Any source on that? I mean, Balgruuf has dialogue that suggest that there is a distinction between the city guards and the Legion. So does all the counts in Cyrdiil and High Chancellor Ocato in Oblivion, during a section of the main quest.

Yea, I don't see any indication that the guards are also legionnaires besides some in Solitude. Or all in Solitude, not sure really, but Solitude's the only place with a mix.

I voted yes but at the same time I support his actions.

He let the slayer of the high king escape. On that evidence alone he is punished with death. As a guard he took an oath to protect the king and the citizens of Solitude in danger. He let his beliefs get in the way of his duty.

However. The fact that he so boldly believed in Ulfric Stormcloak. So sure he was in his belief, the old ways and the nine. he let Ulfric go and stood there to accept his punishment with bravery and honor.

He chose his own death so that the one he believed in could escape. And for that I respect him.

Just like to point out that within Skyrim's customs, Ulfric did not break the law, given the circumstance of the duel. Sybille explicitly says that Torygg was bound to address the challenge and tell you the outcome should Torygg choose to decline. Imperial Law protects the Imperial Sovereign, but Skyrim custom doesn't. So he is only accountable for a crime from the Empire's perspective, not in the Nords' own traditions.

This comes back to the circular reasoning I mentioned. You have to already accept the Empire's law about protecting their own Sovereign in the province to condemn Roggvir for what he did. Whihc makes no sense if you're not on the Empire's side to begin with.

Yeah. I'd be much more supportive of Ulfric if he were a martyr...or had at least stood there and risked it instead of Roggvir.

that is up to debate and part of the reason the civil war is going on though, Whether using the thu'um or it being a fairly one-sided match (Ulfric was at the peak of his prime and just fought in a huge war, Torygg is said to be a decent, if not great warrior, but stood no chance against a war veteran like Ulfric, and everyone admits it) is honorable or not is one of the biggest issues (and also part of the major civil war debates here on the forums). To some people, he did not follow old Skyrim's customs at all, and others also believe whether fair or not, they are still under the Empire's rule (willingly, i might add) and it makes the OLD rules a moot point. While others believe the opposite, it is what makes the Civil war such a hot topic, despite almost everyone agreeing it was so badly done in the game proper, you cannot for sure say one way or the other.

That would be incredibly stupid of Ulfric, given he's the face of the rebellion and not some nobody like Roggvir.

that does not seem to be the honorable thing though. He is all about honor, but leaves the guy who is the ONLY reason he can escape to die? that does not seem honorable at all

Who says he was all about honor? Granted, by Nord standards the duel was honorable, but the way he set it up was pretty ruthless. Saying "but I thought he was all about honor?" seems like an excuse to bash him for something that he'd be an idiot to do. There's also the possibility he didn't expect them to be executed, when Elisif didn't call to arrest him, and everyone just stood there and watched.

I personally have never seen any evidence that the same courtiers who stood by and let the duel proceed would suddenly decide it was illegal if Ulfric had stood his ground and pressed his case...and I think anyone in charge of the legion at that point would be very hesitant to create the obvious martyr since that would likely push at least some of the Empire supporting Jarls over to the other side. Under those circumstances 'independent Skyrim' would be a certainty, even if Ulfric were dead, so I can't see him getting executed. As you said, he isn't a nobody, the empire can't just execute him out of hand.

Ulfric would be around 46-50 by this point(assuming he was 16-20 when he joined the Legion), and the Great War ended 26 years ago. Hardly in his prime, though we agree on Torygg never standing a chance. Ulfric doesn't appear to have grown fat and weak with his age.

But the rest is just a restatement of what was my point: You have to be on the Empire's side to begin with to condemn Roggvir's actions, because he broke one of the Empire's laws, not one of Skyrims. It is explicitly stated by Sybille Stentor that what Ulfric did was not against Skyrim's customs, and just as explicitly stated by Sybille Stentor that Torygg was bound to answer the challenge, one way or another, once it was made in court.

There is no way to get around the fact that under Skyrim's laws, Ulfric and Roggvir both are being condemned for crimes they did not commit. Murder/assassination and helping a refugee doesn't apply when there was no murder, but a High King sanctioned duel. Torygg did accept the challenge, after all. And it is a fact that under Imperial Law Ulfric is guilty of High Treason and Insurrection against the Empire, and that Roggvir was a co conspirator of his(not so much murder, since duels seem to be common in the Empire, even as far up as the highest echelon of the Imperial Legion, and between nobles).

My point was, and is, that the whole "treason" thing is ridiculous as an argument, since it assumes that you accept the laws of the Empire to begin with, or at least the laws that protects their presence in the provinces, like making the one who rule on behalf of the Empire illegal to kill under any circumstances. It is a way for the Empire to protect their interests in the provinces.

