Not automatically, but all they have to do is hold onto the tower for a few months.Kavonde said:
Imperials or Stormcloaks?
- Thread starter Peteron
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wait, really? Is this speculation, or is it revealed through the Imperial storyline? I went with Stormcloaks, and I actually wish I hadn't. Which I kinda like actually. I agreed with their ideals of freeing Skyrim and all that, I figured if the Imperials wanted allies or whatever against the Thalmor they should ask, not subjugate a country. I quite enjoyed capturing forts, although I mostly sat at a good vantage point throwing spells and watching myTheDarkEricDraven said:
dragon friend eat people
As for the Thalmor, they try anything and I'll tear them apart single-handed. I wonder if a mod could be made continuing that storyline. Even set it in Cyrodil, with the Thalmor going after the White-Gold tower. Or maybe just have them come to Skyrim, either way I want to destroy them.
I consider myself a pragmatic, and therefore I find it impossible to side with the Stormcloaks. Lately, I've been getting the feeling that the only reason we see the Imperials causing so much trouble on a regular basis is because Bethesda was worried people would take 10 seconds to think about the Stormcloak's motivations and realize they're essentially trying to destabilize their entire country in order ethnically cleanse it, that they seem to have very few plans of actually running the country, and that they are even less of a match to their ultimate enemy, the Thalmor, then the Imperials.
Well I haven't actually made a choice between the two... though I'm leaning towards the Imperials simply because they don't seem to be as downright stupid as the Stormcloaks (both the people on that particular side, and how they go about their business in general, the whole failing to see the big picture issue, et cetera)... though I'd rather not just choose, and not join either side, 'cause in reality both of the sides are pretty damn stupid.
Besides I prefer not to be tied down to anything or anyone, especially not to such an extent, I'm more of a morally gray chaotic neutral kind of person, both in games and out. In games I often take on the role of a trickster of sorts who doesn't really give away much of himself, information-wise, and really can swing either way as far as "morally" based decisions go.
Also, morals are subjective anyway, so I can't really base my decisions on those anyway...
I just realised something... in Skyrim(and many other games) we're making decisions based on either sides ideology rather than more mechanically based decisions. That has got to be a milestone of sorts for gaming, no?
Though granted... decisions such as these were first possible over a decade ago, but back then they really were limited to a rather small group of excellent games, rather than more mainstream-ish games such as... well... Skyrim, for instance. So hooray for us!
Besides I prefer not to be tied down to anything or anyone, especially not to such an extent, I'm more of a morally gray chaotic neutral kind of person, both in games and out. In games I often take on the role of a trickster of sorts who doesn't really give away much of himself, information-wise, and really can swing either way as far as "morally" based decisions go.
Also, morals are subjective anyway, so I can't really base my decisions on those anyway...
I just realised something... in Skyrim(and many other games) we're making decisions based on either sides ideology rather than more mechanically based decisions. That has got to be a milestone of sorts for gaming, no?
Though granted... decisions such as these were first possible over a decade ago, but back then they really were limited to a rather small group of excellent games, rather than more mainstream-ish games such as... well... Skyrim, for instance. So hooray for us!
Ooh I would also like to point out that Elves reproduce ridiculously slow, so within a couple decades the Empire will be at almost full strength, whereas the Elves will be practically in the same position they were in right after the great war.
You don't seem to be very aware of the lore or history of the setting.Hafrael said:
For example that book? It paints the forsworn as fine happy people and that Ulfric forced the city to let him worship Talos after he removed the Forsworn. This is shown untrue in the game when meeting any forsworn or talking to people in Markarth
Because Hammerfell did it. The Empire abandoned them when signing that treaty designed to give the empire a slow death, and they beat back the Thalmor alone.Hafrael said:
You have to think about what will happen after the rebellion. Plenty of kingdoms have been raised on good principles but have fallen apart due to poor structure, poor laws, resulting wars etc. The Thalmor are inevitably going to try conquering Tamriel, so which side would be most ready for the war?
