User blog comment:Zippertrain85/Why the Stormcloaks are right part 2/@comment-5762605-20130603134437

To be honest, if a real choice was presented, I wouldn't pick either side. This was a disappointment for me with Skyrim, you couldn't go independent like New Vegas. For starters, you can't judge the faction based on a few members. The Imperial Captain of Helgen was frankly, a bitch, and with Hadvar it was obviously a very early example of the shades of grey. These characters aren't perfect, and neither are their factions. Tullius is a bit extreme and at times without honour, such as wanting to out Ulfric's head on the walls on the Imperial City; any enemy should get the decency of a cremation or burial. But then Galmar Stone Fist is also quite extreme, despite Balgruufs desire to stay neutral and keep his hold and people out of the conflict, Galmar decides he's an enemy, and is happy to kill him and any Jarl not in direct support of the Stormcloaks. Many argue Ulfric and the Stormcloaks are racist, yes, some are. Their intolerance for other races in Skyrim, their outward racism and insistence that Skyrim is only for Nords is unacceptable. Ulfric's apparent indifference to the Dunmer and Argonians in his city should be considered the signs of a weak or prejudiced leader; a good leader cares for all of the people in his city, and his hold. Nord or not, they are people, and have to be treated as such. Also, Ulfric's duel with Torygg is bit of a point; you can be a leader no matter what you are. The argument that Torygg was not strong enough to defend himself is pretty flimsy; a warrior does not make a leader, or vice versa. Plainly, Ulfric challenging him and using the Thu'um is like attacking a child with a weapon, a clear advantage. Who could've stood against the Voice, be it warrior or not? It was a brash move, and only served to antagonise much of Skyrim against him. But then again, Ulfric is strong enough to stand against what he believes is right, the chance for Skyrim to govern itself and to withdraw the banning of Talos worship. However, Skyrim could easily have had a Moot and decided to govern itself while still having the support of the Empire, like the English Commonwealth of reality. That said, I don't much support the Empire either. The cutting off of Hammerfell from the Empire, and the failure to realise the Aldmeri Dominion as a threat was their downfall. Amaund Motierre, the ambitious and cutthroat bastard he is, should never have been on the Elder Council, and if he could get in, there's no telling who else is in power there. For the Civil War to be "only a sideshow" to those in Cyrodiil, as Tullius puts it, demonstrates the Councils and the Emperors poor prioritising; it could mean another province lost, and they focus everything on border control against the Dominion, which wouldn't really amount to much if their agents can roam Skyrim, and assumingly get there through Cyrodiil, anyway. Additionally, the Empire has not acted on clear threats. Commander Maro knowing the Dark Brotherhoods location, dealing with the leader of and knowing their Sanctuarys password and not acting is just foolish. So really, I don't see how people can say either side, Stormcloaks or Imperials is"right", as both sides are very grey. I did side with the Imperials in the Civil War, really only because they were not the ones attacking one of Skyrims Holds, which had remained previously neutral. But if Bethesda had allowed Season Unending to have more choice and something akin to New Vegas independence, I would've opted to just stop the conflict.