Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:39 pm

Lord Nerevar wrote:I'll say my views on your other post later, if that's okay. My last post took a while to type out on my phone. Hopefully I can use a keyboard to discuss your other post.

And now you see my pain. Tiny ass keyboards are great for texting sms, not essays.
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Lord Nerevar on Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:50 pm

Banning Talos was NOT one of them. And don't give me this "The Empire turned a blind eye" non-sense.
The Empire didn't have to agree to alienate the Nords like that. But they did, and allowed Thalmor assassins to roam free across Skyrim.
Who cares if open Talos worship brought them. The Empire allows Thalmor to murder Nords without trial, and that is enough reason to rebel,
when foreign agents of an openly hostile force are rampaging across the county side, killing your people without trial.
What more needs to be said?

You misunderstand me, I meant that the Nords accepted the point of the Empire's rules coming first. On that topic though, we are not 100% certain as to what happened just after the Great War. People hated the Concordat 20-30 years after its signature, but we do not know what went on at the time. Tamriel had been ravaged by war, and so many people had died. Many more would have if the Concordat hadn't of been signed, so I think there the public could have pressured the Empire for peace at first, not quite realising the costs. Just speculation, we don't know enough about it, thigh the Nords on The Elder Council might have agreed. Anyway, on Talos worship, I wasn't saying that open Talos worship brought the Justiciars, I was saying that before Ulfric starting causing trouble, people openly worshipped Talos without being punished. Therefore, Talos was not one if the reasons why Ulfric became disillusioned, because this happened before punishment of Talos worship. The ban on Talos worship cannot be used by the Stormcloaks against the Empire, as it is equally Ulfric's fault. That is what more needs to be said, that the punishment on Talos worship did not happen before he started causing trouble, and so he is equally to blame. The Thalmor are allowed access to the lands of the Empire, yes, but without Ulfric, people wouldn't be punished for worshipping Talos. It is not a reason for his betrayal, and certainly not a point that the Stormcloaks can use to support their argument.


How do you do spoiler tags?
avatar
Lord Nerevar
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 198
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Red Mountain, Resdayn.

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Lord Nerevar on Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:02 pm

Tell that to the Stormcloaks who imprisoned post Forsworn Incident. For helping the Empire out.

They had broken the law, and were arrested by the Thalmor. They were hardly helping the Empire out, anyway. If they had driven the Forsworn out of Markarth and not made Talos worship legal, then they would have helped, but causing the Thalmor to intervene in Skyrim, which lead to Talos worship being persecuted in Skyrim, is not helping the Empire out.
avatar
Lord Nerevar
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 198
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Red Mountain, Resdayn.

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:06 pm

Lord Nerevar wrote:
Tell that to the Stormcloaks who imprisoned post Forsworn Incident. For helping the Empire out.

They had broken the law, and were arrested by the Thalmor. They were hardly helping the Empire out, anyway. If they had driven the Forsworn out of Markarth and not made Talos worship legal, then they would have helped, but causing the Thalmor to intervene in Skyrim, which lead to Talos worship being persecuted in Skyrim, is not helping the Empire out.

The Reachmen rebelled against the Empire and sized Markarth. Ulfric and Co. took it back for the Empire and was rewarded with Talos worship.
The Empire reneged on their deal (yes, they were forced by the Thalmor, but point still stands).

The Empire signed the treaty outlawing Talos worship. The Thalmor where there because the Empire allowed it.

(Spoiler tags are under "Others" on the button bar above the text box.)
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Lord Nerevar on Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:17 pm

Hmm, I thought it was just the local Jarl, not the actual Empire. While I do feel some sympathy for the guy (Ulfric) he must've known that he wasn't really going to get what he was promised. It's like me offering you £2 billion to kill Grimnir for me. Not that it is justifying anyone, but that it was a foolish move of his.
avatar
Lord Nerevar
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 198
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Red Mountain, Resdayn.

