Is Skyrim too factioned and polarized?

[Br3admax]

You can't use Dragonborn-ness to make someone betray their ideals, even if you are Thane, but you obviously can betray them as just about every Stormcloak has. I also don't see anything wrong with Balgruuf staying neutral but leaning towards the Imperials in a lot of issues. There is no such thing as true neutral, except for in a few extreme situations. Finally, no matter how far you raise in the ranks, you're still one soldier in a string of other advisors. Expect your word to be overwritten. Even the Emperor can't just have his word as the final say in everything.

[logansrun]

All valid complaints. In fact, if you look at the "what annoys you about skyrim" thread, you'll see I've actually complained about some of these things in the past So i completely agree, though I'm not sure the topic name "Is skyrim too factioned and polarized?" accurately sums up what you're asking.

Agreed, maybe “factioned” wasn’t the best choice of words to use considering all the factions that have existed in all the games from TES III to TES V, which are the only ones I’ve played. Perhaps “fragmented” would have been a better choice of words. I was just trying to sum up what it is about Skyrim that is so different from the other games from my perspective as a player, but “polarized” certainly does seem to fill the bill. I really didn’t mean for this to be a gripe thread as much as trying to figure out the nuanced distinctions, are they legitimate holes in the game from a plot or storyline perspective, especially considering the “interactive” hype? Just how “interactive” is it really? What are the contributing factors? Did Beth really attempt or intend some new approach or did they just get lazy?

edit: Br3admax, I couldn't disagree more, on several levels considering your opening line seems more that a little biased, barbed and pointed, not to mention loaded, specifically front-loaded with a false premise that only doubles as a straw man and red herring argument.

First, Balgruuf comes across as neutral, or supposedly so, so what "ideals" do you contend he would be betraying when he openly admits either side could be correct? Second, natural leaders sway public opinion all the time, if not dictating it outright. Third, even the Jarl has advisors whom he respects and trusts on different levels, at different times, concerning different fields, subjects and expertise. Fourth, I could easily argue that the "Dragonborn", blessed of the god Akatosh itself, who only appears during times of great need and whose ranks swell with the greatest of the known heroes including Tiber Septim himself, easily outranks any mere Jarl.

[p-sto]

Honestly I think I would take the opposite position of you, Logansrun. For all the political fractures that Skyrim displays the society seems surprisingly cohesive.

Also I feel like you underestimate Balgruuf. My take on him is that while he's with the Stormcloaks in their outrage he thinks the war is a mistake and he despises Ulfric enough that he would never support him. Waffling on declaring support seems to gain him two things, it keeps the war out of his hold to a degree and it effectively paralyses the Stormcloaks from engaging in any sort of major aggression against holds that formally support the Empire.

[logansrun]

Sorry, I just don’t see it. From my perspective, it just looks like poor development and sloppy workmanship from the planning and writing to the implementation. Prime examples of that would include the fact the each and every hold has both Imperial and Stormcloak encampments regardless of which side they support. It would have been far more believable if the holds that supported the Imperials supported Imperial encampments while those that supported the Stormcloaks held the same. Same thing with Balgruuf’s leadership. It would have been far wiser and well-advised to keep both factions and their politics out of your hold if you wanted to remain truly neutral, independent and autonomous. Perhaps the Battleborn v Greymane conflict was unavoidable, but Heimskr and his shrine was just inviting trouble from the Thalmor. At the same time, supporting the Imperials never once put a stop to Heimskr’s preaching of Talos worship either, now did it? Why not? Wasn’t that the greatest source of conflict and contention? Why didn’t Tullius or any other Imperial supporter ever take Balgruuf to task over such a blatant violation of Imperial law? That was practically a spit and slap in the face to Imperial policy and politics, while Balgruuf’s own policies and politics showed poor leadership. If he truly supported the Empire then he should have adopted and enforced Imperial law.

[Br3admax]

Sorry, I just don’t see it. From my perspective, it just looks like poor development and sloppy workmanship from the planning and writing to the implementation. Prime examples of that would include the fact the each and every hold has both Imperial and Stormcloak encampments regardless of which side they support.
It would have been far more believable if the holds that supported the Imperials supported Imperial encampments while those that supported the Stormcloaks held the same.

