Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[DrunkenMage]

Anouck: Actually, I know Jeremy Stone, and he is like me, whatever decision feels right for the character that he is playing at the time.

Everyone makes characters on different sides. Though not everyone uses that as an argument, Anouck has Stormcloak characters, so too does Docta. Yet here they are debating lore, information and generally pro arguments for their personal choice. People pick a side they believe is correct, this thread isn't about "Well I can RP that Tullius means to have the Jarls executed and replaced with Imperial Commanders"

Anouck: Actually, I know Jeremy Stone, and he is like me, whatever decision feels right for the character that he is playing at the time.

To be totally honest, I thought he WAS you, just an alt account. I'm still suspicious...

Most likely, they both irritate me in the same manner.

maybe he is, maybe he is not. All I will say is that he and I share the same opinion on the Civil War, that it leaves a bad taste in the mouth getting involved in the politics of a country we just got to.

Politics are meaningless for the Legion. Stormcloaks are a very political thing. They're Ulfric's army attempting to stage a coup to take control over Skyrim. The Legion however are not involved in petty politics, they answer to the Emperor not Jarls and their attempt to gain a higher station.

The benefit of the Legion is you can simply ignore politics. As what Rikke herself tells you, "I'm a soldier, not a politician."

Though if we're going by politics, both sides have crap Jarls. Though I prefer more Empire supporting Jarls over the Stormcloak ones. Dawnstar and Winterhold are better under Imperial rule, so too is Markarth. I prefer not having the Silver-Bloods who use the Forsworn as their personal assassins, who then plan to enslave the native population once they are Jarl.

RP=/=Stormcloak just because you put him in there. Him refusing lore for his RP is actually about how the characters are different therefore are given different personalities, which makes a general opinion based on lore useless to the RP player.

No, she never said "RP = Stormcloak" get that out of your head. She thought he was Stormcloak due to debates in this thread.

I have been on forums where this debate stuff is the complete opposite, with the Stormcloaks using the lore and the Imperials denying it for their RP. I know this is the truth, unlike those idiots here who automatically equate RP with Stormcloak. I am one of those people who prefer to use the RP primarily/only when making a choice on this subject.

No one has said RP = Stormcloak, except you. Calling yourself an idiot is an understatement.

If you and Jeremy share the same views, then you both share the whole hard done by cycle of debating using RP, then when someone doesn't agree they go and cry "Debate is pointless" "Agree to disagree" "Thread should end"

People who use RP to make their choices tend to think that history does not add to the decision-making process. so they tend to ignore history because they feel it means nothing to the choice they are making.

People who deny history and facts, are what I tend to call ignorant. If you want to RP a character that can't read, that doesn't pick up books. And doesn't look at the situation around them or listen to people. Go for it. Though the blind, deaf and dumb build isn't for most.

You can RP anything you want, but don't use RP as a valid argument against someone who does use facts.

And show me where he actually said he RP'd that Ulfric did not kill Torygg. From what I understand he was saying that Ulfric was not the only one to blame for Torygg's death.

She most likely means when he quoted me completely out of context and then created an argument for it. Which I also said it'd be like me cutting out 'Ulfric did not kill Torygg' from your post and then giving you a rant about how stupid, how ignorant, how wrong you are. When you did not use it in that context.

Also he actually said "The Thalmor probably put it into his mind, tricked him into it" So that means Ulfric didn't actually kill the High King because he believed it, the Thalmor killed the High King and Ulfric isn't acting for himself. Which is wrong.

what facts are there about the civil war? That the Dunmer are in the grey quarter and Ulfric is too busy with the Civil War to listen to them? That Ulfric killed Torygg and the Imperials use laws to call it treason and murder?

Actually half of Skyrim call it murder, not only due to Imperial law. But actually how the duel went down, with them saying it wasn't a fair duel, but just murder.

Ulfric isn't too busy when Nords are attacked in his hold. But he's too busy to deal with people who have been in the city for over a hundred years? Who his father and forefathers treated with respect and equally?

Note, I am not ignoring the facts either, just saying that calling this a debate of facts when posts like "Ulfric killed torygg because he wanted to be high king, and imperial law says it is murder and treason makes it so he does simply want to be high king" is not fact. show me one piece of lore evidence that says he wants to be high king for the power of being high king only.

Imperial law doesn't matter, I used Imperial law to answer why the Imperial Legion was going to execute him. Nords also view the killing of Torygg as murder, not just for Imperial law. But they considered it unfair, therefor dishonorable.

