FANDOM


  • Thread is getting a little long, opening a new one.

    Previous thread: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:308536

    Latest comment: 

    YinyangElementofduality wrote:
    Shigeru Thalmor Slayer wrote:

    I proved IN-GAME that this urn only apperas IF AND ONLY IF THE PLAYER KILLS SAADIA. This urn doesn't appear if you hand her ovet to Kematu as I proved in 3 playthroughs.

    Actually Saadia's Urn appears in Whiterun's Catacombs if she gets killed. It doesn't have to be the Player. But yes, I can confirm as well that if you hand Saadia over to the Alik'r Warriors, her Urn will not appear. 

    I have a pretty far-fetched theory that Kematu and Saadia had nothing to do with the Thalmor. They only accuse each other of being Traitors to appeal to the Dragonborn as the Redguards are often shown to be more cunning than the Nords and willing to resort to trickery and lies to get what they want. 

    I suspect this is just a Hammerfell's own internal political strife between the Crowns and Forebears. They have been fighting for centuries, even if most of the Crowns and Forebears had reconciled with each other, I believe there'll be a minority who kept fighting against each other in the shadows.

     
      Loading editor
    • If Saadia was the betrayer, she would be in a Dominion controlled city living the high life for helping them take the city during the war.  She wouldn't be using an assumed identity working for next to no money in a tavern in empire controlled territory. 

      I never really thought of the urn as hard evidence, wether or not it appears it's probably just Bethesda being lazy if it does.

        Loading editor
    • from what I gathered, Saadia is probably guilty of something. The Alik'r are specifically looking for her in a land very far away from Hammerfell, and I refuse to believe that Saadia is important enough to the Thalmor that they would send Alik'r mercenaries to track her down at all costs. Plus, she doesn't even have any curved swords. Not even one.

        Loading editor
    • Shadelock wrote:
      If Saadia was the betrayer, she would be in a Dominion controlled city living the high life for helping them take the city during the war.  She wouldn't be using an assumed identity working for next to no money in a tavern in empire controlled territory. 

      I never really thought of the urn as hard evidence, wether or not it appears it's probably just Bethesda being lazy if it does.

      I am actually leaning to believe that Saadia was fleeing from a political intrigue in Hammerfell and the Alik'r Warriors are there to capture her. 

      Both of them were probably not involved directly with the Aldmeri Dominion and they only mentioned the AD to gain the sympathy of the Dragonborn.

        Loading editor
    • If she was a Dominion agent, I would have thought she'd do more to either contact the Dominion or help them out by turning Skyrim against Hammerfell, but neither is shown. Honestly, I don't know what side to truly believe.

        Loading editor
    • Ottoman Hold wrote:
      If she was a Dominion agent, I would have thought she'd do more to either contact the Dominion or help them out by turning Skyrim against Hammerfell, but neither is shown. Honestly, I don't know what side to truly believe.

      Which is why I came to conclusion that they are both not involved with the Aldmeri Dominion but rather just a political intrigue from Hammerfell where both sides claims the other to be working for the Aldmeri Dominion to gain the Dragonborn's sympathy.

        Loading editor
    • I have allways sided with Kematu since his story sounds the most likely. However in the trivia section on the quest page on wiki it is stated this:

      " If the Alik'r warriors are sided with and Saadia is turned in, her burial urn can be found in Whiterun's Hall of the Dead."

      Im not sure if this is a bug, an error made by bethesda or an actual hint that there are more to the story.

        Loading editor
    • 84.208.243.247 wrote:
      I have allways sided with Kematu since his story sounds the most likely. However in the trivia section on the quest page on wiki it is stated this:

      " If the Alik'r warriors are sided with and Saadia is turned in, her burial urn can be found in Whiterun's Hall of the Dead."

      Im not sure if this is a bug, an error made by bethesda or an actual hint that there are more to the story.

      I can confirm her burial Urn does not appear in Whiterun's Hall of the Dead if you turn Saadia in. Chances is Saadia was killed in your gameplay because I tried three times and her Urn did not appear in Halls of the Dead.

      But any NPC in Whiterun dies (confirmed by killing them in Whiterun) will have their Urn appears in the Halls of the Dead including Saadia. 

        Loading editor
    • I might of noticed something, disregarding both sides and the stories themselves, the game seems to put a lot of focus on taking the coward's route out. THe coward's route is kematu becuase instead of taking the eight warriors head on, you get a potentially inoccent woman captured. And it has you lie to saadia that your own strengh wasn't enough, calling yourself weak as if the game mocks you. So it leads me to wonder, why would the game spit at your foot almost? I wonder...... not to mention it tries as hard as it can to bring the crushing guilt of betraying someone's trush on you

        Loading editor
    • both sides are liars. Saadia claims that the Alik'r want to drag her to hammerfell to be executed by the thalmor, but there are no thalmor in hammerfell. the alik'r claim that they are part of the resistance against the thalmor in hammerfell, but there are no thalmor in hammerfell.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, considering that its more than likely that a major city was captured in the Hammerfell theatre, when the Aldmeri Dominion couldn't hold onto it, any noble LIKELY wouldn't have been touched as to facilitate a puppet government. At that point, why not plant evidence on anyone who publicly spoke out against the Aldmeri Dominion if you happened to already have a leach within the nobles of that city? This could help weaken the houses of Hammerfell if they fell for it, making it seem like not everyone was as gung-ho about kicking mer out of there. If the ruling body of Hammerfell was smart about this information, they would simply hide this and instead just kill all nobles that fled the city in and around it's occupation, and preferably in a shoddy way as to prevent the "Defector" information from being relivant. Make the Alik'r that did the deeds look like it was more fanatical and "out of funds" so you can't say that it was an official order incase one of them happens to be TOO well liked by the people (hensforth the lack of documentation). In this sense, the ruling body would probably PREFER that you kill everyone as to ensure that there was a loop of logic as to the validity of who was the traitor.

        Loading editor
    • Not enough information to determine in such details. 

      The conclusion I can come to is that either they have nothing to do with Aldmeri Dominion, they only mentioned the Thalmor and AD to gain your trust/sympathy.

      Or they are both lying.

      No information whether did Saadia actually caused a major city to be captured except Kematu's one-sided word. Or whether Saadia was part of the Noble who of your mentioned puppet government and that her political rivals planted evidence against her etc...

      All these are going into too much details which has no evidence to support.

        Loading editor
    • I prefer relay To chivaldry than a word of a "mercenary", The exotic girl who serve me Mead And a Plus 0f 250 gold for kill a Lady molestor! Think about is common sence, rather political crap, also if will be related to dominion agents, develpers provably will trow a note or something on her quarters, or even so far as put saadia as enemy when searching for esbern on the rift during blades quest!   p.s. curved swords for a low level player is a nice reward!

        Loading editor
    • 72.50.120.162 wrote: I prefer relay To chivaldry than a word of a "mercenary", The exotic girl who serve me Mead And a Plus 0f 250 gold for kill a Lady molestor! Think about is common sence, rather political crap, also if will be related to dominion agents, develpers provably will trow a note or something on her quarters, or even so far as put saadia as enemy when searching for esbern on the rift during blades quest!   p.s. curved swords for a low level player is a nice reward!

      of course the devs didn't put such a note in her quarters. that would decisively prove that the Alik'r are right, and the whole point of the quest is that either side could be telling the truth. also, the thalmor didn't send all of their agents in skyrim to the ratway when searching for esbern

        Loading editor
    • It's drama.  I don't do drama.  They both have to go, either by foot or by sword.

        Loading editor
    • Well, i always sided with Kematu, never with Saadia. I always think she was lying, and i don't wanted to be tricked by a "pretty face" (I mean she is a looked harmless woman who are running of a complete band of niggas with CURVED SWORDS). I think that the aldmeri dominion with their arrogance that is common in her kind and very most in the thalmors, never could hired Alik Warriors Mercenaries of Hammerfell, knowing that Hammerfell  is one of their most hated enemies, being that they are indenpendent of the thalmors, since the people of hammerfell kicked them when the empire surrounded Hammerfell to the Aldmeri, abandoning the people of Hammerfell. Besides, for what i see, all the assasins not thalmors that the aldmeri dominion hired are Khajits (that one who wanted to kill Malborn in windheld if he survived the infiltration, and that woman khajit that wants to kill the Dragonborn when is in search of Esbern). I think that i going to side with Saadia now in all my games party, now that i read the comments of others... really, is very probably that the both are lying, and no ones is afiliated with the thalmors. Besides i always haved a think that anoyeed me when i always sided with Kematu: Whatever thing that Saadia really do, she left that in the past, now she is free in whiterun and Kematu wanted to take that. Really, i going to side with Saadia since now. And... i recently have a needed of collected Kematu for my Dead Thralls collection XD. In my next game party with a Vampire Nord, that will be. 

