothing more than a power-hungry maniac, or you could interpret it as he honestly doesn't see anyone else capable and willing to step up and take the job.
That's the fun of it, for me at least. The game doesn't ever tell the player, "Yes, you made the right decision," for either side of the war. At the end of the day, the player takes the information they have and makes the choice they are comfortable with. That's not going to be the same for everyone and it would be pretty boring if it was.
As for Ulfric wanting back the days of anyone being able to kill anyone, I never got that impression. And even if he is, didn't Titus Mede I take the throne by force? Seems like the Empire's entire history is based on conquering. Whether the end goal was unity or not, it didn't happen without bloodshed. I don't see how Ulfric is any worse in that department.
Docta Corvina
Well-Known Member
Even as someone who staunchly favors the Imperial side, I can and have argued for both, and I likewise can understand the appeal of Ulfric on an intellectual level. He's certainly a complex character and while I can understand his motivations, it also doesn't mean that I agree with him or particularly like him. One can exhibit relatable personal history, compulsions, emotions, etc - and still find be found an unlikable character for any number of reasons. Ulfric interests me in that regard, mostly. I don't like him in that I reject his stance in the current conflict, and I am not charmed by him, but his appeal is undeniable and his backstory is fascinating. And it's why I have made sure to bring him into my story, in an albeit smaller sense. The consequences of his actions are felt, and he's compared to original characters who have actually suffered in similar ways as he has. My story is very much about the consequences and aftershocks of not just war, but everything that goes into it behind the scenes. He's a great figure for study in that respect. And in that capacity, I think he's a good character.
For me, he's a good villain.
For me, he's a good villain.
Jurgarik Greycloak
Techno master of Tamriel.
He Throws away one tradition (The Moot) until he can win it in order to favor another tradition (challenge the High King and Kill him to take over). That is a huge no-no. Mede took an empty throne, not one that was filled with a "weak" emperor.
Daelon DuLac
How do you backstab a Dragon?
Again, it really depends on your point of view. Many of the Stormcloak supports seem to believe that Ulfric challenged Torig in the traditional manner (to combat) and won and therefore did not do anything wrong. Obviously the Imperials feel differently (as I am sure many Nords do). I would guess it's a matter of opinion.
Jurgarik Greycloak
Techno master of Tamriel.
Ulfric knew that his "tradition" meant nothing if the Moot did not choose him. He rejects the Moot until he won the Civil War in order to make sure that he wins it, not to ensure that there is a "Strong" high king. He may have challenged him, and I Acknowledged that. But the fact that he has to start a Civil War in order to push out the Empire to "legitimize" it makes me think that such a thing is not as legitimate as the stormcloaks make people believe.
Mistressofsquirrels
Member
Actually, Mede did just that. He overthrew the emperor and took the throne by force. http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Titus_Mede_I
It was my understanding that the Moot has not yet met, or is divided and unable to come to a decision. I realize that he tells Galmar the Moot will not elect Elisif if he has any say in the matter, but I didn't see where he personally stopped the Moot from happening. I may be wrong, I'm only stating that I didn't see that anywhere in the game.
The Empire refused to recognize his duel with Torygg as legit. They call it treason and want Ulfric executed. If the Moot did meet and name him High King, is the Empire really going to just step back and allow it to pass? Even after he wins the civil war, Ulfric personally says he'll wait for the Moot to name him king. Yeah, by then, it's as good as done, but he still observes the tradition by doing so. Yes, he replaces the jarls he defeats with ones who support him, but the same thing happens on the Imperial side- that's just strategy.You don't take out an enemy and replace it with another one.
I'm not out to change anyone's opinion here. I'm only stressing that much of it is opinion. I really hope I don't come across as rude, either. That's not my intention at all.
Jurgarik Greycloak
Techno master of Tamriel.
Mede did not challenge Thule to a Duel then counquered the Imperial City. He straight out Conquered the empire to do so. That was not even remotely similar to Ulfric's "duel" then "legitimize" claim.
IF the DUEL was even legal. Ulfric is using the war to legitimize his duel because he knew that the Moot would not accept his duel as legit until he forced the holds to accept it. If someone challenges their leader to a duel, and then starts a Civil War because some Jarls would not have accepted it as legitimate, it might not be legitimate.