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Arnier the fallen on Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:21 pm

Lord Nerevar wrote:Hmm, I thought it was just the local Jarl, not the actual Empire. While I do feel some sympathy for the guy (Ulfric) he must've known that he wasn't really going to get what he was promised. It's like me offering you £2 billion to kill Grimnir for me. Not that it is justifying anyone, but that it was a foolish move of his.

as i remember it and i may be woefully wrong the empire were about to grant the Reachmen Markarth and make them a sovereign state or independent but the silverbloods went ape and asked ulfric to help out and he demanded talos worship in return
avatar
Arnier the fallen
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 181
Join date : 2013-03-25
Age : 28
Location : Wales uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:32 pm

Arnier the fallen wrote:
Lord Nerevar wrote:Hmm, I thought it was just the local Jarl, not the actual Empire. While I do feel some sympathy for the guy (Ulfric) he must've known that he wasn't really going to get what he was promised. It's like me offering you £2 billion to kill Grimnir for me. Not that it is justifying anyone, but that it was a foolish move of his.

as i remember it and i may be woefully wrong the empire were about to grant the Reachmen Markarth and make them a sovereign state or independent but the silverbloods went ape and asked Ulfric to help out and he demanded Talos worship in return

And as I recall, it was the Jarl himself. But he is an Imperial Aligned Jarl, who is opposed buy the Silverbloods, by the time of Skyrim. The Jarl is free to make the call that he did, but the Talos worship was reneged upon. By a higher power or not, it was violated.

Whether or not the Jarl and the Silverbloods agreed on letting Ulfric in isn't spelled out in the game, but that is a valid point to be made.
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:34 pm

It's like me offering you £2 billion to kill Grimnir for me.

Sorry Grimnir, it's just business. *SHANK*
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Vulgruff on Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:37 pm

Arnier the fallen wrote:
Lord Nerevar wrote:Hmm, I thought it was just the local Jarl, not the actual Empire. While I do feel some sympathy for the guy (Ulfric) he must've known that he wasn't really going to get what he was promised. It's like me offering you £2 billion to kill Grimnir for me. Not that it is justifying anyone, but that it was a foolish move of his.

as i remember it and i may be woefully wrong the empire were about to grant the Reachmen Markarth and make them a sovereign state or independent but the silverbloods went ape and asked ulfric to help out and he demanded talos worship in return

Even if they weren't going to give him what he wanted they didn't need to throw him in jail. Just more betrayal by the Empire....
avatar
Vulgruff
Ice-Veins
Ice-Veins

Posts : 181
Join date : 2013-03-29
Age : 20
Location : Michigan, United States

http://www.Facebook.com/HumbleUlfric

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:49 pm

Vulgruff wrote:
Arnier the fallen wrote:
Lord Nerevar wrote:Hmm, I thought it was just the local Jarl, not the actual Empire. While I do feel some sympathy for the guy (Ulfric) he must've known that he wasn't really going to get what he was promised. It's like me offering you £2 billion to kill Grimnir for me. Not that it is justifying anyone, but that it was a foolish move of his.

as i remember it and i may be woefully wrong the empire were about to grant the Reachmen Markarth and make them a sovereign state or independent but the silverbloods went ape and asked ulfric to help out and he demanded talos worship in return

Even if they weren't going to give him what he wanted they didn't need to throw him in jail. Just more betrayal by the Empire....

Yea, about that. How DO you imprison a guy with the voice? I remember fighting off the entire Markarth Guards in the city with the sound of my voice.
It was... a misunderstanding.
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Lord Nerevar on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:07 pm

They imprisoned a guy for breaking for the law? What ever are they going to do next?

On a more serious note though, the Empire cannot be blamed for the actions of someone aligned to them unless they ordered it. That's like blaming all of the United Kingdom if I decided to go and bomb France, because I am a British Citizen. That's the reason I'm always using the United Kingdom as real life examples. Ulfric had no need to want lift the ban on Talos worship, it wasn't even enforced in Skyrim at the time. He was an idiot for believing it could happen, anyway, and that's not the Empire betraying Ulfric, it's a moment of lunacy from him.

Should I start a new thread for this discussion so we can continue on the subject of Torygg here, and this on the other thread?
avatar
Lord Nerevar
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 198
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Red Mountain, Resdayn.

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:17 pm

Lord Nerevar wrote:They imprisoned a guy for breaking for the law? What ever are they going to do next?

On a more serious note though, the Empire cannot be blamed for the actions of someone aligned to them unless they ordered it. That's like blaming all of the United Kingdom if I decided to go and bomb France, because I am a British Citizen. That's the reason I'm always using the United Kingdom as real life examples. Ulfric had no need to want lift the ban on Talos worship, it wasn't even enforced in Skyrim at the time. He was an idiot for believing it could happen, anyway, and that's not the Empire betraying Ulfric, it's a moment of lunacy from him.

Should I start a new thread for this discussion so we can continue on the subject of Torygg here, and this on the other thread?

