UESP Forums

It's not murder if it is legal, right? And according to the old ways, killing the High King automatically gives you the position, so he gains something from doing so.

I understood it as Torygg was in Ulfric's way to becoming High King, so he "challenges" Torygg to a duel as a cover for simply killing him. no talking or trying to understand why Torygg would not budge on the Empire-Skyrim's independence, just go to Solitude, challenge and kill Torygg, then run. Seems suspicious to me.

But to say that the duel is a shield for the killing makes no sense to me if the duel is the only way for ulfric's plans to function. That logic seems to put more value on Torygg's life than the fact that he's the high king.

And just going to Solitude to challenge the High King without truly knowing why makes no sense either, unless is simply wanted Torygg to die, and threw on the High King issue because it was the best way to kill him.

What I was saying is that the Duel was Ulfric's shield from being charged with Murder by Nord standards.

It can be a shield. I disagree with the notion that it was intended to be a shield. I am of the opinion that Ulfric went to solitude with the intention of becoming high king, it just so happened that this objective came with the side objective of killing torygg.

For the duel to be used as a shield for the murder charge, as the intent, would mean that the main objective was to kill torygg rather than become high king.

In the end, Skyrim is better off without either idiot faction ruling (Stormcloak or Empire).

I'd actually quite like a bit more explanation on this. How is the empire a relic of the past? different empires have ruled Tamriel a number of times, and a lot of the time they were peaceful and prosperous for centuries.

How does unity become a relic of the past?

"unity" is overrated. some people aren't willing to sacrifice autonomy or independence for the sake of solidarity or unwanted and unneeded support. there are those that are quite capable of surviving without fair-weather friends like the Empire or a "mutual admiration society" at their backs. the pack mentality is a device of bullies, cowards and weaklings. to deny a people their right to autonomy or independence is to deny them their natural right of self-determinism and sovereignty and is ultimately oppressive and tyrannical. to turn a blind eye to the very real crimes of the Empire and Imperials and their trumped-up charges of "murder" is ultimately a dismissive and minimalist injustice. the fact is that regardless of whatever "edge" Ulfric had, it was not "murder". Torygg accepted the challenge and duel as a matter of honor according to the old ways and was not defenseless. he lost fair and square and Ulfric won the right to the crown whether you agree with the custom and tradition or not. the Empire showed it's callous disregard by it's denial and refusal to acknowledge or accept Ulfric's "right of succession" by branding him a traitor and turn-coat instead, amounting to nothing more than a smear campaign and witch hunt for no other reason than the fact that Torygg was "their boy" and Ulfric wasn't, yet Ulfric managed to single-handedly kill him in one-on-one combat making the Empire look weak and giving it a black-eye and bloody nose so they retaliated in the manner that bullies, cowards and weaklings do rather than acknowledging or accepting Ulfric's claimed right of succession to the crown and throne because he wasn't their "boy". ultimately, it showed Torygg as an Imperial puppet and revealed the Empire for the ego-maniacal, malicious, petty, vindictive despots and tyrants they are.

In my opinion the "true" Empire died with Martin Septim. This current Empire is nothing but a shadow of the lat Empire created by the Septims.

@godsmack: Torygg had no reason to learn to fight. If he did, what is the Housecarl there for? To look cool? If you look at the political situation of the world right now, the only place that would be fighting Skyrim normally is Hammerfell, and they are not. The only ones doing anything to Skyrim are the ones doing so to the people who are too nord to shout their mouths. Needless to say that Torygg should not have been High King, but there were other ways to get what Ulfric wanted, if what truly wanted was to become High King.

Basically the other routes to high king status are a Moot or being named heir by the current High King (the later as I understand being only as a family line thing?). OR you know... senseless bloodshed and civil war between everyone with any sort of claim to the title.

Torygg's death as we see in the game's story is the fastest, and cleanest way in theory as it would hopefully result in the fewest deaths possible IF the duel was honored by all parties (which is what did not happen).

The moot would have voted for Ulfric IF there was a need for a warrior-king, which there was not. The only time there was a need for one was now, when Ulfric started the Civil War on the level it is.

