Dragonborn should be High king/Queen of skyrim

[El Fonz0]

Well, the act of challenging the High King to combat is an Ancient Nord tradition. If the King refused, then he proved he was weak and unfit to rule. If he accepted, whoever won would be High King.
This was the thing that Ulfric challenged Torygg with.

 

[Dagmar]

too bad Dagmar is a die-hard imperial. there needs to be lore on it, not just word of others. Plus, Elisif is an imperial puppet until she can get her bearings.

I'm not an Imperial. I generally avoid the entire quest line. I simply state facts to counter your fabrications. You claim to be neutral yet you assert false things about Nord tradition and law, and your distortions are clearly an attempt to paint a more favorable portrayal of Ulfric. If I see someone posting something that isn't true I post to correct it whether it's about lore or game mechanics. You're tilting at windmills.

 

[Dagmar]

If he accepted, whoever won would be High King.

Wrong. Try reading the entire thread to educate yourself about the right of challenge and who bears the actual right to appoint the High King.

 

[El Fonz0]

Wrong. Try reading the entire thread to educate yourself about the right of challenge and who bears the actual right to appoint the High King.

Kinda don't want to seem like I'm trying to disprove you, but...
High King - The Elder Scrolls Wiki
Look under "Modern day".

 

[King o' the Britains]

Killing the High King doesn't make you royal family anymore than killing John F. Kennedy makes Lee Harvey Oswald a member of the Kennedy family. If you're talking about the right of challenge, that tradition has never bequeathed the right to the High King's Throne to the victor. It's a challenge to the authority of the High King, not the assertion of one's own authority. Ulfric is qualfied for selection by the Moot because as a Jarl he's already of royal blood.

yes but ulfric challenged toryyg to a duel for high king.

 

[Buffington Battle-Born]

Maybe in future DLC, if you

Spoiler

killed Titus Mede for the Dark Brotherhood, then maybe you could take the title of Emporer of Tamriel.

 

[Dagmar]

Kinda don't want to seem like I'm trying to disprove you, but...
High King - The Elder Scrolls Wiki
Look under "Modern day".

That proves nothing except how unreliable articles at the Elder Scrolls Wikia site can be. That's not authoritative. Anyone can, and at that site, people quite often do edit an article with absolutely no basis. The article cites to no authority and is therefore unreliable. What is actually in the game is lore and definitive and that content makes it clear there is no right to the High King's Throne through right of challenge.

In the future you should avoid blindly recognizing the authority of a third party website, especially a poor quality article at a website which has no sourcing.

 

[Buffington Battle-Born]

That proves nothing except how unreliable articles at the Elder Scrolls Wikia site can be. That's not authoritative. Anyone can, and at that site, people quite often do edit an article with absolutely no basis. The article cites to no authority and is therefore unreliable. What is actually in the game is lore and definitive and that content makes it clear there is no right to the High King's Throne through right of challenge.

In the future you should avoid blindly recognizing the authority of a third party website, especially a poor quality article at a website which has no sourcing.

Let me guess, you don't get pissed when someone says information from UESP, do you?

People on this forum, so biased.

 

[Dagmar]

Let me guess, you don't get pissed when someone says information from UESP, do you?

People on this forum, so biased.

Bias has nothing to do with it. I generally don't cite any third party site when it comes to lore because it's unnecessary. I do go to a site sometimes to read the text of an ingame book since I can't always log into the game and check my ingame library, and I may provide a link to that page so others can read it as well but usually I leave it to them to find the book on their own.

There have been instances where I've found incorrect information at the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages. On at least one occasion someone in a forum thread referenced something in a UESP article that was incorrect but it had actually already been revised which I pointed out to the poster.

That being said, the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of editing done on the Elder Scrolls Wikia site that isn't fact checked or sourced. That entire section of the article to which El Fonz0 was referring is simply pure fabrication and it's not going to be there by the end of the day. For whatever reason, the staff of the Elder Scrolls Wikia site doesn't monitor the site the way that the staff at the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages do, and it's painfully apparent when you read some of the articles at the site. If I edit a page at UESP and there's an issue with it, I usually hear from the staff within a week. At the Elder Scrolls Wikia site incorrect information lingers on there for months.

I contribute to both sites but I dedicate much more time to the UESP site because the staff is more diligent and IMO the contributor community is better informed and more active.

