K I'm in the mood again. First of all, where are you even getting this crock from? First you say that no one cared about the Nord law and the duel, and they only cared about what possibilities Ulfric offered, then in the very same post you say that they didn't care about independence? Did you read over this? You contradicted yourself. I'll say it again. Ulfric gained traction because he won the duel and the Jarls who support him see him as the rightful High King. I'd love to know where you got that crap about families who might gain a Jarl seat supporting him. Like most of your post, it's pulled out of thin air.

The Death of Torygg

Following the Markarth Incident, Ulfric was arrested. His father, The Bear of Eastmarch, died while Ulfric was imprisoned, and Ulfric delivered his eulogy via a letter that he had smuggled out of prison.^{http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak#cite_note-Ulfric-10} He was eventually set free and returned to http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Windhelm, where he took up his father's place as Jarl.^{http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak#cite_note-Ulfric-10} Upon the death of High King Istlod, the http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Moot was convened to formally name his son Torygg as the new High King. Though the Moot only convenes as a formality when a High King dies with a direct heir,^{http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak#cite_note-PGE1S-11} Ulfric used the forum to voice his desire for independence from the Empire. Torygg knew Ulfric as a war hero and respected him, and the daring he displayed during the Moot further impressed the younger Nord. Soon after, Ulfric traveled to http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Solitude to see the young High King. Torygg and his court believed Ulfric had come to further discuss his desire for Skyrim's independence, and welcomed him. By the time they realized Ulfric was there to challenge Torygg, it was too late to stop it. Under ancient Nordic traditions, Torygg had no choice but to accept Ulfric's challenge for the throne, lest he risk losing face for an act of cowardice, which would lead to a recall of the Moot and likely his deposal as High King.^{http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak#cite_note-SS-12} Accounts differ on what happened next. According to Ulfric, he knocked Torygg to the ground with the http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Thu%27um, then dispatched him with a sword. Rumors circled amongst the people that Ulfric's shout literally tore the young High King to pieces.^{http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak#cite_note-Skyrim-0http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak#cite_note-NA-13}Ulfric's supporters claimed that Torygg was a traitor to his people who deserved to die and that Ulfric's victory rightfully made him the new High King.^{http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak#cite_note-NA-13} Ulfric's detractors insist that there was nothing honorable about his challenge, and they view Torygg's death as unforgivable murder, as Torygg was of a young age while Ulfric was at his prime, and Ulfric did not exhaust diplomatic alternatives.^{http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak#cite_note-Skyrim-0} According to Sybille Stentor, Torygg likely would have given Ulfric's request to emancipate Skyrim from the Empire serious consideration, as he held Ulfric in high esteem.^{http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak#cite_note-SS-12}

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Ulfric_Stormcloak

In the words of my current Imperial character, that's a stupid custom.

And this is ethnocentrism.

I believe Roggvir's acted by heart and not from a political point of view. But I could be wrong.

"Ulfric's supporters claimed that Torygg was a traitor to his people who deserved to die and that Ulfric's victory rightfully made him the new High King."

Wow. Underlined and everything. Must be true. I mean, if the Silverbloods, for example, were thinking 'hey here's our chance to grab the Jarl seat' surely they'd just stand up and say so. I mean, if you're an Ulfric supporter you have to state your motives clearly and honestly, right? Since they represent everything good and right in all the land.

I gave a source, guy. Where's your source? And the silverbloods aren't Jarls, so what does this have to do with my point on Ulfric gaining half of Skyrim because of the duel? The silverbloods are in Markarth....

You said no one cared about the law, I showed otherwise.

Ah I see people using the silverbloods as an example of Ulfric having people care about his cause. What of Maven? Does she really care about what the empire thinks?

Not quite... See above.

i giggle every time that little man meets the headsman axe he shouldn't mess with our empire!

Not in the least. I'm basically neutral in this. I find it just as hilarious when the 'our noble empire' crowd gets going as it is when the 'good guys follow Nord law' crowd gets going. There is plenty of quotable support for playing the game as a good guy on either side of the CW, or a completely venal evildoer on either side of the CW...that's how the game was made. Eventually I'll play out all four of those options, plus an assortment of neutral views on the CW.

Lol, is it? People always say this, but always back off when challenged on the points.

Hey,it's an easy way to get the amulet of Talos, if you're playing a shout user!

Which points would those be? The ones you disregard as 'not as real' somehow, like the Thalmor dossier on Ulfric? Or the ones you only count halfway, like Bear of Markarth, which you cite as a demonstration of Imperial perfidity without paying any attention to how it portrays your boy Ulfric as a dictatorial megalomaniac? People back off from the 'argument' because it's ridiculous, not because you win it. I just stay in it because I enjoy a good parody.