I think this does relate to Torygg because it describes Ulfric's motivations in the act.

As for your point...
That's like blaming all of the United Kingdom if I decided to go and bomb France, because I am a British Citizen.

Your point... is off by a factor of a million. Yes, you are a British Citizen. But, if I may, so is (was) Maggie Thatcher, and if SHE bombed France, THAT would be a big deal.
The difference? Your some nut with a bomb, she is a head of state. The Jarl is a head of state (Head of the Reach), and if the Silverbloods where involved, that compounds its further; it would like Maggie Thatcher and Richard Branson bombing France. BIG, BIG difference.

And yes the Empire reneged on their end. Maybe the Jarl wasn't authorized to allow that "big" of a reward. Even so, that just further justifies Ulfric's actions; A Nord Jarl cannot self rule others in their own homeland.s
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  The Rebel on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:22 pm

james.steelhaven wrote:
Lord Nerevar wrote:They imprisoned a guy for breaking for the law? What ever are they going to do next?

On a more serious note though, the Empire cannot be blamed for the actions of someone aligned to them unless they ordered it. That's like blaming all of the United Kingdom if I decided to go and bomb France, because I am a British Citizen. That's the reason I'm always using the United Kingdom as real life examples. Ulfric had no need to want lift the ban on Talos worship, it wasn't even enforced in Skyrim at the time. He was an idiot for believing it could happen, anyway, and that's not the Empire betraying Ulfric, it's a moment of lunacy from him.

Should I start a new thread for this discussion so we can continue on the subject of Torygg here, and this on the other thread?

I think this does relate to Torygg because it describes Ulfric's motivations in the act.

As for your point...
That's like blaming all of the United Kingdom if I decided to go and bomb France, because I am a British Citizen.

Your point... is off by a factor of a million. Yes, you are a British Citizen. But, if I may, so is (was) Maggie Thatcher, and if SHE bombed France, THAT would be a big deal.
The difference? Your some nut with a bomb, she is a head of state. The Jarl is a head of state (Head of the Reach), and if the Silverbloods where involved, that compounds its further; it would like Maggie Thatcher and Richard Branson bombing France. BIG, BIG difference.

And yes the Empire reneged on their end. Maybe the Jarl wasn't authorized to allow that "big" of a reward. Even so, that just further justifies Ulfric's actions; A Nord Jarl cannot self rule others in their own homeland.s

It would be like Boris Johnson bombing France with Sir Alan Sugar supporting him. Boris Johnson would go against the U.K's laws.

Holds are like Counties moreso than seperate states.

_________________
Sometimes I miss drugs.Then I read gamefaqs.
avatar
The Rebel
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 379
Join date : 2013-03-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Lord Nerevar on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:24 pm

Your point is off by a lot too then. The Jarl didn't rule the Empjre, which you guys were blaming, and so wasn't the head of Statecof that organisations, so you cannot say mine is off without yours being off too.
avatar
Lord Nerevar
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 198
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Red Mountain, Resdayn.

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  The Rebel on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:26 pm

Lord Nerevar wrote:Your point is off by a lot too then. The Jarl didn't rule the Empjre, which you guys were blaming, and so wasn't the head of Statecof that organisations, so you cannot say mine is off without yours being off too.
Check your Facebook.

_________________
Sometimes I miss drugs.Then I read gamefaqs.
avatar
The Rebel
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 379
Join date : 2013-03-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:28 pm

The Rebel wrote:
james.steelhaven wrote:
Lord Nerevar wrote:They imprisoned a guy for breaking for the law? What ever are they going to do next?

On a more serious note though, the Empire cannot be blamed for the actions of someone aligned to them unless they ordered it. That's like blaming all of the United Kingdom if I decided to go and bomb France, because I am a British Citizen. That's the reason I'm always using the United Kingdom as real life examples. Ulfric had no need to want lift the ban on Talos worship, it wasn't even enforced in Skyrim at the time. He was an idiot for believing it could happen, anyway, and that's not the Empire betraying Ulfric, it's a moment of lunacy from him.

Should I start a new thread for this discussion so we can continue on the subject of Torygg here, and this on the other thread?

I think this does relate to Torygg because it describes Ulfric's motivations in the act.

As for your point...
That's like blaming all of the United Kingdom if I decided to go and bomb France, because I am a British Citizen.