From prior knowledge, we know that the entire Empire's army couldn't stand against the Thalmor, the only thing that saved the Empire was the White-Gold Concordat, and if Skyrim became an independent nation, they would be even less likely to succeed against the entire Aldmeri Dominion. Militarily, neither the Imperials or the Stormcloaks have the means to defeat the Thalmor, but a unified Empire would have a much greater chance.
Imperials: 1 Stormcloaks: 0
Thalmor aside, that brings me to the issue that most people here are concerned about: which side is "better," or, "has better morals."
The Imperials have changed since the good ol' Oblivion days. There's no longer a valid basis for the Empire's monarchy. When the Septim's were in power, they literally had a divine right from St. Alessia, they were the only ones who could light the Dragonfires, and they were direct descendants of Tiber Septim/Talos. When Martin died, that ended, instead, a new emperor was chosen from among the High Council; an emperor without divine right and chosen without popular sovereignty; our society would frown heavily on such a government, imagine how the citizens of Cyrodill feel.
I think the similarities between the Imperial armor and the armor of ancient Roman legionaries are too numerous to be mere coincidence, for one, it gives an instant connotation of evil to players who remember the Legion of New Vegas, and it also brings to mind the declining years of the Roman empire when leaders like Caligula and Nero slowly brought the empire down on itself; I'm pretty sure the developers did that on purpose.
The Stormcloaks, on the other hand, are a bit more difficult to analyze, I can't think of any historical analogues to compare them to, and all we have for reference is what they stand for and who their leader is.
The priorities of the Stormcloaks are pretty simple: Skyrim independence and legalization of Talos worship. In practice, the Stormcloaks have taken their nationalistic ideals and turned them against outsiders and foreigners--my first thought is of the Dunmer woman being harassed in Windhelm--really, that's no better than the stigma against African-Americans in the beginning of the United States. Unless Ulfric comes out and declares--and he might, I haven't finished the Stormcloak campaign--that all foreigners and non-Nords are evil, than I don't think we should worry too much about the "racism" of the Stormcloaks.
Imperials: 1 Stormcloaks: 1
Take your pick, you can bet your money on a dying nation that can probably withstand the coming war, or a nation that may or may not have risen to the point where it can withstand the coming war.
From prior knowledge, we know that the entire Empire's army couldn't stand against the Thalmor, the only thing that saved the Empire was the White-Gold Concordat, and if Skyrim became an independent nation, they would be even less likely to succeed against the entire Aldmeri Dominion. Militarily, neither the Imperials or the Stormcloaks have the means to defeat the Thalmor, but a unified Empire would have a much greater chance.
Imperials: 1 Stormcloaks: 0
Thalmor aside, that brings me to the issue that most people here are concerned about: which side is "better," or, "has better morals."
The Imperials have changed since the good ol' Oblivion days. There's no longer a valid basis for the Empire's monarchy. When the Septim's were in power, they literally had a divine right from St. Alessia, they were the only ones who could light the Dragonfires, and they were direct descendants of Tiber Septim/Talos. When Martin died, that ended, instead, a new emperor was chosen from among the High Council; an emperor without divine right and chosen without popular sovereignty; our society would frown heavily on such a government, imagine how the citizens of Cyrodill feel.
I think the similarities between the Imperial armor and the armor of ancient Roman legionaries are too numerous to be mere coincidence, for one, it gives an instant connotation of evil to players who remember the Legion of New Vegas, and it also brings to mind the declining years of the Roman empire when leaders like Caligula and Nero slowly brought the empire down on itself; I'm pretty sure the developers did that on purpose.
The Stormcloaks, on the other hand, are a bit more difficult to analyze, I can't think of any historical analogues to compare them to, and all we have for reference is what they stand for and who their leader is.