Army camps aren't sanctioned by the Jarl, so obviously there are going to be camps that aren't wanted by the government in the holds. It's not as if they are close to the major cities, Skyrim is miniaturized in game. 7,000 steps becomes 732, for instance. The entire country has battles waged across it, there will be camps all over the place because the battles not seen in game are still happening.

Same thing with Balgruuf’s leadership. It would have been far wiser and well-advised to keep both factions and their politics out of your hold if you wanted to remain truly neutral, independent and autonomous. Perhaps the Battleborn v Greymane conflict was unavoidable, but Heimskr and his shrine was just inviting trouble from the Thalmor. At the same time, supporting the Imperials never once put a stop to Heimskr’s preaching of Talos worship either, now did it? Why not? Wasn’t that the greatest source of conflict and contention? Why didn’t Tullius or any other Imperial supporter ever take Balgruuf to task over such a blatant violation of Imperial law? That was practically a spit and slap in the face to Imperial policy and politics, while Balgruuf’s own policies and politics showed poor leadership. If he truly supported the Empire then he should have adopted and enforced Imperial law.

Whiterun is one of the most financially secure holds in Skyrim. It can afford to not support either side of the war and sanction it's own laws. Neutral Whiterun was only technically a part of the rest of the country, but it operated on its own government wise. When talking to the guards, it's very clear that neither is welcome in the city.

[p-sto]

You know it's possible that I've accused Skyrim of bad writing more than anyone else on this forum but we can agree to disagree on this matter if you please. To me Balgruuf's tone about the Jarls not being consulted on the White-Gold Concordat is one that suggests a man resigned to following orders more than a man ready to revolt over the issue. His brother Hrongar speaks openly about taking the fight to the Stormcloaks. Keeping Proventus on as steward suggests a symbolic decision to show solidarity with Cyrodiil, he could have just as easily been replaced with a Nord once tensions started to flare up. And it may be trivial but Whiterun is displayed as an Imperial hold on the maps in the war rooms before things even get started in the game.

To me Balgruuf comes off more as a man who is using his position to leverage greater influence within the Empire as opposed to someone who is actually considering changing sides.

[Snail's Pace]

logansrun, I agree with much of what you've written regarding making choices without adequate information (I don't want to get into the whole Balgruuf turn that this thread has since taken). And many of your other points regarding the limited options available are valid, in a way. But as I tried to hint at before, we're not really at a point in terms of technology where a video game can be all things to all people. To try to include every valid choice that a player might want to make in the course of playing a game, and the implications of those choices... you're talking about a very large and expensive game that would probably never get released and could very well bankrupt Bethesda if they tried to make it. It just isn't feasible.

It helps if you don't play the game as yourself. Try to see the game through your character. If the choice you would make isn't presented, think of it as your character doesn't agree with you, or maybe your character knows something you don't. To me, it's so much more interesting than thinking of characters as somehow representing me and "what I would do".

Spoiler:

I don't need to play Skyrim as myself because I already know what I would do if thrust into that world... and it ain't much.

[CBR JGWRR]

Balgruuf's position is on the side of Whiterun first. He doesn't like either Elsif or Ulfric, but when pushed accepts, reluctantly at that, Imperial assistance to stop Ulfric taking Whiterun.

He doesn't want to join either side until he absolutely has too, and Ulfric threatening to attack Whiterun forces his hand to allow Imperial soldiers to die in place of Whiterun guardsmen.

[Mattbott]

Balgruuf is the most pragmatic Jarl imo, you see what dangers he faces and how he deals with them. He is the one I would follow, he is the servant of 'his' people like all good leaders

[Snail's Pace]

There are two Balgruufs in the game. One is a pragmatic servant of his people. The other is a stubborn fool who gets his city guards slaughtered unnecessarily. Neither should be thought of as the canonical Balgruuf at this point, as his legacy will vary from character to character.

[Spark]

There are two Balgruufs in the game. One is a pragmatic servant of his people. The other is a stubborn fool who gets his city guards slaughtered unnecessarily. Neither should be thought of as the canonical Balgruuf at this point, as his legacy will vary from character to character.

How is Balgruuf a stubborn fool in any way?

Balgruuf is the best jarl in the game IMO

EDIT: i take that back, idgrod ravencrone is better... but that's irrelevant point is balgruuf is cool

[CBR JGWRR]

How is Balgruuf a stubborn fool in any way?

