Why can't I challenge Ulfric after the civil war like he did to High King Torygg?

Yes I have Fus-Doe-Rah'ed his butt all around the throne room but he won't die.

Because he his not High King yet and you are not a Jarl anyway. As to why he doesn't die, he's essential, that's why.

I would guess that a challenger would also have to already be a jarl in his own right. I doubt very much if the challenge format allows for just any citizen to issue a challenge.

As others said, I think you have to be a Jarl in order to challenge Ulfric in the Old Ways. It makes for a fitting duel to have a Jarl vs. High King rather than Random Skyrim Peasant #123 vs. High King.

Ah, thank you I forgot one needed to be a Jarl.

As for Random Peasant I don't know about that. Afterall I was chosen by the Gods and given the DB blood. I won the war for Ulfric and reinstituted the worship of Talos,

I saved Tamriel or was it just Skyrim from Alduin's return. Eliminated a major vamp faction, prevented Miraak from returning.

No Thalmor lives at the embassy or their prison, I am best buds with 3 dragons and can call one of two to my aid at any time.

Who better to rule skyrim while we wait for the Thalmor response.

disclaimer: please don't that any of this serious its a just for fun discussion.

All things considered, Dovahkin could simply kill EVERYONE that wouldn't acknowledge him to be High King. By the time DB finishes the Dragon Quest, Civil War, Dragonborn, and Dawnguard, is there anyone, anywhere able to stop him from doing whatever he damn well pleases? "New rule, people! 'Let the Dragonborn win.' It's as simple as that. Get out of the way or die."

Not to get upset, but the bold part makes me wonder WHAT the Old Ways are. there seems to be nothing as far as I know to establish the old ways in terms of lore and history.

The pertinent point is that the challenge is issued for the purpose of assuming a leadership position. The idea is to become the person that gets to tell everyone else what to do. A character's "resume" would have to have some indication that people were willing to follow his orders. Nothing indicates that better than being able to demonstrate that the character already holds a leadership position. That would suggest that someone like a Thane could challenge a Jarl for the position of Jarl within a given Hold. And for a Jarl to challenge for the position of High King. Also note that it mentioned that for someone to be permitted to become High King, he must also be endorsed by the Skyrim jarls. [I'm not sure if that if that means the vote must be unanimous, or if just a majority is required. It strikes me that if the vote is NOT unanimous, it would probably lead to a civil war. (Which IS sort of what is going on right now, isn't it?)]

For me, the challenge being issued and people mentioning something that has no lore on it whatsoever makes it sound either fake, or unimportant in the first place. that is what confuses me. Everyone mentions the "old ways" but there is nothing in the game or lore I know of that talks about it.

But overall, the main reason we cannot challenge Ulfric after the Civil War, is because the devs did not put that in game, basically saying that we cannot for no reason.

At Roggvir's execution in Solitude, he uses his Last Words to state that Ulfric had challenged Torygg according to ancient Nord custom. And I believe that if you question Ulfric directly, he relates that he had issued challenge in the traditionally acceptable manner. In the book Nords Arise!, there is a brief passage that states, "Only he (Ulfric) had the courage to single out King Torygg and challenge him to trial by arms."

There obviously was a tradition of Nords being able to challenge their leaders, but it would require Bethesda to write Books of Etiquette for EVERY race and governmental unit to fully explain procedures and methodology adequately. But that would be the epitome of minutiae, trivia. Does the game really require the equivalent of a fully annotated Marquess of Queensberry Rules to demonstrate that making challenge was a legitimate political ploy? Several characters DO mention that a legal challenge was made and no one disputes that no such mechanism exists. Several dispute whether there was a challenge issued, suggesting that Ulfric simply ambushed Torygg. But NO ONE suggests that making challenge wasn't allowed.

For me, it is more than just mentioning it to make it true. Just because Ulfric and a few others say "tradiiton" and other similar terms does not mean there is a tradition of it. Unless there is some secret lore I do not know about that the best scholars are hiding, I do not trust people when they say anything.

just my personal issue though.

No, there isn't anything that describes all the ins and outs of the Old Ways in great detail, but I don't think that's really the important part.

The real debate is whether or not the Old Ways are still valid. It seems pretty anologous to the way that duels (often to the death) used to be considered a perfectly acceptable way for noblemen to defend/restore their honor in Western society, but are now considered barbaric. With such a shift in attitudes, there was inevitably a transitional period where some people began to denounce the duels while others continued to support them. It seems to me that Skyrim is going through such a transition, or at least a period of uncertainty. No one disputes that Ulfric followed the Old Ways, but many still consider what he did to be murder. Like most everything else with the Civil War, which viewpoint is correct depends on the side you choose.

For me, it is important to know what the old ways are, so as to understand what happened in the duel. Just shouting "old ways" means nothing without the lore behind it. Without the lore, it sounds made up.

That's not really how aristocracy works (Or at least, well, sometimes it was, if you go back far enough that's how people got to *be* aristocracy, I guess, but mostly once there's an established system of hereditary rule, that's pretty much it, no latecomers, sorry!)

Yep I understand completely. I have really enjoyed the discussion thanks everyone for keeping it civil.

With all the fighting this Dovahkin has done it is driving him a little crazy that there is a foe yet to be dealt with.

Oh how I would love to unite all the Jarl's to organize a ground force.

Ask Paarthurnax and his army of dragons to assist me in one last battle and take the fight to the Aldmeri Dominion putting those SOB's in their place.

Could you imagine riding Paarthurnax leading an army of dragons to the Summerset Isles. With a fleet of Skyrim soldiers and ships following close behind.

It would be glorious or maybe this Dovahkin has just gone mad from too many dealings with Daedric Lords, haha

Because that'd make retconning the story hard in future titles

But no, you don't need to be a Jarl to challenge the High King. In a sense, you're also simultaneously challenging a Jarl to take his position, so the moment he's dead, you get both titles at once

actually, I feel it was just not put in because the devs did not want it in.

I think the problem would be explaining the political movements the High King would take when the player can be a High King. For example, requesting assistance to Hammerfell, bargaining with the Empire, stuff like that. The last time they allow the player to take a pivotal role in the story, they introduced Dragon Break, which, ironically would fit Skyrim's theme better than Daggerfall