 

[Buffington Battle-Born]

Bias has nothing to do with it. I generally don't cite any third party site when it comes to lore because it's unnecessary. I do go to a site sometimes to read the text of an ingame book since I can't always log into the game and check my ingame library, and I may provide a link to that page so others can read it as well but usually I leave it to them to find the book on their own.

There have been instances where I've found incorrect information at the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages. On at least one occasion someone in a forum thread referenced something in a UESP article that was incorrect but it had actually already been revised which I pointed out to the poster.

That being said, the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of editing done on the Elder Scrolls Wikia site that isn't fact checked or sourced. That entire section of the article to which El Fonz0 was referring is simply pure fabrication and it's going to be there by the end of the day. For whatever reason, the staff of the Elder Scrolls Wikia site doesn't monitor the site the way that the staff at the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages do, and it's painfully apparent when you read some of the articles at the site. If I edit a page at UESP and there's an issue with it, I usually hear from the staff within a week. At the Elder Scrolls Wikia site incorrect information lingers on there for months.

I contribute to both sites but I dedicate much more time to the UESP site because the staff is more diligent and IMO the contributor community is better informed and more active.

Okay. I'm sorry I said that, it's just that people always bring up stuff about UESP, rather than the Elder Scrolls wiki.

 

[Dagmar]

yes but ulfric challenged toryyg to a duel for high king.

And?.......

 

[King o' the Britains]

wow. yeah. i now realize that makes no sense.

 

[El Fonz0]

You know, lore information doesn't always come from the in-game books. Try talking with some of the characters, like Sybelle Stentor.

 

[Dagmar]

You know, lore information doesn't always come from the in-game books.

I know. If you read closely enough you would have noted that I cited Uflric's own in game dialogue. It's hard to refute that no such right exists when the man your claiming to have said right denies it's existence.

Try talking with some of the characters, like Sybelle Stentor.

Sybille Stentor's dialogues don't indicate any such right either.

 

[Dagmar]

yeah, and lore-wise Ulfric's Shout could have sent Torygg into a wall, killing him. Who knows, maybe they did wager the throne on the duel. Unless you can find actual evidence in the form of writing to say they did not, i am inclined to believe that Ulfric earned the throne of High King.

You can be inclined to believe that Ulfric likes to dress in drag and have sex with goats too, it doesn't mean it's true (but there's just as much evidence to assert it, which is to say none.)

 

[Raijin]

Ulfric Stormcloak 2012 - High King of Skyrim

And the Dragonborn for Emperor 2012

 

[Dagmar]

and it is hard to refute something that may have happened. Like i said, maybe the position was put up for ante and to the victor goes the spoils as they say. so, unless you have irrefutable evidence that no such deal has been made except that it is never mentioned, you cannot say Ulfric has no right to high kingship..

Yes I can. You've committed a fundamental fallacy in inductive logic known as an argument from ignorance. Let me demonstrate the absurdity of your position:

Maybe Ulfric and Torygg were gay lovers and Ulfric killed him because he was jealous about his marriage to Elisif and his refusal to leave her for him. After all unless you have irrefutable evidence that no such relationship existed except that it has never been mentioned, you cannot say Ulfric and Torygg weren't lovers and this wasn't all just a lover's spat. This is the exact same syntax and structure as your argument and it shares the same merit or rather lack thereof.

and yet everything people say in-game is just an opinion, You tend to believe cold hard facts. Just because multiple people say it, does not make it true.

And yet it isn't. It's just another absurd position you've taken because there's nothing to support your claim and a plethora of lore to refute it.

 

[The Fatalist]

I think some of you have misinterpreted some stuff.

The Ancient traditions allowed Ulfric challenge the high kings right to rule the Nords because he thought the current high king was doing harm to the Nordic people as a whole. He could not challenge him for the selfish cause to put himself on the throne.
Ulfric believes this makes him the most eligable for the position, and perhaps it does. He admits it himself at the end of his side of the civil war that the High King HAS to be decided by a Moot. (which IMO, was a bit of an anti-climax)

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

Well, the act of challenging the High King to combat is an Ancient Nord tradition. If the King refused, then he proved he was weak and unfit to rule. If he accepted, whoever won would be High King.
This was the thing that Ulfric challenged Torygg with.

He cheated with the voice.

Case closed.

Sent from HTC app Tapatalk

 

[El Fonz0]

He cheated with the voice.

Case closed.

Sent from HTC app Tapatalk

I never said that he did it fairly. I was just saying that that was the ancient nord tradition. I was using High King and his opponent anonymously.