Mistressofsquirrels
Member
My comment about Mede was meant to show that in regards to what you said above, the Empire wasn't all that different. I wasn't commenting on the civil war specifically. I mentioned the duel because you claimed Ulfric was cherry-picking traditions by accepting that and not accepting the Moot. I understand the two are different. I never stated otherwise.
When was the Moot called? Where in game did Ulfric reject the Moot other than his one line of dialogue? The jarls were pretty evenly split. I don't see where Ulfric stopped the Moot from convening. Though the war didn't actually start until after Torygg was killed, the rebellion was already underway. It wasn't something Ulfric just threw together because people questioned the legitimacy of the duel.
Also, I'd really appreciate it if you would stop with the all caps. It comes across as condescending and I haven't been that way with you. This is a difference of opinion, nothing more.
Jurgarik Greycloak
Techno master of Tamriel.
You can't call the moot when Ulfric is a delusional warrior. The Moot was designed to stop this war of succession in the first place. The fact that Ulfric had to "get involved" so that the Moot will convene afterwards is not the sign of a legitimate duel.
Mistressofsquirrels
Member
You keep saying that Ulfric rejected the Moot. How? It was never called. I honestly don't see how one man is enough to keep it from being called. Yes, there is a war going on, but if all the jarls, minus Ulfric of course, were in agreement, why the delay? Legitimate or not is irrelevant, it's a matter of perspective. We know such a tradition exists, or existed at one point. The fact remains the Empire did not recognize it as legal. They declared Torygg's death murder and tried to arrest Ulfric. Enough Nords felt that the duel was legit that Ulfric was able to gather a sizable army. If there was no question that Ulfric was in the wrong, why was he able to gain so much support? Why didn't the other jarls immediately call the moot and put Ulfric down?
Jurgarik Greycloak
Techno master of Tamriel.
you do know that Ulfric's joining/starting the Civil War prevented the Moot from happening, right? His duel may have been legitimate by the people, but it is not the "commoners" he has to convince. It is the Jarls, and only a few of them actually started off siding with him. One of those eve questions his reasons being in it.
It is not a question of legal or not. it is a question of "tradition" of war vs true tradition of the Moot.
Mistressofsquirrels
Member
I had to switch to my kindle so bear with me 
Is it actually stated that the civil war is the reason the Moot hasn't met? I ask in all seriousness. It's entirely possible I've missed something. If not it's only speculation. The legitamacy of theduel was never my point.We could debate that forever. The game leaves enough room for personal interpretation. The tradition of challenging the king did exist. That is in the game.
As I've said before I don't think Ulfric is without flaws. That was the point of my original post. I just don't think he is as bad as some make him out to be. You disagree. I respect that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I personally can't stand Lydia for reasons far less compelling than what you've given for Ulfric.
Is it actually stated that the civil war is the reason the Moot hasn't met? I ask in all seriousness. It's entirely possible I've missed something. If not it's only speculation. The legitamacy of theduel was never my point.We could debate that forever. The game leaves enough room for personal interpretation. The tradition of challenging the king did exist. That is in the game. As I've said before I don't think Ulfric is without flaws. That was the point of my original post. I just don't think he is as bad as some make him out to be. You disagree. I respect that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I personally can't stand Lydia for reasons far less compelling than what you've given for Ulfric.
Jurgarik Greycloak
Techno master of Tamriel.
I had to switch to my kindle so bear with me
As I've said before I don't think Ulfric is without flaws. That was the point of my original post. I just don't think he is as bad as some make him out to be. You disagree. I respect that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I personally can't stand Lydia for reasons far less compelling than what you've given for Ulfric.
Likely cause, actually. Galmar even says the other Jarls want the Moot, which would mean that the Moot has not been allowed to meet.
And again, if you have to start a war, which prevents the Moot, which is a Nordic Tradition, to allow another tradition to prevail, then something is wrong.