Ulfric does want to be High King, he obviously wants to be High King to do things he wants, the power of High King is needed. The fact he killed Torygg merely as a message to the other Jarls, when he wasn't getting supporters for his cause also reinforces that. There are many examples of people saying Ulfric only wants the throne, though you would deny them.

"Ulfric only cares about one thing... Ulfric. He's ordained himself the future High King of Skyrim and steps on anyone that gets in his way. He's begun a rebellion against those that wish to eradicate the worship of Talos and uses it as his rallying cry. His cause may be true, but the man is a lie... all he holds in his heart his lust for the throne." - Saerlund

"Ulfric doesn't care about Talos. He yearns for the throne of Skyrim and he'll say anything to rally people to his side." - Threki the Innocent

I just disagree with the idea that you should force down anyone who uses RP, just because you do not like their opinion. Just tell them you do not agree with them and they will likely leave it at that.

Except Jeremy(or you) didn't leave it at that, no one forced anything on people who RP. It's when people who are using RP as reasons why, quote people like me, Anouck or someone else. We will defend our posts.

People who use RP after being quoted after attacking someone's post then cry their opinion is their own and should be left alone. They should just suck it up. Especially when you quote someone in this thread, don't act surprised when they quote back.

You fail to understand the simple point, people using RP and opinion without facts, are quoting others and engaging into debate. When they lose it's all "It's just my opinion" "Agree to disagree" "This thread is pointless" and whatever bullplops they want to throw up because they lost.

You debate pointless things, you're unreasonable and will keep going on about it. You simply find something that is so minor, so meaningless in a post and then debate for pages about it. To finally end up going "Well that's just my view"

 

[Jeremius]

DrunkenMage: Some people use lore when they actually want to argue. Other purely use RP when they want to just say something. Best to ignore those who use RP because they might nor actually debate, but getting attention for themselves. Troll, if you will.

But let's not flood the thread with RP vs Lore. IF you really want to discuss this, PM me, but if you just want to tell me I am wrong/taking things out of context/not reading, just ignore, because I will not respond to you, Anouck or anyone else, unless you genuinely want the perspective of an RP player on this subject (Imperials versus Rebels).

 

[DrunkenMage]

Some people use lore when they actually want to argue.
Other purely use RP when they want to just say something.

Except those that are using RP, are quoting others and making debate. Therefor, the sudden cry victim of "We just want to be left alone" doesn't work. Because if you quote someone, they're more than likely going to quote you back.

But let's not flood the thread with RP vs Lore. IF you really want to discuss this, PM me, but if you just want to tell me I am wrong/taking things out of context/not reading, just ignore, because I will not respond to you, Anouck or anyone else, unless you genuinely want the perspective of an RP player on this subject (Imperials versus Rebels).

I am not interested in 'RP vs Lore'

I don't care what people want to RP, I rarely quote someone about their own RP. I present lore to help them with their RP, if they quote me first. Lore and RP can go hand in hand, knowing lore doesn't mean you can't RP. Knowledge makes a better RP, because you have the understanding. If people go "Well I'm going to RP my characters views" then deny the knowledge needed to understand the fantasy world and how citizens view their surrounding setting, then alright.

If you and others wish to think that in order to RP, you need to ignore lore. That is fine, but it just limits you. Majority of people who actually do RP, they use lore. They use the knowledge to their RP to more immerse themselves.

To be fair, this isn't a RP thread. It turned into a more debate thread, where people debate each side. I'm sorry but, I will never count a RP as a valid argument. Especially one that denies and changes lore.

Nearly everyone does RP on this subject, everyone here has done both sides. Everyone here has several characters, we don't need to be told after thousands of posts in this thread "Well both suck, and it's better to just RP, cause in RP you can do this, this this."

I personally do not care, nor do many in this thread. There is no point, coming into this thread and telling everyone about the magical wonder of RP. It isn't new, and everyone tends to do it. They all play both sides, depending on their character. Shocking to hear, I actually have Stormcloak characters too.

But, to my point. Is there really, like truly the need to actually come into this thread debating on the side of RP? Even though everyone here does it, and many of them don't deny lore.

If you can't understand the concept, that we're not after what RP is better. We're debating over many issues, which is what makes it enjoyable. People learn new things. I don't really think, anyone is actually interested in hearing about "Well I can RP this" if you're after that, go start a RP thread about the subject in the RP section.

