Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[123]

I'm going to take a leave of absence from this thread. Everybody's just denying and ignoring the facts people are putting in front of them. List:

1. Black Marsh cannot be invaded, and Argonia has no reason to be afraid of the Dominion

2. The Empire wouldn't have a reason to ally with the Stormcloaks, as they would still be in a state of peace with the Dominion, and may be able to keep it for a long time

3. Postponing enslavement is better than intentionally losing for 'honor,' even though there's a huge chance to avoid it

4. Honor is subjective, but it isn't worth dying and handing away your entire race's freedom for honor when you could save it

5. Ulfric is promoting hostility with other races, which WILL result in tensions in the future

6. Hammerfell will inevitably ally with Skyrim but the Dominion is more powerful than both of them combined, as it is the Empire

 

[Jeremius]

I'm going to take a leave of absence from this thread. Everybody's just denying and ignoring the facts people are putting in front of them. List:

1. Black Marsh cannot be invaded, and Argonia has no reason to be afraid of the Dominion

2. The Empire wouldn't have a reason to ally with the Stormcloaks, as they would still be in a state of peace with the Dominion, and may be able to keep it for a long time

3. Postponing enslavement is better than intentionally losing for 'honor,' even though there's a huge chance to avoid it

4. Honor is subjective, but it isn't worth dying and handing away your entire race's freedom for honor when you could save it

5. Ulfric is promoting hostility with other races, which WILL result in tensions in the future

6. Hammerfell will inevitably ally with Skyrim but the Dominion is more powerful than both of them combined, as it is the Empire

And all 2, 5, and 6 are conjecture. Unless you have evidence that The next Great war will happen right after this Civil War, you cannot say that. Plus, the Thalmor are not stupid enough to send an army of troops through "Imperial" territory without straining the White-Gold Concordant. face it, and invasion of Skyrim just isn't happening anytime soon

Plus it could all end up like what is going to happen in the Elder Scrolls MMO, Three factions fighting over Tamriel. I have no evidence of that, but I see no evidence in favor of any of the bold issues. And, you post this list a lot, find something else.

2) IF all the faction quests are done be anyone other than DragonBorn, then Mede would be dead and a new Emperor could ally with Ulfric.
5) Perhaps, but Skyrim is a harsh place, and the Nords believe they are the true rulers of Tamriel. At least, I think they believe it.
6) IF Skyrim becomes Independent then it is 99% likely that the empire crumbles and Hammerfell could unite with CYRODIL, not the Empire.

 

[azali100]

Eh, depends on when he was going to have his head lopped off. Alduin might have attacked beforehand.
Still, I see your point that it wouldn't have changed the Imperials' intentions.

Just once, I want the game to glitch and Lokir to get away.

I always have false hope that poor Lokir can get away. Technically he should be able to keep going for a few minutes even with the arrow in him, but unfortunately for him the game mechanics don't work like real life.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Only one person in all of Skyrim I liked and highly respected.

Titus Mede II I only met him for ten seconds and he talked me into killing someone for free. Imagine what several days with him would do.

 

[JoeReese]

Dagmar, I already told you yours was a better analogy.

I am a little concerned about your inability to see the difference between law abiding and honorable though. Ihre papiere bitte?

 

[Dagmar]

I am a little concerned about your inability to see the difference between law abiding and honorable though. Ihre papiere bitte?

Your concern is misplaced as nothing I stated is indicative of an inability to see the difference betwen law abiding and honorable. You never said anything in the posts to which I responded about being honorable. You spoke about honoring loyalty. You're attempt to interchange the adjective and the verb is inappropriate and incorrect. Just because something is honored doesn't mean in fact that it is honorable. One can honor things that are morally repugnant just as one can abide by laws that are equally repugnant, whereas the honorable thing to do is not always the law-abiding thing to do.

 

[JoeReese]

You switch honoring loyalty (a trait of being honorable, mind you) with adherence to law and I am making such an attempt? Sorry. Better luck next time.

My initial post was correct. It would be more accurate. I never said perfect. You pointed that out and I told you you were right. Anything else you choose to interpret differently is on you.

That said, it's still a game.

 

[Dagmar]

You switch honoring loyalty (a trait of being honorable, mind you) with adherence to law and I am making such an attempt?...

I never switched honoring loyalty with adhering to the law. That's a total straw man. I simply noted that both can be dishonorable. Honoring loyalty is not a trait of being honorable. Honoring loyalty can be honorable or it can be dishonorable.

hon·or·a·ble
1. Deserving or winning honor and respect.
2. Possessing and characterized by honor.

hon·ored, hon·or·ing, hon·ors
1. To hold in respect; esteem.
2. To show respect for.

loy·al·ty
1. The state or quality of being loyal.
2. A feeling or attitude of devoted attachment and affection.

loy·al
1. Steadfast in allegiance to one's homeland, government, or sovereign.
2. Faithful to a person, ideal, custom, cause, or duty.

