Personal/Character motivations for/against factions etc.

[Daemos Avetorii]

Hello there. It's been a while since I came here. I've some quandary that's biting me.
I hope this is the correct part of the forum to put this, because as I said, it's been while.

Most of the below may not necessarily make any sense and may be mindless rambling. I just wanted to type it out and see what others think. XD

I seem to play this game from a "quasi breaks the fourth wall/tries to play as character position." I apply real world logic to skyrim situations, and that sometimes creates awkward situations.
For example. I loathe Rolff Stonefist (was that his name?) And I have a mod that makes him unessential. If I play as a stealth focused character, I usually "take him out". Of course then when people see he's dead, won't it worsen their xenophoby towards the Dunmer in the town and think one of them did it? See the point is, it's a game and I take it too seriously.

For example. I respect the Thamor as a military organization, but I hate their guts/personality. I consider the WGC to be a valid document, and all its rules should be followed. So since the game does not remove Talos worshippers. I.. kinda remove them for it. XD It's kind of childish for me, because I'm otherwise rather logical and disdainful to give into subjective emotional considerations. But as I said, it's a game and one "plays a character" and with that comes immersion and character backstory. I'd play a Khajiit sneaker who is essentially a two-faced person. Appearing in public as a perfectly amiable person, that seems to be sticking to the law and what not, but in the shadows, scheming with dagger or bow at the ready to "remove" those he considers illogical/etc. I understand this seems to suggest a great deal of personal bias coming from me. XD

I rarely even enter Dragon's reach and thus usually do not directly engage in either side of the civil war. But then I tend to avoid the MQ. So basically, the actions of my characters are more of a personal inclination than joining either side. I mean the Stormcloaks can be seen as a bunch of feely feely creatures. While the Imperials can be seen as uncaring servants of a machine (empire). I usually follow Ralof in the backstory because as Haddvar says, "the prisoner is not on the list" and killing most imperials in the fort on the way out, goes far to eradicate evidence of my characters existence/presence in helgen. So when he gets out, it would be to the empire that he never existed, and a stealth character needs that kind of discretion and such.

[Leckan]

WGC?

[Daemos Avetorii]

I thought the abbreviation was well known by now.


White Gold Concordat.

[Leckan]

I thought the abbreviation was well known by now.


White Gold Concordat.

Must be too early for me still.

Anyway, my character (which is really just an avatar of myself because I largely lack the imagination to pretend to be someone else) is staunchly against the White-Gold Concordat, but my character joined the Legion with the goal to consolidate power and prepare for a rematch with the Aldmeri Dominion.
To that effect, I am eager to stop the Civil War in Skyrim which only serves to weaken both Skyrim and the Empire the more it prolongs. I also seek to rebuild the Blades as well as try to get the Dunmer to realign with the Empire by restoring Solstheim to not only get House Redoran's support (the dominant force in Raven Rock and Morrowind) as well as get the loyalty of House Telvanni by working with Neloth (and simultaneously increase my power). I also joined the College of Winterhold to refine my magical skills and stop the Thalmor agenda. In fact, I gleefully kill any Thalmor that raises a finger to me.

Ultimately, I desire to put the Dragonborn on the Ruby Throne (which I treat as the character from the promotional imagery and not myself) after the Dark Brotherhood assassinated Emperor Titus Mede II and hopefully be appointed Ysmir's Imperial Battlemage.

[Dark Spark]

Playing out the side quest 'Delayed Burial' helped me define Casandra Serein's moral function as a trickster agent of chaotic justice rather than a dyed-in-the-wool psycho axe-murderess. She is a passive instrument of doom, the devil who leads a sinner to hell through their own desires, choices and actions. She may end up carrying the knife that does them in, but it's the target's fault for putting themself in that situation at all (yes: I know victim-blaming is a sociopathic inclination-- she's an assassin, after all!).

In Delayed Burial, Vantus Loreius would prefer to pay you money to harm another person rather than do some charitable work and get paid in return. You can choose to steer him back to a righteous path, or let him continue on with his base motives to a certain doom. This is how I defined my Dark Brotherhood assassin-- less of a hunter and more of a trapper.