He just killed their king and Elisif's husband. Somehow, I doubt the woman's gonna side against the people who gave her husband power, and her by extension, when she can get revenge instead.

Until the moot names her king what she wants hardly matters to the empire. The empire would try any shady trick they could to make sure that moot picks someone who would not secede, but executing Ulfric would be a very poor play on their part. Windhelm would name another secessionist as jarl for sure, so the moot stands 5-4...but in those five there is probably at least one who would switch sides if the empire started executing jarls, and probably more. It seems very unlikely they would take the chance and just lop Ulfric's head off without at least a direct order from the emperor. I can't say I blame Ulfric for not betting his head on it, since it's his head, but I think the odds were good.

They're supporting her for Queen, so obviously they do, and they're already trying to execute him. His odds couldn't have been any worse, if they would execute roggvir, they'd surely execute Ulfric. It would have been a simple manner of declaring Imperial law over Skyrims, and they'd do exactly what the Empire did when Ulfric did something that broke thalmor law. Arrest him despite any previous agreements made because of those overlording them. Its ironic really that he gets in the same situation twice, but he clearly learned from his mistake.

?? Helgen?

By then he and three other jarls are in open revolt, having shut the door on 'the duel was legal' by fleeing the scene. And the majority of jarls have sided against him, And Tullius arrives with orders in hand to kill him. Much different situation than the day in question.

No lesser officer in a province is going to make that momentous decision IMO. Even holding him while couriers scurry off to the Imperial City would leave whoever ordered it holding the bag for inciting a general uprising. Officers don't go out of their way to grab that kind of a bag, in any legion.

If the duel was legal on the day of, then it was legal every day after that. But Ulfric killing Torygg is what Tullius cites in Helgen as Ulfric's terrible crime. "And now the empire is going to PUT YOU DOWN."

And if the duel was legal and justified, and only the rebellion that came after was wrong, then Roggvir should be a free man. What right did they have to detain Ulfric if there was nothing wrong with the duel?

I think I've made it clear before that I believe Ulfric's decision to kill Torygg was absolutely unnecessary, unwarranted, and blatantly foolish. I think Ulfric deserved to die for what he did, and that vindication was recompensed in my case. Nevertheless, I don't believe Roggvir should have been executed.

'Legal' is determined by debate. If I go out and get in a fight, and someone busts their head on a car bumper...I can stand there until the cops come and lay down a pretty good foundation for self defense...but if the cops have to come looking for me I am done for manslaughter or worse. Same thing applies. By leaving he allowed his enemies to frame the debate in such a way that he could never win it.

As to executing Roggvir...as a guard you don't get to make command level decisions at a time like that. His job was to detain pending clarification. He gets executed because under the most significant of circumstances he failed to perform his duty. I might acknowledge that he 'did the right thing' if I was currently playing a Stormcloak supporter, but even if I was I would still understand that such dereliction cannot be tolerated in any military organization.

He's not military, he's a town guard. And he couldn't have been the only guard to let him out of two gates, and Elisif's court stood by when it happened and after it happened. If they hadn't, there's no way Ulfric would have escaped.

This isn't the same thing, because there's no conflicting laws to deal with cops. And it's pretty clear the Empire will do what they will when it best suits them, not that I blame them.

"Town guard" is at the least paramilitary, and their absolute highest responsibility is 'hold the gates'. He chose not too for whatever his reasons, and he stayed around to take the consequences, which I admire.

As to what 'best suits' the empire...that's exactly what I've been talking about. If Ulfric had stood his ground telling anyone in earshot that what he had done was totally legal under Nord law that the Empire had never seen fit to demand they change then arresting him would not have 'best suited' the Empire...probably...and whoever was in charge at the time would have been unlikely to make that call.

I think Ulfric beat feet because he needed a civil war, not just another moot to pick the next king...since the new moot wasn't going to pick him...but if he had stayed and presented his case he may have swayed that his way.

Hold the gates against what, the king accepted the duel.

What more proof do they need that it was legal? Their king accepted the duel.... The Empire wouldn't have cared, they were facing Skyrim secession, and Elisif's court wouldn't have sided with him anyway. He did just kill her husband.

The moot very well could have picked him, he already got four cities, and if they didn't, he could just duel Elisif. Which they'd probably be afraid of. If it came to a moot, they'd likely have picked him because of that alone.

Whether the duel was legal is a decision made at a higher pay grade than 'gate guard'. If the King just died the guard's job is hold the gate against everybody. Nobody in, nobody out, until some higher authority says otherwise...and Jarl of Windhelm is not in that chain of command.

Solitude had no jarl after Torygg died. His widow had to be raised to station.

Do you expect Ulfric to sweep him off his feet as he's flying out the door?