SO, the best option would have been to convice the other Jarls that Torygg was the worst choice for High King. what he did just caused more problems that Skyrim did not need.

depends. is the "housecarl" a Nord custom or an Imperial tradition of fat, lazy, elitist aristocrats hiring body guards for protection? just goes to my point that Torygg was ultimately exposed as an Imperialist puppet installed to do their bidding, an Imperial lapdog which I believe was Ulfric's true motive for challenging him to expose as an illegitimate impostor and poser to the honor and tradition of the crown and the title of "high king". then why didn't Torygg have his "housecarl" duel Ulfric then as the king's "champion" according to tradition as we saw with King Helseth in Mournhold rather than accepting the challenge himself? that's a weak argument. sounds like another lame excuse attempting to justify and rationalize the Empire's crimes and failures.


again, what's the point in all this verbiage? it's moot. Ulfric did what he did, period. I presume it was his own attempt to restore what he saw as the loss of dignity and honor to the crown and throne as Nord customs and traditions were being replaced and supplanted with Imperial ones that tarnished the reputation of those time-honored customs and traditions.

Or it was a shot at returning the Nords to the wild warriors they lost. either way, just killing the last High King is not qualification enough for me to support him, just like the Empire is not strong enough to protect it seat of power, so I cannot see them being able to magically protect those Outside of Cyrodiil.

I'm just curious why you continue harping on this "no need for a warrior-king" thing as if it actually changes anything? again, it's a moot point. not attacking you personally, but just voicing my observation that you seem intent on taking the events out of in-game political context and interjecting your own current and modern views. it's rather beside the point, now isn't it? sounds like another straw man justification and rationalization considering nowhere in-game is that position or viewpoint supported or even mentioned that I'm aware of as far as taking the "civilized" angle or approach.


so what about the very real crimes of the Empire of trumping up fake "murder" charges to eliminate political rivals, or assassinating ("executing") every witness that doesn't tow the party line or threatens to expose their lies, all without any semblance of due process (trial) or justice? just line 'em up and off with their heads. there have been many despotic monarchs down through history with similar policies of censorship, heavy-handed and iron-fisted tactics to maintain their authority and control. as I pointed out before, the simple fact that the Empire is ready, willing and able to simply eliminate any perceived threat, up to and including my PC, is all the reason I need to side with Ulfric against Tullius.

The war would most likely have occurred either way. If the Empire accepted Ulfric's claim to High King-dom, and he managed to be selected in the Moot and became High King, his most likely course of action would be the restoration of Talos worship, which would make the Empire protest, which would make Ulfric go for Independence, which would probably result in war.

Duel or no duel, the result would end up the same. I have never argued against the legality of the duel. I don't agree with the idea of the duel, but I'm not saying it wasn't legitimate.

However, I still strongly support the Empire, and strongly dislike Ulfric.

The whole "need for a warrior-king" thing is all about whether or not Skyrim needs a warrior to be High King/be able to defend it, when the only threat to it is the race that can't do anything but arrest Nords who fail to shut their mouths when it comes to Talos worship. The Thalmor can't send any men without weakening it's own borders, they cannot do so even if they do so without harming their defenses without causing problems with the Empire. The Thalmor cannot do a thing to Skyrim but what it is doing because Skyrim caused the problem in the first place, and none of the other Provinces were at war with Skyrim until Ulfric tried to claim the seat of High King.



There is not enough evidence to say that Ulfric would be right for Skyrim, but also there is not enough to show that the Empire is right for the job, either, is all I am saying.

If you want to ignore the possibility of empire or dominion interference then sure it is likely that a moot may have elected Ulfric.... if no other members of the the royal family were deemed adequate and if Torygg named no heir (or such a claim isn't fabricated).

As Ulfric was used by the dominion already, he may have assumed that the alternative methods would have just drawn out the matter longer than it needed to be.


at phil:
Also it's not the empire's opinion of whether or not they'd accept his 'rightful claim' to high king, it's the leadership within Skyrim's acceptance that matters. Conflict with the Empire would be inevitable, but it wouldn't necessarily be Windhelm in conflict with Solitude as depicted in the in game events.


I don't much like any part of the civil war and how it takes place in skyrim, but I can sort of understand why the characters would act as they are depicted

edit:

imo if the choices are limited to just the empire and stormcloaks for control over skyrim. I'll side with the stormcloaks as I believe that the signing of the golden concordant is a sign that the empire isn't strong enough to hold skyrim anymore. If the empire wants to prove that statement wrong, they are welcome to bring skyrim back in line by proving their might by means of force. Those who wish to rule the lands of the Nords must be strong enough to hold it, and not with mere words on paper half a world away.