Your point... is off by a factor of a million. Yes, you are a British Citizen. But, if I may, so is (was) Maggie Thatcher, and if SHE bombed France, THAT would be a big deal.
The difference? Your some nut with a bomb, she is a head of state. The Jarl is a head of state (Head of the Reach), and if the Silverbloods where involved, that compounds its further; it would like Maggie Thatcher and Richard Branson bombing France. BIG, BIG difference.

And yes the Empire reneged on their end. Maybe the Jarl wasn't authorized to allow that "big" of a reward. Even so, that just further justifies Ulfric's actions; A Nord Jarl cannot self rule others in their own homeland.s

It would be like Boris Johnson bombing France with Sir Alan Sugar supporting him. Boris Johnson would go against the U.K's laws.

Holds are like Counties moreso than seperate states.

Your point is off by a lot too then. The Jarl didn't rule the Empjre, which you guys were blaming, and so wasn't the head of Statecof that organisations, so you cannot say mine is off without yours being off too.

Yes, but in a Feudal Medieval Society, like Skyrim, where communication is a crap shoot at best, a hold would be a state of which the Jarl is the supreme head of, unlike what we think of today. And you can even rely on magic for communications because of the cliquishness of it. A magic user is out for himself first.

Also, Jarl is the Scandinavian word for Earl. Earls had a great deal of Autonomy in their holds.

Again, goes to further justify Ulfric's claim, in his and his followers eyes, at least.
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  The Rebel on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:30 pm

Jarl is head of a hold, not the Empire. I'm glad you agree he acted imdependantly.

_________________
Sometimes I miss drugs.Then I read gamefaqs.
avatar
The Rebel
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 379
Join date : 2013-03-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:34 pm

The Rebel wrote:Jarl is head of a hold, not the Empire. I'm glad you agree he acted imdependantly.

'independently'? Yes, mine and I assume Ulfric's point would be: He should have.

Me thinks you would disagree.
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  The Rebel on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:36 pm

james.steelhaven wrote:
The Rebel wrote:Jarl is head of a hold, not the Empire. I'm glad you agree he acted imdependantly.

'independently'? Yes, mine and I assume Ulfric's point would be: He should have.

Me thinks you would disagree.
Wait, what?

_________________
Sometimes I miss drugs.Then I read gamefaqs.
avatar
The Rebel
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 379
Join date : 2013-03-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:37 pm

The Rebel wrote:
james.steelhaven wrote:
The Rebel wrote:Jarl is head of a hold, not the Empire. I'm glad you agree he acted imdependantly.

'independently'? Yes, mine and I assume Ulfric's point would be: He should have.

Me thinks you would disagree.
Wait, what?

The Jarl. He should have had the autonomy to act independently like he did.
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Lord Nerevar on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:45 pm

And how could be possibly do that? It's magical place, but that wouldn't stop a host of angry Mer (and Beasts, as Khajiit are part of the Second Aldmeri Dominion) from bearing down on Markarth if he did that. Should he have to theoretically? Yes. The point is though, it is not theoretical, in practice, he would have been massacred.

Also, my point on the Jarl was that the Empire should not be blamed for a Jarl's promises.
avatar
Lord Nerevar
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 198
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Red Mountain, Resdayn.

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:56 pm

Lord Nerevar wrote:Also, my point on the Jarl was that the Empire should not be blamed for a Jarl's promises.

And my point (and I assume Ulfric's) was that the Jarl SHOULD be allowed to.
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Lord Nerevar on Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:04 pm

I put that part about the Jarl in response to people slandering the Empire for the event. Anyway, theoretically the Jarl should have been able to, but in practice he couldn't, and Ulfric is a fool is he doesn't realise that.
avatar
Lord Nerevar
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 198
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Red Mountain, Resdayn.

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  james.steelhaven on Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:07 pm

Lord Nerevar wrote:I put that part about the Jarl in response to people slandering the Empire for the event. Anyway, theoretically the Jarl should have been able to, but in practice he couldn't, and Ulfric is a fool is he doesn't realise that.

Bear baiting, perhaps? Sometimes you have to 'lose the battle to win the war' type thing?
avatar
james.steelhaven
Bone-Breaker
Bone-Breaker

Posts : 275
Join date : 2013-04-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Lord Nerevar on Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:13 pm

Do you mean why Ulfric did it?
avatar
Lord Nerevar
Filthy Grey Skin

Posts : 198
Join date : 2013-03-25
Location : Red Mountain, Resdayn.

Back to top Go down

Re: Dead King Torygg - DISCUSS!

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum