In short, outlawing Talos is the better option - it could have been much worse. Outlawing Talos was the lesser of two evils the other being a continuation of the war, which would have led to the eventual defeat of the empire, the deaths of many more soldiers, the end to the devolved powers of the Jarls and High King, and more activities and abilities for the Thalmor Jusiticiars to root out any Talos worshipers. However it is important to acknowledge the overwhelming power of the Thalmor. This is a surprising thought, as in my opinion the very principal of outlawing a religion is barbaric, particularly when the religious practice is so passive. Now to the question of 'should the empire have outlawed Talos Worship?' - in my view yes. This is likely some of the reason why the Thalmor are so anti Talos worship. It is important to acknowledge that worshiping and glorifying Talos could be seen as offensive by those who were conquered by Tiber Septim, in the same way that (in real life) people find glorification of the Confederate Flag offensive in the USA. I am yet to see any other form of worship for Talos. The priests of Talos will preach to those either near a shrine or to those who ask about Talos. Worshipping Talos involves visiting shrines and leaving offerings of food, weapons and armour. They also don't evangilise everything like worshipers of Mara, who go out to chuck preaching down the throats of passers by and people trying to enjoy a quiet evening in the pub. His worshippers are not commanded by him to commit heinous acts like worshipers of other gods such as Molag Bal or Mehrune's Dagon. Whilst there has been a lot of debate earlier in this thread about what sort of a man Tiber Septim was and therefore what soert of god he is, his actions as a God are presently negligible. Worshipping Talos doesn't directly harm anyone. That said, banning people's right to practice a religion is a violation of human(oid) rights, however it is less known what the civil stance is in Tamriel for the respect of human(oid) rights - here in real life we have things like the 'European Convention on Human Rights' and the 'Human Rights Act.'

They couldn't hold out much longer against the Thalmor in the great war and needed to sue for peace.

I understand the Empire's plight and being stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the White Gold Concordat. Personally, I can understand both issues here. Well, this has got a little bit heated haha! I moved away from Facebook and so on to get away from Political Debates but here we are! I completely refuse Elisf is legitimate, and frankly I completely refuse that every Jarl with the exception of Balgruuf and Ulfric is a legitimate Jarl (keyword is Jarl there). You cannot say the people that were attacked first are at fault without also placing blame on the attackers. I completely refuse that Ulfric is legitimate, and I completely refuse that it’s the Empire’s fault for the Moot not convening. Everything i point out Ulfric does, the empire does. We’re literally just going around in circles, but literally everything you’ve pointed out the Empire does, Ulfric does the same thing and vice versa. Why do you think he remain neutral? He DOESN’T like Ulfric and he DOESN’T support his claim, there’s no other interpretation of why he’d remain neutral (and the same goes for the Empire, he doesn’t like them). I’m pretty sure other people literally say that he doesn’t like Ulfric as well. There was no moot though thanks to the Empire.Īgain, that’s not true because he does side with Ulfric. We don't know too much about his past, but he is obviously pretty tough. But that is all conjecture of course.Īnd I think Balgruuf could serve as a high king. He is beset by an outside force, his chief advisor is a Talos worshipper and the richest most powerful family in his city supports Ulfric. I mean, you have a young jarl who is trying to do good. That was oart of why i think he could have been won over. They take over the city of you depose the Imperial jarl. Lastly, the Silver-Bloods actually support Ulfric. Both sides have a greedy buffoon, a senile codger, and a moralist. Personally I think he would have abstained.Īlso, all of the Jarls are mirrored. Like i said, we don't know what he would have done. All we know of his opinion of Ulfric prior to that seems to be a mild dislike but respectful. Balgruuf's hate for Ulfric may very well have simply been born from losing his city.

Oid the talos principle image