Many of the leaders within Skyrim are supporters of the Empire, and consider Skyrim part of the Empire. So the Empires opinion would matter to them. and it could very well result in a very similar conflict.

Many of the leader's are so adamant in their support due to recent events stirred up by the civil war. I don't think it's far out there to imagine that Torygg may have been swayed to pursue the idea of an independent Skyrim with Ulfric as some sort of mentor/advisory role.

sorry, but that's just a horrible mischaracterization and misrepresentation of the facts as they are given in-game.

first and foremost, "The whole "need for a warrior-king" thing is all about whether or not Skyrim needs a warrior to be High King/be able to defend it" is again irrelevant. it matters to the nords as it is their custom, tradition and way.

second, "when the only threat to it is the race that can't do anything but arrest Nords who fail to shut their mouths when it comes to Talos worship. The Thalmor can't send any men without weakening it's own borders, they cannot do so even if they do so without harming their defenses without causing problems with the Empire."

this is flat out false. the Empire openly allows the thalmor embassies and thalmor forces, and turns a blind eye to their "black bag" tactics.

"The Thalmor cannot do a thing to Skyrim but what it is doing because Skyrim caused the problem in the first place, and none of the other Provinces were at war with Skyrim until Ulfric tried to claim the seat of High King."

again, totally and utterly false. Skyrim didn't "ask for it" as you imply, nor did Ulfric or Skyrim cause or start the current conflict and tensions, and what does "none of the other Provinces were at war with Skyrim until Ulfric tried to claim the seat of High King" mean or even reference? none of the other Imperial provinces are currently at war with Skyrim, with or without Ulfric's interference.


and what about all the actual evidence that the Empire is corrupt and willing to go to any length to silence any and all dissent while installing their political puppets into skyrim's internal political landscape? so far most of the Empire supporters have proven quite adept at tap dancing all around that subject without actually addressing any of it.

Skyrim might not have "asked" for it, but what Ingmund did with Ulfric showed that they were ignoring the WGC, which was grounds for the Thalmor to step in and deal with the Situation.

What I mean is even if they could send an entire army, that would cause a war with the Empire, one that neither needs. SO, the only thing the Thalmor can do is what the Empire allows, which is the enforcement of the WGC that the Empire refuses to do. No need for a warrior-king, but Ulfric's vainity demands he be the one to take over for the man he "legally" murdered.



Never said the Empire never had bad qualities. Quite the opposite, in fact, since i stated that there is not ENOUGH evidence to show they are RIGHT for Skyrim.

I guess you can say that the Nords have lost themselves a long time ago and neither Ulfric ir the Empire can get that back, as my point.

Idgrod Raven-Crone supports the empire, without any recent events involving Hjaalmarch. so perhaps she might choose to join Ulfric, we aren't really told a lot about her thoughts on everything.

Igmund in Markarth supports the empire, the most recent event with him was the Markarth incident which happened years before the civil war, he still supports the empire.

Siddgeir was placed by the empire, so he has more reason to support them.

Elisif the Fair supports the empire because of her hatred of Ulfric, who killed her husband. an event which would have taken place in this scenario as well.

Balgruuf, as we've seen, is neutral. he's the only one who I can really see switching to Ulfric's side in this scenario.

The Imperial Jarls seem to support the empire either way. there aren't really many recent events apart from the death of Torygg.

does it matter, The Empire would never allow Ulfric to be High King in any scenario. They want a puppet as High King/Queen. and Ulfric will never allow himself to be a puppet.

Please look at my other posts. We are talking about a different scenario, in which Ulfric becomes High King after killing Torygg, without any Civil War, and what would have happened.



Did you not notice the same from Ulfric? he places his own supporters into power just the same, and corruption is rife with them as well. look at the Silver Bloods of Markath, one of whom he places as Jarl. and Riften being completely controlled by Maven Black-Briar because it's higher ups are corrupt.

There's plenty of evidence of Stormcloak corruption all the same. I've never avoided this issue at all.

Both sides want puppets, they do not want anyone to disagree with them. This is why the Civil War would always happen, with any scenario. The Empire wants a puppet in charge and Ulfric will never be a puppet.

I'm the one who said war would happen anyways, for those exact reasons. so why are you repeating what I said?