 

[Jeremius]

Some people use lore when they actually want to argue.
Other purely use RP when they want to just say something.

Except those that are using RP, are quoting others and making debate. Therefor, the sudden cry victim of "We just want to be left alone" doesn't work. Because if you quote someone, they're more than likely going to quote you back.

But let's not flood the thread with RP vs Lore. IF you really want to discuss this, PM me, but if you just want to tell me I am wrong/taking things out of context/not reading, just ignore, because I will not respond to you, Anouck or anyone else, unless you genuinely want the perspective of an RP player on this subject (Imperials versus Rebels).

I am not interested in 'RP vs Lore'

I don't care what people want to RP, I rarely quote someone about their own RP. I present lore to help them with their RP, if they quote me first. Lore and RP can go hand in hand, knowing lore doesn't mean you can't RP. Knowledge makes a better RP, because you have the understanding. If people go "Well I'm going to RP my characters views" then deny the knowledge needed to understand the fantasy world and how citizens view their surrounding setting, then alright.

If you and others wish to think that in order to RP, you need to ignore lore. That is fine, but it just limits you. Majority of people who actually do RP, they use lore. They use the knowledge to their RP to more immerse themselves.

To be fair, this isn't a RP thread. It turned into a more debate thread, where people debate each side. I'm sorry but, I will never count a RP as a valid argument. Especially one that denies and changes lore.

Nearly everyone does RP on this subject, everyone here has done both sides. Everyone here has several characters, we don't need to be told after thousands of posts in this thread "Well both suck, and it's better to just RP, cause in RP you can do this, this this."

I personally do not care, nor do many in this thread. There is no point, coming into this thread and telling everyone about the magical wonder of RP. It isn't new, and everyone tends to do it. They all play both sides, depending on their character. Shocking to hear, I actually have Stormcloak characters too.

But, to my point. Is there really, like truly the need to actually come into this thread debating on the side of RP? Even though everyone here does it, and many of them don't deny lore.

If you can't understand the concept, that we're not after what RP is better. We're debating over many issues, which is what makes it enjoyable. People learn new things. I don't really think, anyone is actually interested in hearing about "Well I can RP this" if you're after that, go start a RP thread about the subject in the RP section.

and people do not like discussing the same stuff they find on other forums. They look for new things, not "Beat the dead horse about the Duel" or "Lets talk about the grey quarter again."

Plus, people do not like it when others call their opinions invalid simply because they refuse to use lore in their opinions. there is no lore on whether or not Ulfric did anything for power. There is nothing about whether or not Ulfric cares about whindhelm's dunmer when he bloody well ignores the entire hold. Lore is just history, facts. stating that "Lore says (isert what you rhink lore is saying here)" is merely opinion on the lore.

 

[DrunkenMage]

and people do not like discussing the same stuff they find on other forums. They look for new things, not "Beat the dead horse about the Duel" or "Lets talk about the grey quarter again."

If you come into a debate with the same stuff they can just read online, then you are more of a sucker then I thought.

No one is actually forcing you to even be in this thread. So, understand that.

People come in here discussing things and the same stuff does pop up elsewhere, of course this is a topic that spreads to hundreds of sites. New people to Skyrim sometimes bring up the old stuff, and I'll always reply to them. I'm not just going to go "Piss off, we don't want to talk about that go to another site noob."

I debate many things, and actually everything about TES can be read online, lore also. Last time I checked... Skyrimforums.org was... wait it's actually an online forum. Who'd have known that I'm being told a sucker, because people can just read online. When we're actually online.

I debate the same stuff, when the same stuff is brought up. Though to entertain you, since you know everything. We have actually discussed many issues, not just the duel or the gray quarter. I have debated about the Imperial Simulacrum, the Novels, the Great War, the Tiber Wars, the Second Era, the Second Empire, the First Empire etc.

You're in a thread, about wait for it "Imperials or Stormcloaks" so you're actually the 'sucker' for apparently expecting an entirely different subject. Learn to read thread names.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Plus, people do not like it when others call their opinions invalid simply because they refuse to use lore in their opinions.

How about if I said, in my opinion you're invalid. Does that make it better for you?

 

[Jeremius]

Plus, people do not like it when others call their opinions invalid simply because they refuse to use lore in their opinions.

