Spoiler Would you consider Ulfric evil?
- Thread starter The Legendary Werebear
- Start date
Dagmar
Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
While there are books in the game that are questionable regarding the reliability of the information in them, The Bear of Markarth isn't one of them. Arius is a historical scholar not a politician. Given that he characterizes other accounts of the Forsworn in his book The "Madmen" of the Reach as being nothing more than biased Imperial "victor's essays" we know he's not fond of the use of propoganda mimicking historical accounts. We also know he's willing to go to great lengths to investigate his subject matter. If you actually comprehended what that book said you should realize that while he didn't share the stereotypical characterizations of the Forsworn initially, he found much of it to be true in the end, which again is an indication of his dedication as a scholar by changing the overall premise which motivated him to research the book and is certainly not an indication of any sympathetic bias when it comes to the Forsworn.
The Bear of Markarth was also written before Ulfric killed the High King and the Stormcloak rebellion so there's little purpose to be served in misrepresenting what happended there. Further, only an idiot would believe that asserting false claims of Ulfric executing unarmed elderly, women and adolescents en masse would be believed and not refuted by actual witnesses to what occured. That's simply not consistent with how a historian and scholar conducts himself, even a biased one. This leads to the fact that there is not a scintilla of evidence in the game implying or from which you can infer that it didn't happen, not even from Ulfric himself, while there is content to imply that it did in fact happen. I hold your suggestion about not mentioning what Ulfric did at Markarth with the same regard that I hold for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's suggestion that the Holocaust never happened, which is to say not at all.
J
Jeremius
Guest
I said biased by his time in with the forsworn. That means that I think they are biased by the forsworn and their life story "Madmen of the reach". Never said anything about him being a politician, just that I think his time with the forsworn may have clouded his perception of the Markarth incident through causing him to have sympathy for the forsworn.
Disregard politics, and look at the history behind it. The forsworn ruled the reach before Ulfric turned them into bandits. Author writes the Madmen of the Reach. Would that not question the reliability of The Bear of Markarth? If Madmen of the reach was not there, I might agree with you, but because it is there, I question whether the Author was Biased for the forsworn or nor.
Dagmar
Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
Then you didn't read the book, or my post for that matter, carefully.
J
Jeremius
Guest
Markarth Incident does not factor into my decision to call Ulfric a non-evil warmonger who should jump off the top of the college of winterhold with Tulius.
three things:
- You are right and they were executed by what is stated in the book
- They fought alongside the forsworn and the book is biased
- the story is historical fiction and means nothing. perhaps the incident did not happen the way it did in the book.
JoeReese
Well-Known Member
The first time I heard Ulfric mention how Skyrim hasn't had a true high king, etc., I heard it as an egomaniac announcing himself the sole worthy being for the title. It came off as "I'm the only one who would be a true high king." The second time, though, I heard it differently. (This was before I got into the wiki and forums). Then, I heard it as Skyrim's high kings have been merely puppet agents of the Emperor, and by extension, of the Thalmor. That may or may not be the way the writers intended, but it puts an interesting light on how the same exact words can be heard and understood differently. Viewed in that light, it comes off as less "I'm the only one worthy of high king," and more "the high king should be about Skyrim, not about the Emperor's whim." It changes Ulfric from "I'm the greatest" to "well, I guess I have to do it, since nobody else is."
I really believe this was carefully crafted in such a way that neither side can ever be truly judged better or worse than the other. I will say this, though...throughout human history, reality, how many societies have ever been truly happy being ruled from without?
I really believe this was carefully crafted in such a way that neither side can ever be truly judged better or worse than the other. I will say this, though...throughout human history, reality, how many societies have ever been truly happy being ruled from without?
highassassin14
New Member
Well it depends on how u look at it. U can say ulfric is evil because he's trying to take back skyrim because he's self centered. But u an also say that the empire is also evil because they r controlling skyrim and not lettinf tbem be free. If u ask me the empire has the right of way and ulfric is just being difficult. Also, if ulfric was high king, then their would be a big big discrimination against dark elves which isn't right. So i think it depends on how u look at it. But i wouldnt all one or the other 'evil', maybe they just have diffrent percpectives of how skyrim should be ran, thats all
Chowder138
Proud member of PAHAAA.