Mistressofsquirrels
Member
Until it is shown somewhere that Ulfric is preventing the Moot from meeting, it's your interpretation. That Ulfric started the war simply to delay the Moot is not supported in game. I don't deny his dialogue against the Moot. But that's just talk. Him saying it doesn't make it so. What did he actually do to prevent the Moot from meeting? During the jagged crown dialogue, Rikke says that not everyone has agreed to the Moot. http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Legate_Rikke
So it seems just as likely that the jarls are in disagreement and not everyone wants a Moot yet. The fact is, until we have indisputable proof on why the Moot has not yet convened, this remains a debate of opinions. I have mine and you have yours. There's nothing wrong with that. I'll admit, this has been fun. But, at this point, we're talking in circles here. You criticized Stormcloak supporters earlier for dismissing all attempts at education for what they believe but you're kind of doing the same thing. This is all what you believe.
So it seems just as likely that the jarls are in disagreement and not everyone wants a Moot yet. The fact is, until we have indisputable proof on why the Moot has not yet convened, this remains a debate of opinions. I have mine and you have yours. There's nothing wrong with that. I'll admit, this has been fun. But, at this point, we're talking in circles here. You criticized Stormcloak supporters earlier for dismissing all attempts at education for what they believe but you're kind of doing the same thing. This is all what you believe.
Jurgarik Greycloak
Techno master of Tamriel.
None of it has meaning until you put it together. Why are the Jarls in disagreement? Because of the Civil War. Why is the Civil War a problem? Because Ulfric got tired of being ignored and chose to kill Torygg and start this problem as it is seen in-game. Without Ulfric, this war would not be preventing a moot.
Ivory
Let's Player
He started the war, you can't have a Moot against him when he'd be glad to kill the Jarls that don't support him. Or when the other Jarls would try killing each other. The Moot would not be safe, and HIS war is preventing it, preventing what is tradition in favor of his war.
Ulfric: "Tell me again why we're wasting time and dwindling resources chasing a legend. We don't even know it exists!"
Galmar: "The Jarls are upset. They don't all support you."
Ulfric: "Damn the Jarls."
Galmar: "They demand the Moot."
Ulfric: "And damn the Moot! We should risk letting those milkdrinkers put Thorryg's woman on the throne? She'll hand Skyrim over to the elves on a silver plate."
Galmar: "All the more reason then. The crown would legitimize your claim."
Mistressofsquirrels
Member
The jarls wouldn't be in disagreement if there wasn't at least some substance to Ulfric's complaints. It isn't like Ulfric is the only jarl wanting out of the Empire. The unrest in Skyrim goes back before Torygg was killed. The duel was just the match to the tinder. For whatever reason, the jarls do not all agree on a Moot. I'll concede that without Ulfric there would not even be a need for one, but he is not solely responsible for preventing it. Politics are never that cut and dried.
Again, this is your opinion, the conclusions you have drawn. I'm not even saying you're wrong. All I'm saying is other people have made other conclusions and theirs are just as valid.
Again, this is your opinion, the conclusions you have drawn. I'm not even saying you're wrong. All I'm saying is other people have made other conclusions and theirs are just as valid.
Mistressofsquirrels
Member
The dialogue contradicts itself here. Galmar says the jarls are demanding the Moot, Rikke says not all agree. Considering that these take place at the same time, someone is misinformed. We don't know for sure.
Where are you getting that he would kill the jarls against him? He doesn't kill any of them, as far as I recall, even after he's defeated them. In my game, they're all sitting in Elisif's basement.
The war started because the tradition of the duel was not honored. Had that been allowed, the moot would have met, and if Ulfric wasn't chosen, he wasn't chosen. Had all that occurred, and then he went to war, I could understand it being all his fault.
Jurgarik Greycloak
Techno master of Tamriel.
Show me a history of the Jarls actually not having a moot because of no reason at all? The truth is that the Moot is always used, and has always been used, until Ulfric killed Torygg and forced the Jarls to choose sides. Since the days of the War of the Succession (the first one) the Moot has always decided on a king in this instance, but not now.
The evidence is not open to interpretation, unless you look at only one piece at a time. Looking at it all together, the lore clearly tells you that the Civil War and Ulfric had a part in the Moot not happening.