The priorities of the Stormcloaks are pretty simple: Skyrim independence and legalization of Talos worship. In practice, the Stormcloaks have taken their nationalistic ideals and turned them against outsiders and foreigners--my first thought is of the Dunmer woman being harassed in Windhelm--really, that's no better than the stigma against African-Americans in the beginning of the United States. Unless Ulfric comes out and declares--and he might, I haven't finished the Stormcloak campaign--that all foreigners and non-Nords are evil, than I don't think we should worry too much about the "racism" of the Stormcloaks.
Imperials: 1 Stormcloaks: 1
Take your pick, you can bet your money on a dying nation that can probably withstand the coming war, or a nation that may or may not have risen to the point where it can withstand the coming war.
Stormcloaks, from what I've seen thus far. They have good ideas, imo (self-governance of Skyrim, resistance to the Imperials basically shitting on Nord culture by banning worship of Talos) but are really racist. Then again, everyone I've met seems pretty racist.
That's my reasoning. Never played an Elder Scrolls game, and I'm very early on in this one.
That's my reasoning. Never played an Elder Scrolls game, and I'm very early on in this one.
Actually this is proven by talking to people in Markath and by talking to the Forsworn. The natives of the reach were Bretons, but the Nords took the land from High Rock. The natives of the land, bretons, were treated extremely harshly, their religion and culture decimated. During the great war they revolted, took back Markath and attempted to be peaceful with the Nords, and attempted to plea for sovereignty with the Empire. Then Ulfric came in and slaughtered them, then the Silver Bloods continued the decimation of their culture that had gone on for the last 1000 years. That was when the 'Forsworn' were born.Knight Templar said:
[/quote]
Yes they did, with huge Imperial help at the battle of Red Ring, then when the Emperor attempted to gain a respite from Aldmeri Pressure, the Redguards and Bretons urged the Colovian Emperor to continue. Mede was all 'your lands are not the entire focus of Aldmeri Domination guys, maybe we could have peace for a bit, get some new babies out, in a few decades we'll be at full strength. Those elves rarely give birth, they'll be still tired from the Great War.', Redguards were all 'Nope' and ceded from the Empire so they could beat back the small token force that the Aldmeris had left to defend what was left of the ruins that was once Hammerfell.
The Redguards could only beat the small token force the Aldmeris had left in their land, after the Empire had lent them thousands of Nords, Bretons, Dunmer, and Colovians, in the battle of Red Ring.
Their land was just broken towers and ash when they finally made it south.
Well, the Imperials are obviously imperialists who want to control as much territory as possible. And being under the thumb of the Aldmeri Dominion makes their rule a bad thing for anyone who isn't an Altmer, regardless of whether the Imperials hate the Thalmor or not. Plus, as illustrated by the opening sequence, some of them have a "kill everything and ask questions later" mentality, which is pretty damn difficult to sympathize with. So I didn't join them.
The Stormcloaks, on the other hand, are militant xenophobes, and they take their hatred for the Thalmor out on the Dunmer, who really don't deserve such as they've been too busy getting blown up along with the rest of Vvardenfell and killed by angry Argonians to have anything to do with the subjugation so loved by the Thalmor. Also, Ulfric is the only Stormcloak Jarl who isn't a complete twat. So I didn't join them either.
Bonus answer goes to the Forsworn, who are trying to solve the decades of oppression against their own people by brutally killing everyone everywhere, thus making life even more difficult for the handful of Reach natives that just want to coexist by reinforcing the stereotype that Reach natives are savages. So they're just dicks.
To cap it off, patrols from all three factions attack me on sight, giving me even less reason to side with anyone. So I just murder dragons and make really nice armor.
The Stormcloaks, on the other hand, are militant xenophobes, and they take their hatred for the Thalmor out on the Dunmer, who really don't deserve such as they've been too busy getting blown up along with the rest of Vvardenfell and killed by angry Argonians to have anything to do with the subjugation so loved by the Thalmor. Also, Ulfric is the only Stormcloak Jarl who isn't a complete twat. So I didn't join them either.