How about if I said, in my opinion you're invalid. Does that make it better for you?

what I am saying is that some people, instead of this "2+2=4" logic, want direct proof of what you are saying before they rethink their opinions. Some people do not use lore because they feel it means nothing to the true topic, or has been brought up before. With the duel between Ulfric and Torygg for example. it is easy to take that same lore and say Ulfric is right or maybe Ulfric did not think of it himself, because all the lore says is that Ulfric spoke his mind at the moot, getting very close to treason, then comes to the palace in Solitude to challenge Torygg, while they were thinking he came to discuss. Imperials take this to mean he only wanted power, Stormcloaks think he did the right thing, and RP players ignore it because it does not directly state that stuff.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Lore is just history, facts. stating that "Lore says (isert what you rhink lore is saying here)" is merely opinion on the lore.

Must I explain this many times. Lore is everything, yellow book of riddles is also lore.

 

[Jeremius]

Lore is just history, facts. stating that "Lore says (isert what you rhink lore is saying here)" is merely opinion on the lore.

Must I explain this many times. Lore is everything, yellow book of riddles is also lore.

Lore tells you WHAT HAPPENED, not WHY IT HAPPENED.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Lore tells you WHAT HAPPENED, not WHY IT HAPPENED.

Quit your bitching, using capitals doesn't make your case. It does, you'd know this if you weren't too busy denying everything. Lore is everything, it has reasons, it also has explanations as to why things happened. Sometimes it doesn't, since it is everything in TES.

 

[Jeremius]

DrunkenMage:

Here is what I mean:

• Imperials: Ulfric speaks his mind at the moot, Ulfric then goes to Challenge Torygg when Torygg refuses to Respond. Ulfric wanted power (Not directly stated, but Imperial conclusion).
• Stormcloaks: Ulfric speaks his mind at the moot, Then Challenges Torygg to a duel after the latter made no decision on what was said at the moot. He did the right thing (Not directly stated either).

I have no clue what Ulfric's reason for challenging Torygg to a duel were. All I know is that Ulfric challenges the guy after speaking about independence at the moot. For all I know, Ulfric could have been possessed. Same thing with the Dunmer situation. I have no clue why things are th eway they are there. All I know is that Ulfric is too focused on the war to care for his hold and the Dunmer hate him for it.

Now, IF you want to continue discussing anything with me, PM me.

 

[DrunkenMage]

DrunkenMage:

Here is what I mean:

• Imperials: Ulfric speaks his mind at the moot, Ulfric then goes to Challenge Torygg when Torygg refuses to Respond. Ulfric wanted power (Not directly stated, but Imperial conclusion).
• Stormcloaks: Ulfric speaks his mind at the moot, Then Challenges Torygg to a duel after the latter made no decision on what was said at the moot. He did the right thing (Not directly stated either).

I have no clue what Ulfric's reason for challenging Torygg to a duel were. All I know is that Ulfric challenges the guy after speaking about independence at the moot. For all I know, Ulfric could have been possessed. Same thing with the Dunmer situation. I have no clue why things are th eway they are there. All I know is that Ulfric is too focused on the war to care for his hold and the Dunmer hate him for it.

People tend to say Ulfric wants power, not just for challenging Torygg. Torygg did greatly respect Ulfric, but that aside. It is the reasons he killed the High King, which Ulfric himself states the reason he did it.

Ulfric: "Torygg was merely a message to the other Jarls."

"We will do whatever I decide is in the best interests of Skyrim. Are we clear?" - Ulfric Stormcloak

If Ulfric was so caring about tradition, and not power. Yeah okay, I'd buy that... except.

Galmar: "The Jarls are upset. They don't all support you."
Ulfric: "Damn the Jarls."
Galmar: "They demand the Moot."
Ulfric: "And damn the Moot!"

Damn the moot, completely something someone would say when they're not looking for power. Though I also did enjoy his other remarks.

Ulfric: "To return to our glory and traditions, to determine our own future! And it is for these reasons that I cannot accept the mantle of "High King." Not until the Moot declares that title should adorn my shoulders will I accept it."

Ulfric: "How'd I do?"
Galmar: "Eh, not so bad. Nice touch about the High King."
Ulfric: "Thank you, I thought so, too."
Galmar: "It's a foregone conclusion, you know."
Ulfric: "Oh, I know."

Ulfric's fighting for the apparent Talos worship right? "Ulfric doesn't care about Talos. He yearns for the throne of Skyrim and he'll say anything to rally people to his side."

