The duel was legal. No one tried to prevent it. They only decided to arrest him after he won.

I already outlined how Torygg could have really shown that he supports Ulfric's cause. And again, the same source for his supposed admiration of Ulfric says he didn't intend to secede.

He set up a checkmate which he couldn't lose. That's not just good, that's a master stroke.

You might as well had said she is a woman, I do t trust women. It's just a way of skating around the argument because you don't trust the 'abomination' that is an obviously not evil vampire.

Your explanations makes sense. But it just demonstrate how uncivilized and brutal that guy is. How honorless. How shortsighted.

He's the High King. That would not have happened.

This is called a strawman.

This isn't about Torygg not initiating the dialog, this is about Ulfric not attempting to initiate the dialog before killing him. Ulfric had an opportunity to find out once and for all where Torygg stood on the matter, and he squandered it in deference for bloodlust.

I think you have a problem with Nord ways, not Ulfric himself. That I can understand, but you can't blame Ulfric for playing Nord politics to do what he believes is best.

All vampires are evil since their minds and existence are twisted by a daedric curse. What matters if its a men or woman. A vampire is an abomination of nature. A cursed. A thing, not a being. And I dont trust twisted things.
Mer or Men =/= Vampire

He thought Torygg stood with the Empire, because his pro-Imperial speeches and lack of agreeing with him at the moot pointed that way.

He already did AT THE MOOT! Torygg said nothing!

On the death of a king, the jarls convene a moot to elect a new king...that didn't happen following Torryg's death...probably would have been a bit hard in any case as the challenger probably wouldn't want to appear to avoid charges or at least claims of murder and treason.

I would suggest that the 'right to succession by challenge to combat' would actually have some sort of formality to it, such as a combat being held at a moot (assuming a 'moot' is simply a meeting of all the jarls, regardless of its' purpose, rather than simply as only being held on the death of a king)...that way, any question of right or wrong is resolved openly in front of the participants' peers.

In real world history, there's been a few cultures where claims to a throne or position, or land, or even simply dispute resolution has been decided by challenge - many Germanic tribes did it, the Gauls did it, the Vikings did it, and a number of African cultures have practiced it. Dueling was only outlawed, or at least became socially unacceptable and eventually fizzled out, in the UK in the mid-late 1800's. The one thing that was in common between modern dueling and certainly the Viking duelling was that the event was formally witnessed, to make sure that it was carried out in accordance with rules and custom.

Would Torryg have broken with the Empire? Don't know... Would Ulfric have accepted Torryg as High King if he had broken with the Empire? That's another don't know...

The one thing that is clear in-game is that in relation to the jarls, the Stormcloak command views them as "...either with us, or against us...", which indicates to me that the rebellion was going to happen regardless, and that whoever stood in the way was going to die...they will not accept neutrality, and they will not accept resistance.

Bro what? Only nords can be stormcloaks, yet it does not matter the race we can still join. What qualities does Ulfric have that make him a great leader? If we judge Ulfric and the dragonborn on exploits alone I see the dragonborn sitting on the throne.

How do you know? Many of you claim he was weak. And he was killed to proof that point.
He may be aware of his weak politic situation. And perhaps knowed that declaring a seccesion will make his imperial supporter Jarls to rebel against him.
In any case, the result would be the same. A civil war.

BECAUSE IT WAS TREASON TO DO SO! ULFRIC HIMSELF WALKED A THIN LINE WITH TERMS "JUST SHY OF TREASON"!!!!!



I'm done. My head hurts.

He still said enough for everyone to know where he stands! You are quite stubborn. Even his vampire said that they all knew, and expected him to discuss more. They already frikkin knew.

The woman comment was to say that it makes no sense not to trust her because she is a vampire, just like it makes no sense to trust her because she is a woman.

And her mind is obviously not twisted, she even has you hunt down other vampires, because she isn't deplorable like them.

Is Serana evil, because she is a vampire, even though she helps you kill her own family?

Because the High King's word is the law of the land. What you are saying is silly.

Vampires are Vampires. I kill them all. Azura Commands it!

Arguing with someone in roleplay is pointless...

OMG, your exploits dont qualify you to rule. And what would an orc or an imperial know of ruling Nords anyway? We're not even from Skyrim and don't know all of its customs. Ulfric does, and can play the politics. I'm done. If you cant see why the dragonborn being High King is stupid, then whatevs. I'm over it.

No its not. There are SO MANY RL cases when a King dictates some law or resolution that makes his dukes or lesser kings to rebel!
I can recall right now the War of the Roses in England.
Is the law of the land, but who prevent the empire suporters to rebel from him if he was weak?

You should read my earlier post about what you've been saying. Also, he didn't say you had to be a Nord to be a Stormcloak, just High King. I don't know if he is right on that, but I just want to clarify.

Also, Colonel. This argument is mine. I hate the concept of the Dragonborn being the one who should rule, for either side.

But this isn't real life, is it. Maybe in Skyrim things are different, the high kings word is law.

No but seriously. She can be a "good" vampire, but me, if vampires existed, I would not trust them. Never. They are evil by nature, they must feast of blood.

Actually, if my previous character's exploit of cutting of Ulfric's head don't qualify him to rule in your book, KillaBee, then neither can Ulfric...

But WHAT could prevent the Jarls to rebel against him if they want? Hm ? What is, he is a god that just say "Dont rebel against me, I command it!" ... sounds silly.