The CW quest was made to satisfy that part of the ES fanbase that hungers for the ambiguous quest that you can drive to more than one outcome. The way people have latched on to one outcome or another and claimed some sort of righteous high ground is pretty amazing to me, but certainly makes for some funny threads.

eh, no. The only thing I disregard in the dossier is people saying Ulfric is an agent. I actually like it, because it clearly states "A Stormcloak victory is to be avoided." And as for a bear of markarth, the thing is obviously BS:

Igmund says that they, probably his father at the time, asked Ulfric to free Markarth and they offered him Talos worship. So Ulfric did not do this at the Thalmor's bidding, and he also did not do this as some plot to start a civil war by provoking the Thalmor and breaking the WGC. Here’s the dialogue:

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x00092335

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x00092331

.

More proof:

http://cs.uesp.net/index.php?game=sr&formid=0x000e1623

Read that carefully. Let us do some math. The Markarth incident happened in 4E176. The events of Skyrim the game happen in 4E201. And this man’s daughter would be 23 according to him today if she was still alive. So, that means she was killed in 4E178. Two years after Ulfric was arrested, which is what the Markarth Incident was about. Not to mention he wasn’t arrested for any war crimes, and the Bear of Markarth claims he put ANYONE to the sword who didn’t stand with him, Nords included.

So, try again. As for the winning comment, I don't try to "win" them, but I've yet to see anyone do such a thing, if there were such a thing, on the opposite side.

Of course you haven't seen it. Because they can only do it by using the parts of the Thalmor dossier other than 'a Stormcloak victory is to be avoided'...you know, the parts that 'don't matter' that you never quote. And they use things that are 'obviously' BS, like the Bear of Markarth. In other words they use the things included in the game to support the side you have not chosen...and use them just as efficiently as you use the things included in the game to support the side you have chosen.

And eventually both sides go their way or someone gets silly and gets the thread locked.

Thus I find the whole thing irresistibly funny.

By the way, from the Thalmor point of view avoiding a Stormcloak defeat is just as important as avoiding a Stormcloak victory. That's in the part you disregarded when you latched on to the 'one sentence that matters' of course.

First, what parts? I'd like you to show me what part would suggest that they want a stormcloak victory. Second, them using things that are clearly inaccurate proves what?

Third, what would the Thalmor not wanting a stormcloak defeat either do to prove my point that they don't want a stormcloak victory? You say I leave points out, when I'm simply using only the relative parts to the point I am making which is very common in debating... So what are you even talking about?

They DON'T want a Stormcloak victory. I never said they did and neither do they. They don't want a Stormcloak defeat either. They just want the war to go on.

Maybe the 'we were there to save Ulfric but didn't have to when the dragon showed up and did it first' part represents that point...but of course that's just part of the disinformation put in to smear Ulfric when someone steals the dossier, where the line about avoiding a Stormcloak victory is a gospel truth that got in there accidentally.

Unless of course you're on the other side, in which case that 'Ulfric rescue' part is the only truth that matters in that particular book and the 'avoid Stormcloak victory' is the disinformation.

I can't even follow this conversation anymore, as you keep saying things that have nothing to do with it, or what I said. All I said was they didn't want a stormcloak victory. That doesn't mean I was saying they wanted an Imperial one. I'm already well aware that they wanted the war to go on....

Hey! Progress...they want the war to go on, so it seems logical to guess they wanted it to start.

So, there was a moot and the hereditary king was supported to the throne. Was there a civil war at that point that was making the Thalmor happy? No.

At the time of the game there is a civil war. No king on the throne, Nords killing each other over who the next king should be, all that. So the Thalmor are happy.

Now, somewhere between point in time A, and point in time B, some event happened marking the start of this civil war, and making the Thalmor happy.

Care to provide a quote that identifies this event?

That was laid out about as simply as it could be laid out and I am absolutely confident you could follow it...and just as confident that you won't.

Progress? I ALREADY KNEW THAT, YOU JUST CANT FOLLOW THE CONVERSATION.

And my confidence is sustained.

So, what was that event that marked the start of the civil war the Thalmor wanted, and who did it?

What does this have to do with the topic....You've veered so far off course, it's not even funny.

Anyway, the civil war was going on before Torygg's death, if that's what you are getting at, but the war really started when the Empire came in to fight Ulfric for dueling him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK8RtkMmrrA

Bethesda loves their set pieces. It's almost like they forgot this was a non-linear sandbox game.

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Skyrim%27s_Rule, read a bit.

You're so much cooler and smarter than the rest of us. How do you stand it?

Anyway there's no one here who doesn't understand that people's motives are complex, that political movements are rarely straightforward, but your attempts at hipster cool aren't painting an accurate picture. The Silver-Bloods are who they are, but others mix both passion for their country and way of life with natural self-interest. Take Gerdur for example, or Ralof, and a lot of other ordinary folk who don't stand to gain anything much out of a new order but are just fighting for what they believe in. Roggvir wasn't making a play for power in a new regime- he was just doing what he thought was right.

As for why Ulfric ran, I imagine that had something to do with the imperial guards shouting "arrest him!" After, according to Sybille's own testimony, they all had stood around while Torygg accepted the duel.