Tell me, has Ulfric ever said a single thing. Just one thing, about Talos? The Stormcloaks are fighting over the banning of Talos, to restore the worship of their favored god. Perhaps you can find it for me? Though pro Imperial quotes aren't enough. Perhaps some Stormcloak supporters, such as Jarl Laila mentioning she has little faith in Ulfric. Or how about Ralof telling you he's heard things about Ulfric he doesn't like?

The Dunmer issues, as stated by the Dunmer. Things got worse for them when Ulfric took the throne. Are you telling me he was too focused on his war, before he was even fighting the war? Tell me, does putting in place a policy by law forcing segregation? Is that being too focused on the war, forced racial segregation? What about the banishment of all Argonians from the city walls?

Is the Argonian situation because he's too focused on the war, that he actually has enough time to enact laws to banish and segregate other races?

 

[Jeremius]

DrunkenMage: Once again, you want to discuss this? PM me. Otherwise you will get nothing as a response to your questions. So, PM or drop it, your choice.

all you need to know is that if I choose a side, it is because I purely do not trust the other side.

 

[DrunkenMage]

DrunkenMage: Once again, you want to discuss this? PM me. Otherwise you will get nothing as a response to your questions. So, PM or drop it, your choice.

all you need to know is that if I choose a side, it is because I purely do not trust the other side.

I see, unwilling to debate. So every time you quote someone, or tag them and they quote you. You're unwilling to debate in public, interesting.

I'll remember to use that, anytime you quote me. Or if you quote anyone, or if you even post in this thread. We just ignore all your posts, or just reply "Nope, you get no response. Get lost."

 

[Anouck]

Jeremius: Some people stop by here every now and then - some are here for a long time. People like Raijin, Docta Corvina and DrunkenMage have been there every since this thread got started. They wrote a big chunk of their posts here and have read over more than 650 pages of debate. Then there are also people like me, who were always interested but still have a lot of reading to do on the subject. And then, there is you...
You can't come in a thread and expect everyone in there to change the topic or the way to go about things.You can't say "it is useless to beat a dead horse, neutral is the best way to go" just because you think so. No one forces you to stay here or even come here in the first place. If you feel it is useless, feel free to stay away. I won't do a single attempt to get you back.
You have a pattern, Jeremius. A pattern of coming in here and quoting a person on his or her opinion. Then, when that person quotes you back, you play the victim. You act like you were just stating your opinion and suddenly everyone just attacked you, while it was you who stirred up the debate. You can't expect a person you quoted to ignore you. Only kick as hard as you want to be kicked back. Don't want to be quoted? Don't start quoting.
For some reason you developed this idea that you have the privilege of being untouchable. You can criticize other opinions without receiving criticism yourself. Then you draw the 'I RP and that is my right' card, like someone even tried to take that away from you.
This is not the "state your opinion and get lost" thread. If it would be, we wouldn't be going on about the same subject for pages. We would say what we think and get back to what we were doing. The thread wouldn't be 600 pages long and I wouldn't be having this conversation with you. This is a debate thread. In case the concept of debating is hard to understand; you say something and a person replies. If that person doesn't share your view, his post will most likely disagree with yours. That is nothing personal; it is called a discussion.

It is absolutely useless to debate you. I could be talking to a wall. Best thing about a wall is that it doesn't keep quoting me back, because that is what you do. We had more debates in this thread, and each time we just decided to drop it at some point. But then, when I was involved in a conversation with someone else, BOOM! There were you again. Quoting me while I was not even talking to you. And that is fine, but then don't start complaining when people are going to reply to you as well. When I am in a debate, and you quote me, you enter the debate. That means I will now say something back too. It really isn't that difficult.
You quote things out of context. You make up arguments and come up with the weirdest conclusions ever. You imply I said things that were never said in the first place, and make from each fart a thunderbolt. You are the only one who manages an entire thread to derail for several pages. And then, you say that DrunkenMage has to drop it? YOU had to drop it. Several pages ago.

To me, you're exactly the type of troll you tried to warn us about...

 

[Rimfaxe96]

To be honest, I totally lost it at some point. Lore is every little chunk of game material Bethesda gave us, there's no grey area.

 

[NENALATA]

To be honest, I totally lost it at some point. Lore is every little chunk of game material Bethesda gave us, there's no grey area.

This discussion has gone all Cirque Du Soleil up in here.

 

[Anouck]

To be honest, I totally lost it at some point. Lore is every little chunk of game material Bethesda gave us, there's no grey area.

This discussion has gone all Cirque Du Soleil up in here.

 

[Docta Corvina]

Le Thread

 

[Rimfaxe96]