[Tingz0r]

I don't really know what direction this thread was intended to go in, but I have one thing to say.

The White-Gold Concordat is not a good thing. It's a temporary treaty coined by the Aldmeri terrorist organization, the Thalmor, and was reluctantly agreed upon by a crumbling Empire who intended to use the time out to recuperate. However, it ended up further segmenting the Empire, and the people who refused its terms have fought against it to preserve their religious freedom, morals, traditions, and gods-given right to exist.

If you're just roleplaying characters who advocate it, that's fine. That's what video games are for; doing stupid crap you would never do in real life. But if you're saying that you find yourself actually believing in the atrocities you're committing in this fantasy environment, you might want to rethink your actions.

[Daemos Avetorii]

It's just rp.

-edit-

Considering the previous poster. I see now in retrospect what confusion/consternation I may have made. Anyway, I meant no harm so all should still be well.

Maybe I should clarify more. I tend to bring rw logic too much into this. Sorry if I caused consternation.

When the Empire started conquering tamriel and succeeded. It was seen afaik in lore as something that had to be done. I look at it much simpler.

military/political force takes control of tamriel. In this case Empire/Imperials. I look at the thalmor in exactly the same way. Thus, if it ever was in any way valid or okay for the empire to do this, then why would it not be okay for another party, in this case thalmor to do the same. True the empire allowed for example the dunmer some retaining of their cultural ways, and true thalmor are more oppressive than that with their whole mer are superior thing going on. But if the empire in history won its ground through force of arms, then they had as much "right" to press their ways/rules/etc as the thalmor do now, or would that be an invalid perspective? Perhaps it is a black and white generalizing.

[IcarusBen]

It's alright when humans conquer, because they're not trying to blow up the Mundus.

My current character, Jorundr Strong-Heart, is pro-Empire, but he's more anti-Thalmor and feels that an independent Skyrim is better for everyone. He'd prefer a peaceful rebellion, and he's rather reluctant to fight, but he's willing to do it. He's also not a Talos worshiper, but rather a man who wishes for true religious freedom (he's pro-democracy.)

[Crawldragon]

I never liked the Civil War plotline in Skyrim and generally try to avoid it as much as possible, but then again I'm also not very good about following the main quest. I generally roleplay my character as neutral in conflicts unless one side violates his personal moral code. This is my interpretation of the Argonians' general policy of personal freedom. He doesn't support the White-Gold Concordant but supports the Empire's choice to accept it, and the individual provinces' choice to ignore it and continue the war. He respects those who fight for their principles, even his enemies. He despises the Thalmor as traitors to the Empire who are essentially holding the provinces hostage and will make any moves he can to stop them.

Of course my character is generally very paranoid around elves in general, but this is because of past experience with being enslaved, and I'm not sure how that fits in with the time period of Skyrim. I'm sure slave labor is a thing that exists, but I haven't seen it happen in-game, so I dunno.

[Pilaf The Defiler]

On the subject of the Concordant, I always found it really odd that there's no quest associated with making Heimskr disappear, except for a DB contract. It's logical to assume the Thalmor are behind that, but why work through the Brotherhood when they have every legal right to simply apprehend him, as they do other open Talos worshipers in Imperial controlled cities?

[Dark Spark]

Rikke complains to Tullius that Jarl Balgruuf has refused Legion soldiers into the hold, so early in the game the Thalmor don't have anyone in position to report/arrest Heimskr.

When and if Whiterun is attacked during the Civil War, things do get more interesting. If Whiterun falls to the Stormcloaks, Heimskr is safe. If Jarl Balgruuf remains, he's done so by throwing his lot with the Legion.

My guess is that a fetch-it quest for Heimskr's arrest would be entirely dependent on you advancing the CW quest far enough along, as well as to commit to one particular side. That's an invitation to all sorts of in-game bugs where you might get a quest to capture/kill the guy even if the city is in Stormcloak hands.