Look at it from a Stormcloak perspective.

[Spark]

How is Balgruuf a stubborn fool in any way?

Look at it from a Stormcloak perspective.

I am, I've played through as a stormcloak before. I still don't think he is though - he's loyal to the empire, for better or for worse. Loyalty != stubbornness, even if it's misguided loyalty.

[Snail's Pace]

I wrote that there are two Balgruufs, but that's still too simplistic. Balgruuf makes his decision under a variety of circumstances from game to game, player to player, character to character. Trying to judge him as a good jarl or a bad jarl is a mistake because his decision is always the same, but the player determines the circumstances under which he makes it. With a powerful and proven Dragonborn, he should go with whichever side the Dragonborn took. Not doing so would be foolish, perhaps even criminally irresponsible. With a lesser Dragonborn, one that hadn't proven that being Dragonborn is all that special, Balgruuf's decision could be thought of as being made under more uncertainty.

(I've only done the CW once and I got the criminally irresponsible Balgruuf.)

[logansrun]

"his decision is always the same, but the player determines the circumstances under which he makes it."

Seems to me this is the crux of the problem right here.

[Mattbott]

all who oppose the dovahkiin perish, so when DK joins a faction it's the kiss of death to that factions enemies - whether DK likes it or not

I think that's the problem i had joining the stormcloaks because i didnt realise certain of my allies were enemies of Ulfric when it came down to it

[p-sto]

I wrote that there are two Balgruufs, but that's still too simplistic. Balgruuf makes his decision under a variety of circumstances from game to game, player to player, character to character. Trying to judge him as a good jarl or a bad jarl is a mistake because his decision is always the same, but the player determines the circumstances under which he makes it. With a powerful and proven Dragonborn, he should go with whichever side the Dragonborn took. Not doing so would be foolish, perhaps even criminally irresponsible. With a lesser Dragonborn, one that hadn't proven that being Dragonborn is all that special, Balgruuf's decision could be thought of as being made under more uncertainty.

(I've only done the CW once and I got the criminally irresponsible Balgruuf.)

I can't disagree with this more. I really don't see the problem with having a character with principles strong enough that they're willing to disagree with your character for them. At the end of the day if you side with the Stormcloaks Balgruuf comes off as hurt and disappointed by your choice. Personally I think that plays even better if your character well developed by this point.

[Snail's Pace]

Whether Balgruuf appears to be a character with strong principles depends on the conditions that the player creates. The Balgruuf with strong principles hasn't shown up in my game, yet. The Balgruuf I saw was, at best, a character with divided loyalties, whose loyalty to the Empire was more important to him than his loyalty to Whiterun. He should have known which choice was in his city's best interest, and if he was truly on Whiterun's side, as he claimed to be, then he would have chosen accordingly. But he didn't, and his city suffered the consequences (the city of Solitude executed a man for a lesser negligence, but Balgruuf gets to live in the Blue Palace - it's nice to be important).

If the game was more sophisticated, it might use factors such as how much of the MQ the Player-Character has completed, karma, and perhaps other factors to compute a "trust score" that Balgruuf could use in deciding whether to choose the Dragonborn's side or not. But it isn't, so the best we can do is try to evaluate his choice under different circumstances. Trying to apply the same judgement to every scenario doesn't make sense, IMO.

[p-sto]

I agree and disagree with that assessment. It's a shame that Balgruuf will say the same thing to a relative unknown, a well established hero or a well established criminal but I don't think his decision needs to change based on these factors. If Balgruuf truly believes that a unified Empire is what's best for his people (and I think he does based on points I previously made) then it makes perfect sense for him not to bend to your will. Plus from his point of view it's in no way a forgone conclusion that the Stormcloaks will win just because you join their cause and it's entirely possible he has no desire to be a Jarl subject to Ulfric's rule.

Still the idea of flipping a Jarl's allegiance based on your relationship with them isn't a bad one, though I think Idgrod would be a much better candidate. She seems similarly practical and tepid about the Empire as Balgruuf and she's in a much weaker position to resist, particularly once you get the civil war to the point of taking Morthal.

