Indeed, that's no unity I need. Especially when they intend to shove it on you like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toAEQTsidvg

Unity!

Maybe instead of slaying the High King, he could have gone to Solitude to request that they join forces against the Thalmor? But that would end (presuming there's a Thalmor defeat) with Torygg still on the throne and the Empire still ruling Skyrim. Ulfric obviously saw the situation with the Thalmor as an opportunity for his own selfish lust for the throne.

Again this all just my opinion here. I think if he genuinely wanted the best for Skyrim, he would have reluctantly joined forces with the Empire. Because even if they won, the Empire would have no doubt re-instilled the worship of Talos, so why slay Torygg in the first place? Am I missing something here?

And those notes explain his devotion and selfless rule of Eastmarch but not Skyrim.

Ulfric already tried that at the moot, so much that he almost could have been charged with treason. People need to realize this isn't a democracy, and not everything can be solved with talk.

Hell, that's not even true in a Democracy...

So it's selfless in Eastmarch, but it's suddenly different for all of Skyrim?

edit: He killed Torygg to speed things up, and to remove Imperial corruption. Who knows when, or if the Imperials would ever attack the Thalmor. The way they're going, they probably would attack them again first, while the Talos worshipers suffer.

So the Empire refused? Why? That doesn't seem logical to me at all. They both a common enemy, and common goals.

Torygg never said anything, which was as good as refusing. Sybille Stentor said he'd refuse anyway.

The Empire didn't want Ulfric to be made King after he killed Torygg, because Skyrim is an important hold for their power. If they really cared for the greater good as they claimed, they'd just let Skyrim's politics run its course, despite Imperial law, then be allies against the Thalmor with an independent Skyrim. But Empires are not benevolent institutions, they're selfish ones. So they would never do that if they could help it.

According to Sybille Stentor, Torryg was willing to listen to Ulfric's arguments for independence and had done, but wasn't about to let them sway him no matter how well thought-out because he believed the same as Solitudian, above. Ulfric was walking a very thin line after his shenanigans at the Moot, and couldn't politically stand another refusal, which might lead to firmer Imperial jarls pressing for his head and Torryg reluctantly acquiescing. The murder/duel made sense, and doesn't necessarily mean Ulfric's brimming for power, but it was ultimately the result of his own love of drama and could have been avoided.

That's probably the low-point of Ulfric's career, in my opinion. You can knock your High King over the head, sure, but in front of his new bride and courtiers, when you know he can't beat you, and the most he's expecting is a quiet chat with a respected intellectual sparring partner? There's something quite treacherous about that. It doesn't speak so well to the hero persona that Ulfric thinks it does.

You said it yourself, Torygg never would have listened in the end. So if Ulfric wanted change, the only thing he could have done was kill Torygg in a duel for a moot to be called. That to me was his high point. It got him half of Skyrim, after all. Moots are only called when a High King dies, or if there's serious doubt that he's a strong King. Who knows how long it would have taken to convince the Jarls of that, if he could have convinced the Jarls of that, and if it would have been enough to actually remove Torygg. That's quite the long shot.

But even with Torryg's duel, he must defeat the Imperial Legion before that Moot can be called. Why didn't he just start the war, and kill the king at the end of it? It would have yielded the same result, with no controversy at all other than that the war gets anyway.

Because he didn't have enough support to wage any war big enough to take Torygg's place. The duel was what got him this much support in the first place. There was only skirmishes before. And if he just started waging war, a lot more people may have thought him in the wrong. But the duel makes it an issue of Nord laws and traditions being stomped on by imperial law, making it look like Ulfric is the victim here, not the Empire.

That is why this was a necessary and smart move. Not to mention him using the thu'um makes him like a hero of legend to the traditionalists in Skyrim. And to the religious, it makes it look like the gods are on his side. Ulfric is a smart man.

I'd have thought it was his policies that won him support. It's true that to kill the High King in such an overt fashion would have consolidated the Stormcloaks, by putting its members well beyond the pale as far as Imperial law is concerned and forcing them to band together beneath him, but not a single jarl, soldier, or otherwise says that they came to him because of the event. The way he handled the duel was a master-stroke, but it would've mean nothing were a substantial movement not already extant. In fact, were there not a network of supporters at his back, it would've been damn foolish.

They don't have to actually say it. It isn't the main reason they joined, no, but it is what sparked it. Those reasons alone may seem like they'd be enough to wage war, but with Torygg still King, Ulfric wouldn't have as much of a claim as he does now. Not to mention, he looks a lot better compared to Elisif. Also, if he had more support, then someone would have said something at the moot when Torygg was being sworn in, or whatever you want to call it.

Basically, it turns it from a simple war to replace the king for this reason or that, to a war to put "the rightful king" on the throne. See the difference? The more the war can be spun into a cause, the better. The duel also proves that Torygg was weaker than Ulfric, whether people liked that he used the thu'um or not, since traditionalists want the strongest Jarl to be king.

edit: Also, if the idea is to avoid controversy, starting a war at all wouldn't be the way to avoid it. May as well challenge Torygg to a duel and cut out the middle man if you can save time going around asking for support, and you can take out the King as well.

Never try and debate A Bear of a Man without at least fifty health potions.

*crosses fingers for Brunwulf to be the unofficial High King of Skyrim* Meow?

I don't have much regard for Laila or any of her spawn. The point is that you're weakening Skyrim considerably with a plan like that. The civil war will basically go on and on.

They would only not need to say it if subtext or context implied it, and it doesn't. The duel is mentioned only in terms of its own controversy, it doesn't appear to have motivated anyone either way.