I definitely think it's more of a grey area. I think Ulfric is selfish, in it for the wrong reasons, and only after the crown. At the same time, I do think that if Skyrim as a whole wants their independence from the Empire (which as of yet is not the case), they should get it. I don't think Ulfric would be a very good High King, though.
Then you have the Empire. When you think about it, you really can't think of anything particularly bad about the Empire. Ulfric's only reason for rebellion is the fact that Talos worship has been banned. But the only reason it's been banned is because the Empire had to either do so or be completely wiped out! And even then, it's like your parents telling you not to do something. The Empire denies worshipping Talos, but as soon as the Elves turn their backs, everyone takes out their Shrine to Talos.
tl;dr Ulfric is butthurt, there is nothing wrong with Empire.
Then you have the Empire. When you think about it, you really can't think of anything particularly bad about the Empire. Ulfric's only reason for rebellion is the fact that Talos worship has been banned. But the only reason it's been banned is because the Empire had to either do so or be completely wiped out! And even then, it's like your parents telling you not to do something. The Empire denies worshipping Talos, but as soon as the Elves turn their backs, everyone takes out their Shrine to Talos.
tl;dr Ulfric is butthurt, there is nothing wrong with Empire.
Dagmar
Defender of the Bunnies of Skyrim
They did not fight alongside the Forsworn. They simply did not fight alongside the Nord Militia. That was their only "crime". The book is not biased. You're saying so doesn't make it true and you've provided nothing persuasive to draw that conclusion.
The story is not historical fiction. It's a book on the history of a fictional world. There's a monumental difference between the two characterizations and it does mean something as do most such books in the game notwithstanding your effort to claim the contrary.
My opinion is an informed one, yours requires that you to ignore information provided by the game.
J
Jeremius
Guest
Believe in the phrase "Don't believe everything you read and only half of what you hear"?, because I do and that is one book I do not care to discuss, because I said and will always say that Ulfric is a warmonger, nothing more.
This is my opinion on the subject, I will never see any "EVIL" in any piece of lore you point out Dagmar. I still think the leaders of both sides should jump into the sea of ghosts and never come back. Plus, Alduin the World-eater and protect the world from evil is way more important than some petty CIVIL WAR I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH!!!!!!!
azali100
Active Member
Because the developers have put the books in the game for the specific purpose of providing information on the game world and the lore, all in-game non fiction is assumed to be true unless it is a blatant lie and proven wrong by actual things in the game (Like that one book "The Talos Lie" or whatever).
Or at least thats how I look at it.
samgurl775
Cerberus Officer
Well in that case, no one should ever bring up Scourge of the Gray Quarter when defending the Stormcloaks' behavior because it's clearly written by a biased Nord. Logic, yo.
Janus3003
Skyrim Marriage Counselor
On a somewhat related note, I found that book in Honeyside. I gave Iona a dirty look and threw it in the fire.
J
Jeremius
Guest
samgurl775, I am just saying, that my opinion right now is that I see Ulfric as a warmonger and nothing else, plus the war is just a distraction for the real evils, The AD and the World-eater.
DrunkenMage
Intoxicated Arch-Mage
J
Jeremius
Guest
I DON'T NEED SPEECH! I AM THE DOVAHKIIN!
J/K was just stating that I will defend my position of the war itself being stupid because there are more important things to do.
IT is like a mountain, the war is at the bottom of the other side of the mountain, not needed. Saving Skyrim is more important that getting distracted by a petty war.
DrunkenMage
Intoxicated Arch-Mage
It's not a petty war. Petty is what you recharge crap items with. Petty is when a Bandit runs away because he simply saw you.
I guess saving skyrim doesn't mean putting an end to the conflict of people being killed?
I would call ending the civil war, 'Saving' Skyrim, put an end to the blood shed of brother vs brother.
J
Jeremius
Guest
Like I said, It is on the other side of the mountain. In my view stopping Alduin takes precedent. If I have to allow both sides to die in order save the world from being destroyed, so be it. Needs of the many over the neeeds of the few.
DrunkenMage
Intoxicated Arch-Mage
Both sides to die? it's the entire country, that's not good. You seem like a Thalmor to me.
J
Jeremius
Guest
sometimes sacrifices need to be made.
to save Tamriel one country may have to die off entirely. Honestly choosing a side in the war is all about safety not because one side is right or wrong, as some idiots will have you believe.
