Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-93.77.208.208-20190324123127/@comment-93.77.208.208-20190325170825

2A02:21B0:644C:1A1:701E:DA79:530B:1C77 wrote: Purrington wrote: There's a good chance they won't even reveal who won the war. But I'd say a stormcloak victory is more canon. I agree with the first statement; there is a good chance the outcome may either not be determined yet or not be communicated to the player in any fashion in the next installment.

However, on the contrary, I believe an Imperial victory to be more likely if a choice had indeed to be made from the developers' or rather writers' side. Given that announcing a victor retrospectively jeopardises the choice given in Skyrim anyway, I would think it easier still to implement said outcome in terms of creating a narrative that does not necessarily contradict the 'wrong' option you may have chosen in Skyrim. In other words, if it is important to be able to make sense of either possible choice made in Skyrim regarding whoever is canonically announced as the victor in the next Elder Scrolls game, the Legion is from a narrative persepective at an advantage. Let me go through both options to show what I'm on about.

Assume a Stormcloak victory was canon. How could siding with the Empire and killing Ulfric in Skyrim be made sense of? One way would be to remove Ulfric from the canon Stormcloak victory: he could have fallen in battle either during the Legion's questline or after the Stormcloak's questline in skirmishes with the Imperials, though details must not be revealed in order to preserve the neutrality towards the Dragonborn's decision and deeds. While it is imaginable that someone else will take on leading the cause in the late Ulfric's stead, I find that solution problematic. If for example Ulfric indeed won the war with the Dragonborn's help, why and where would he himself be skrimishing with the Imperials and die? And really, having Stormcloaks reign supreme but not under Ulfric's rule seems... well, lacking - for the lack of a better word. Ulfric as the rich character he is is quite important here; why would anyone favour a narrative where he simply disappears, though his armies may have won? It is not impossible, but wouldn't that seem somewhat absurd? Though it would be either this, or the canon immediately contradicts what the Dragonborn may have done in Skyrim. It is difficult to work a narrative around it that won't automatically contradict the Imperial option in Skyrim's Civil War questline.

Now assume the Empire having Skyrim firmly back under its grip is canon. How could siding with the Stormcloaks be made sense of? Well, the problem of having personell removed isn't quite the same on this side. There need be no mention of General Tullius because he isn't essential to any Imperial narrative whereas Ulfric is essential to the Stormcloaks' narrative. And Jarl Elisef, unlike Ulfric, lives either way (thanks to a quest being cut from the game), hence she could technically always become High Queen. Skyrim back under Imperial control is easy to explain away in retrospect no matter who you sided with in in the Civil War questline; either it is so because of the Dragonborn, or the proper Imperial might reclaimed Skyrim after Pale Pass was finally cleared. Of course, it would possibly cause an outrage either way. Although it wouldn't be as absurd as having Ulfric's armies rule the land but himself dead, in my opinion.

Now if the narrative persepective is completely disregarded and the writers don't care about contradicting one choice or the other, arguements can probably be made for both outcomes. One may give the edge to the Legion, talking in terms of the realistically most likely victor by power, completely disregarding the Dragonborn's existence and role in this matter. And here, too, I would refer to the clearing of Pale Pass although I am aware it is a single large coin to bet on. If the Empire is determined to reclaim Skyrim, I believe it should have the resources to oust the Stormcloaks from the lands. What I think is more questionable, however, is whether or not the Empire would actually be willing to commit those resources if necessary, wary of overcommitting due to the Thalmor threat down south. But - obviously - the whole affair is rather open ended and quite plausible scenarios can be drawn for either outcome, really, though I don't want to sketch them now - this post has been lengthy, and I would expect that those are more talked about and mentioned anyway. whereas perhaps less so the narrative persepective. Can't agree with you, emperor is killed by dark brotherhood. In addition, on the side of the stormcloacks most of the local population, while the Empire is supported by people only weakly. In addition, the morale of the imperial soldiers, as we find out as the game progresses, is rather low, and the death of the emperor will cause him even greater damage, and this proves the victory of the Storm Brothers, who are fighting for their homeland. A similar example experienced by the USSR in 1941-45.