He has a claim from killing Torryg, but he still had to fight through the Legion to enforce it. He was bound to do that anyway, one way or another; he might as well have got it over and done with, then killed the king, leaving himself in exactly the same position. I understand that you're saying he needed the claim in the first place to be able to fight the war, but Ulfric's claim to power would only be vital if it was that which they fought for, and it's not. They fight for independence and Talos worship and native rule; those things apply whether or not the throne is vacant, and whether or not Ulfric can sit upon it.

That's one thing, I suppose. It's largely offset by the sympathy and understanding a young, grieving widow would get, though, and the opportunities her being unmarried affords jarls who might side with her in the hopes they could one day win her hand and the keys to the kingdom.

Stormcloaks may tell you Ulfric's the rightful king, but none of them so much as suggest that's what they fight for. Their war's cause is firmly-established with or without the High King's seat being vacant from the outset.

It isn't mentioned, because the duel is simply a means to an end. Why would they mention Torygg's death is why they joined, when the point is the Empire imposing on their way of life, and the reasons that Ulfric dueled him in the first place? Its no coincidence that the other Jarls only joined him after he made a claim to the throne when there was no high king.

They are fighting for Ulfric's claim to the throne, because they can't have those things, Independence, Talos worship and so on, until he is King. It doesn't matter that Ulfric had to fight through the legion still. Killing Torygg served as a call to action. I don't think Nords really care that much about grieving widows when it comes to their leaders. These are warlike people. She'd seem like a milkdrinker using that angle. Only further supporting Ulfric's claim of weak leaders.

Them telling you he's the rightful king IS them saying what they fight for. They kept the name "Stormcloaks" after the Imperials called them that for a reason. Ulfric's claim to the throne is the gateway to their goals.

Sybille also mentions had Ulfric asked him directly, to declare independence he might have. She also mentions Torygg greatly respected Ulfric for what he said during the moot, I'm not sure he was walking a thin line. He impressed his King.

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x000c069a

Ulfric mentions killing Torygg was merely a message to the other Jarls, in a conversation with Galmar. But I think it was to get the Empire's attention and more support for his cause.

Hadvar mentions he didn't have much support before he killed the High King.

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x00056b1e

"He's always used the ban on the worship of Talos to stir people up against the Empire. He never succeeded in getting much support, so a few months ago he murdered the High King! That got the Empire's attention."

Ulfric probably respects individuals, while holding races and groups that he doesn't like in contempt. There is too much evidence in-game pointing to this. Of course, like real racists, they probably aren't aware of just how much it shapes their mindsets and actions, or how obvious it is. If someone like Scouts-Many-Marshes were to get an audience with Ulfric and actually introduce himself/present himself as a person, he'd be treated with respect. Same with any Dragonborn character (Of any race!) that struts into the Palace of Kings like they own the place. Ulfric and most of the Windhelm Stormcloaks (Those loyal to the cause outside of Windhelm have different cultures and expectations) believe Skyrim is for the Nords, but the important part of the Stormcloak movement is freeing Skyrim from the Empire and Dominion. Racial policy and the details of which traditional customs to bring back will be up for debate and able to be resolved afterward.

The racism against the Dunmer and Argonians isn't one of hatred - it's one of contempt. Worthless clutter, not hated enemies.

And... hmm... I have no idea which way to vote. Brunwulf is definitely a better Empire-aligned Jarl, but Ulfric would be better for leading an independent Skyrim. I tend to go both ways on the civil war. They each have their good and bad points, and the right Dragonborn can fix the wrong while amplifying the Right.

I can give the Dunmer issue the benefit of doubt because there are npcs who think they don't have a reason to complain.

The same can't be said about the decree that forbids Argonians from living inside the city. There is no statement within the game's dialogue that supports the idea that Ulfric did it out of concern for them or any other theories people came up with.

When you witness an immoral situation, evidence is required in order to put it on a better light. Maybes won't do.

Let's just say I am suffering from a Sheogorath complex with the choices in this poll.

That's because Ulfric doesn't see Argonians collectively as "people" - but he'd probably respect him as an individual. As it is, though, his laws have made it difficult for Argonians to present themselves as people, especially to those in power. In my experience, that's the way most racists think - Of course, he'd consider the individual Argonians he meets as exceptions to his opinion as a race. The bigotted mind is a fascinating web of self-delusion, circular logic, hypocritical exemptions, and other mental acrobatics.

What?
Do you have any proof?

Extensive studies on how bigotry works?

Scow, that's a very artful way of getting around the fact that Ulfric and other top Stormcloaks do or say nothing even remotely racist. It's utterly baseless. 'Extensive studies on bigotry' only apply if you already take the person to be bigoted, so your argument relies on itself to be true before it makes any sense.

'They should remain outside, for their own safety' - Brunwulf

Those jarls would already have been his backers, killing Torryg only forced them into open war and so to nail their colours to the mast when before allegiances were less clear. As I said, it's true that the duel was where the rebellion really came together in earnest but there must have been a firm movement beforehand, or else all the duel would have achieved is the death of Ulfric and the forfeiture of Windhelm. Jarls wouldn't just hear of the High King's death and think 'this is the guy we must support' had had not already won them over.

He needs to be on the throne to do what they want him to do, but taking this point aside from the rest of the debate for a second is there any reason he couldn't have put himself on the throne through defeating the Imperial Legion and then killing the High King?

He doesn't say he got much support after it, either; he says it 'got the empire's attention,' which is more in keeping with my 'it made them flock together' theory than anything else.