Board Thread:Skyrim/@comment-12599067-20130928060857/@comment-14359537-20130929150238

I'd personally go for the Nords on this one, mainly because I feel that the Forsworn are barbaric.

I had people telling me that the Nords are actually the first to settle the Reach, which is not impossible, because the Atmorans did wiped off the Snow Elves from Skyrim. We can find falmer in the Reach, so we can probably assume that the nords went that far. Also, I didn't see anything about the Atmorans having contact with Reachmen during the time they wiped off the elves, making it more likely that the Atmorans (who are basically nords at this point) got there first. So historically, the land belongs to the Nords.

And next is the forsworn massacre by Ulfric. I do admit, although I am pro-stormcloak, I disagree with killing the reachmen without even trying to negotiate (correct me if I'm mistaken). However, not all nords are ulfric. We cannot discriminate the Nords as bloodthirsty tyrants, that title belongs to ulfric and only him. If you're gonna say "well basically all nords hate and discriminate the Forsworn, and they're the one killing the reachmen", look at the bigger picture. After Ulfric's invasion, the most rational decision is to negotiate, end the fighting and end the suffering. But instead of trying to end the conflict, they acted out of vengance, and started massacring the nords. They repeated the very sins their enemy did upon them. And I assume that THIS was when all nords hated the Forsworn; when they started to act out of vengance. So really, the Forsworn themselves made the nords hate them. You could argue that it's all ulfric's fault, and I won't go against you. But from my point of view, if the Forsworn could think ahead a little, not commit atrocities that make them no better than Ulfric himself and chose the path with the least suffering, none of this forsworn mess would happen.