To illustrate the point: It's the 1970's and your a member of the Khmer Rouge. You hold allegiance to the genocidal regime of Pol Pot (a loyalty) in respect and esteem (an act of honoring). That's not a trait deserving of honor and respect (honorable). It's morally repugnant and deserving of derision and revilement.

As much as you may like to change the meaning of words to support your argument language doesn't work that way. Words have prescribed meanings. I'd say better luck next time but if that's your chosen methodology you won't fare any better with it in the future.

 

[Jeremius]

Dagmar, Honor and Loyalty mean different things to different people. The Civil war is proof of that. Plus this definition argument is off-topic.

 

[Dagmar]

Dagmar, Honor and Loyalty mean different things to different people. The Civil war is proof of that. Plus this definition argument is off-topic.

You talk about the civil war being proof of relativistic meanings of honor and loyalty and then you mark both posts discussing the meanings of honor and loyalty born out of discussion about the civil war off topic. Talk about total logic failure.

You're also completely wrong in that assertion. Neither honor nor loyalty have different meanings. People may disagree about what is deserving of honor or loyalty but no intelligent person disputes the actual meanings of the words.

 

[FullmetalHeart20]

Everyone who joined the Stormcloaks had given up on the Empire. Is it so wrong to believe they could still do more good before they fall?

 

[Jeremius]

You talk about the civil war being proof of relativistic meanings of honor and loyalty and then you mark both posts discussing the meanings of honor and loyalty born out of discussion about the civil war off topic. Talk about total logic failure.

You're also completely wrong in that assertion. Neither honor nor loyalty have different meanings. People may disagree about what is deserving of honor or loyalty but no intelligent person disputes the actual meanings of the words.

I was talking more figuratively. The definitions of each as they are, those are the same, but the figurative meaning, the interpretation is different. You and I see a stormcloak soldier, you would call him a traitor, while I would call him an honorable soldier loyal to saving his friends and family from the "weakened" empire.

Actual meanings are the same no matter what. I guess we are on the same page as to what a person sees as honorable and loyalty.

 

[Sharduroga]

And why should I pick one over the other? So far neither have shown me that one is better or worse than the other, they both have their bad and good qualities. Many say Stormcloaks because the name sounds cool, but I want to side for a reason, not the name.

I'm a male Khajiit (Destruction mage)

Please help me D:

EDIT: I really want to keep being a mage so does one of them have classes or can I just stay been a mage.

I only started playing 4 days ago and i have never played any other TES.

I think most people Go with the StormCloaks because they are the rebellion. No one likes the Empire. They are the political, traditional, Lawful "Roman fuzzy kittens" of Skyrim. That doesnt mean they wouldnt be cool though. In my opinion siding with the Empire would be like killing Astrid, but thats just me.

To your question You can do whatever you want. Theres no classes. Just perks and trees. If you want to be a destruction mage just funnell all your points into destruction and enchanting... alchemy can definitley be usefull for you if you are a mage considering you might want to pop pots in a fight to enhance your majicka bonus.

 

[Dagmar]

I think most people Go with the StormCloaks because they are the rebellion. No one likes the Empire.

A great number of long time players of the Elder Scrolls games do in fact like the Empire because the sentiment has been ingrained in them from the prior games. There's no way of knowing whether most players choose one side or the other.

 

[Sharduroga]

i see your point

 

[FullmetalHeart20]

i see your point

Someone on this thread acknowledge a point? This show of sanity...it makes me so happy!

 

[Sharduroga]

Someone on this thread acknowledge a point? This show of sanity...it makes me so happy!

haha. This isnt World of Warcraft. Hating people isn't cool. Skyrim brings around the love

 

[Crooksin]

haha. This isnt World of Warcraft. Hating people isn't cool. Skyrim brings around the love

You must have missed the last few pages

 

[Sharduroga]

yep just joined. i got the idea though. Dagmar seems like a real Cuthroat

 

[Sleeping Caterpillar]

In a role playing sense (I like to play with many different characters and races) I found it almost always makes more sense to side with the imperials, unless you're running with a nord character. And the best part about skyrim, if you have no preference in the war.. You don't have to do it! I do suggest playing through it with at least one character, both sides are fun, and being a nord really makes the storm cloaks a fun war.

Personally I don't really like Gen. Tullies or Ulfric, but its fun to move through the ranks and siege forts with your comrades! Have fun!