[j31c3n]

I think the real problem is that the entire Civil War storyline is poorly written and implemented. You have to go out of the game to understand why joining the Stormcloaks is any kind of good idea. They're racist and religious fundamentalist jerkwads, as presented. Meanwhile the Imperials are inclusive and tolerant and seem more modern. They're the obvious "good guy" choice. If the eradication of Talos was given any in-game metaphysical backstory then I think the decision would become more difficult. Then it'd be between the nice side that'll accidentally destroy the world and the jerkface side that will save it.

Aside from the poor characterization of the factions, the Civil War is clunky. You take a few essentially unimportant forts far from supply lines and guarding back trade routes, then you assault Whiterun (which as pointed out makes no sense for Balgruuf to stand against a Stormcloak Dragonborn and Ulfric, when the entire game everyone's making such a big deal about how Ulfric murdered the High King with his voice and now there are two Thu'um capable individuals on that side), and then you assault Solitude/Windhelm and you win!

Except there's little to no change in-game and many characters act like the war is still on even though it isn't. There oughta be a mod.

[CBR JGWRR]

TBF to the concept, look up how it was meant to be...

[Zephyr]

You know it's possible that I've accused Skyrim of bad writing more than anyone else on this forum but we can agree to disagree on this matter if you please.

I feel like this is the essential point. Much of this seems to come down to speculation/interpretation, which makes sense in regard to a game which favors breadth over depth, as Snail's Pace alluded to.

But as I tried to hint at before, we're not really at a point in terms of technology where a video game can be all things to all people. To try to include every valid choice that a player might want to make in the course of playing a game, and the implications of those choices... you're talking about a very large and expensive game that would probably never get released and could very well bankrupt Bethesda if they tried to make it. It just isn't feasible.

[ElderSkillz]

I pick neutral.

[Sirocco]

Frankly I dont understand this polarization thingy.
Did you have a choice to help the daedra prince of destruction in oblivion?
I know the war is not part of the main quest, but at least you HAVE a choice here.
Sure it comes down to choosing between a corrupt empire which drains its provinces of resources so its center can be wealthy and prosperous, and lets a fasicst regime persecute and slaughter its inhabitants, or a quasi racist rebelion, but at least a choice.
One of the reasons Fallout NV was vastly superior to fallout 3 that you had a choice. Lets face it. None of the sides were very tempting there either.

[rcbecker123]

Thane: is commonly used to describe either an aristocratic retainer of a king or nobleman in Anglo-Saxon England, or, as a class term, the majority of the aristocracy below the ranks of ealdormen and high-reeves.

Now why is this important because a lord ,Jarl or king tends to take advice from the said above. It is also how the character / king holds power through his nobles.

The thegn or thane had a military significance, and its usual Latin translation was miles, meaning soldier, although minister was often used. Joseph Bosworth describes a thegn as "one engaged in a king's or a queen's service, whether in the household or in the country", and adds: "the word in this case seems gradually to acquire a technical meaning, and to become a term denoting a class, containing, however, several degrees".

William the Conqueror replaced the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy with Normans and the new Norman ruling class replaced the Anglo-Saxon terminology with Norman. In this process, king's thegns became barons, and thegns appear to have been merged in the class of knights

Barons were the lords real power and held the lands forces and collected taxes for the lord character.

In Anglo-Saxon hierarchic society, a king's thegn attended in person upon the king, bringing with him his men and resources.

This is were people get confused and skyrim is not clear.

in Anglo-Saxon England, a man holding lands from the king, or from a superior in rank. There were two orders, the king's thanes, who attended the kings in their courts and held lands immediately of them, and the ordinary thanes, who were lords of manors and who had particular jurisdiction within their limits. After the Norman Conquest, this title was no longer used, and baron took its place.

Now this is were we come in as the second and lesser thane meaning, we the ordinary thanes, who were lords of manors and who had particular jurisdiction within their limits.

This is why we have no say so in the courts. Which is in my opinion a mistake of the Jarl who does not understand the importance of having a Dragon born as a thane and advisor. If you listen when he bestows the title they tell you this.

As for the war I agree it is not written well. I also think you should have options for speech checks if your a thane that could effect the Jarls plans. this could have made a much better game. Why not fallout has them.
Or at least some say on who gets appointed to replace the jarl when they lose there province. Example Maven Blackbrair may be supported if you evil or a member of the theives guild but if not and look at them as evil another character could be asked to be Jarl. Since the options could only effect two people in a hold this would not be difficult.