Bonus answer goes to the Forsworn, who are trying to solve the decades of oppression against their own people by brutally killing everyone everywhere, thus making life even more difficult for the handful of Reach natives that just want to coexist by reinforcing the stereotype that Reach natives are savages. So they're just dicks.
To cap it off, patrols from all three factions attack me on sight, giving me even less reason to side with anyone. So I just murder dragons and make really nice armor.
In the intro I sided with the Stormcloaks because I thought it made sense to follow the other prisoners, I didn't want my head immediately back on the chopping block. I've Thoroughly explored the Imperials position and have found them to come across as ineffective and weak due to the Thalmor having them by the balls, they are also supporting terrible ideas by banning Talos worship. To me the Imperials come across as good but completely corrupted and useless, if I thought I could remove the corruption from the ranks, I'd be less worried about siding with them.
I haven't looked into the Stormcloaks much but from what I heard they are pretty racist. Other than that fact they seem like a pretty good group to clean Skyrim of this weak Imperial army. If I thought I could remove the racist elements from the army, I'd be much more supportive of such a rebellion.
As it stands, both sides seem wrong and I have reasons for disliking both, I'm really at an impasse. Which shit sandwich should I take a bite of?
I haven't looked into the Stormcloaks much but from what I heard they are pretty racist. Other than that fact they seem like a pretty good group to clean Skyrim of this weak Imperial army. If I thought I could remove the racist elements from the army, I'd be much more supportive of such a rebellion.
As it stands, both sides seem wrong and I have reasons for disliking both, I'm really at an impasse. Which shit sandwich should I take a bite of?
Ya just because that one officer is a complete ***** doesn't mean she represents them all.ruedyn said:
Lore-wise Empire is the only non-suicidal choice.TheDarkEricDraven said:I know I keep harping on, and on, and on, but really, guys. That people still root for the Stormcloaks...
You and I must have been playing different games with very different Jarl Ulfrics.Yokai said:
By which I mean he has something resembling a code of honor and civility. Compare that to Dawnstar's Jarl who's bleeding his town dry to support the war effort and threatens to execute people for wearing Legion armor, and whoever's actually in control of Riften is using the lack of Imperial law to do whatever the hell they want. Ulfric's no saint, he's just not as much of a dick as the rest of them.TheDarkEricDraven said:I know I keep harping on, and on, and on, but really, guys. That people still root for the Stormcloaks...
You and I must have been playing different games with very different Jarl Ulfrics.Yokai said:
Go..FUCKING..Stormcloaks..TheDarkEricDraven said:I know I keep harping on, and on, and on, but really, guys. That people still root for the Stormcloaks...
You and I must have been playing different games with very different Jarl Ulfrics.Yokai said:
Many, many years ago that happened, deciding to kill every single last nord isn't the right response to the event.Hafrael said:
They revere Hagravens as part of this religion, killing people in a blood ritual is also a big part of this religion.
Remember Hagravens, those things described by the game itself as evil?
So because they were once entirely different people, they should be allowed to take the land?
Markarth has been a Nordic city since at least the start of the third Era.
The lands of Hammerfell were the Thalmor's original target, it was their aim to take that before they thought they might be able to crush the entire empire.
The Empire went with a slow death, taking terms they knew would weaken them.
Any source on that "small token force"?
And of course the Redguards were not willing to give up their land in order to appease the people who tried to take it.
Why would the elves leave a token force in Hammerfell when they thought the Legion was still there and taking the land was a major objective?
Are you trying to say that the battle to retake the Imperial city was lending troops to Hammerfell, when the troops that had remained in that nation were not supposed to have been left there at all?
If the Aldmeri were truly so weak that a single nation could beat them back when conquest of that land was their initial aim, then doesn't that mean that taking on a treaty you know will piss off two major parts of the empire and hamper your ability to rebuild is utterly stupid?
Would giving the land to the Thalmor have been better?