        Loading editor
    • 186.93.186.52 wrote:
      Well, i always sided with Kematu, never with Saadia. I always think she was lying, and i don't wanted to be tricked by a "pretty face" (I mean she is a looked harmless woman who are running of a complete band of niggas with CURVED SWORDS). I think that the aldmeri dominion with their arrogance that is common in her kind and very most in the thalmors, never could hired Alik Warriors Mercenaries of Hammerfell, knowing that Hammerfell  is one of their most hated enemies, being that they are indenpendent of the thalmors, since the people of hammerfell kicked them when the empire surrounded Hammerfell to the Aldmeri, abandoning the people of Hammerfell. Besides, for what i see, all the assasins not thalmors that the aldmeri dominion hired are Khajits (that one who wanted to kill Malborn in windheld if he survived the infiltration, and that woman khajit that wants to kill the Dragonborn when is in search of Esbern). I think that i going to side with Saadia now in all my games party, now that i read the comments of others... really, is very probably that the both are lying, and no ones is afiliated with the thalmors. Besides i always haved a think that anoyeed me when i always sided with Kematu: Whatever thing that Saadia really do, she left that in the past, now she is free in whiterun and Kematu wanted to take that. Really, i going to side with Saadia since now. And... i recently have a needed of collected Kematu for my Dead Thralls collection XD. In my next game party with a Vampire Nord, that will be. 

      Of course, just because she (Theoretically.) Left whatever she did in the past, that doesn't mean she isn't still (Potentially.) guilty of whatever she did.

        Loading editor
    • I killed them both. Skyrim belongs to the Nords. Get out of my swamp.

        Loading editor
    • 108.172.247.127 wrote:
      I killed them both. Skyrim belongs to the Nords. Get out of my swamp.

      50-50 chance either are working for the Ald Dom. Not worth the risk to let either of them live. Build a wall and make Hammerfell pay for it.

        Loading editor
    • 50-50 chance either are working for the Ald Dom. Not worth the risk to let either of them live. Build a wall and make Hammerfell pay for it

      Best not to try to do something beyond the boundaries of the Nords' abilities.The Redguards are too smart for the Nords, chances is the Nords try that and ends up paying for all of Hammerfell's bills.

        Loading editor
    • ZhugeQuanqiang wrote:

      50-50 chance either are working for the Ald Dom. Not worth the risk to let either of them live. Build a wall and make Hammerfell pay for it

      Best not to try to do something beyond the boundaries of the Nords' abilities.The Redguards are too smart for the Nords, chances is the Nords try that and ends up paying for all of Hammerfell's bills.

      Racist. Just because they are redguards you think that they are smarter than nords. Remember the Greybeards are wise and they are nords. 

        Loading editor
    • 71.10.151.88 wrote:
      ZhugeQuanqiang wrote:

      50-50 chance either are working for the Ald Dom. Not worth the risk to let either of them live. Build a wall and make Hammerfell pay for it

      Best not to try to do something beyond the boundaries of the Nords' abilities.The Redguards are too smart for the Nords, chances is the Nords try that and ends up paying for all of Hammerfell's bills.
      Racist. Just because they are redguards you think that they are smarter than nords. Remember the Greybeards are wise and they are nords. 

      That is not racist, that is an established fact that the Redguards are superior than Altmers, Dunmer, Bosmers, Argonians and Khajits, it is also an established fact that Altmer, Dunmers, Bosmers and Khajiits are superior than the Imperials, while it is an established fact that the Imperials are superior than the Nords.

      Meaning the Redguards >>> Nords by no small amount.

        Loading editor
    • ZhugeQuanqiang wrote:

      71.10.151.88 wrote:
      ZhugeQuanqiang wrote:

      50-50 chance either are working for the Ald Dom. Not worth the risk to let either of them live. Build a wall and make Hammerfell pay for it

      Best not to try to do something beyond the boundaries of the Nords' abilities.The Redguards are too smart for the Nords, chances is the Nords try that and ends up paying for all of Hammerfell's bills.
      Racist. Just because they are redguards you think that they are smarter than nords. Remember the Greybeards are wise and they are nords. 

      That is not racist, that is an established fact that the Redguards are superior than Altmers, Dunmer, Bosmers, Argonians and Khajits, it is also an established fact that Altmer, Dunmers, Bosmers and Khajiits are superior than the Imperials, while it is an established fact that the Imperials are superior than the Nords.

      Meaning the Redguards >>> Nords by no small amount.

      care to provide a source that proves this?

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:

      That is not racist, that is an established fact that the Redguards are superior than Altmers, Dunmer, Bosmers, Argonians and Khajits, it is also an established fact that Altmer, Dunmers, Bosmers and Khajiits are superior than the Imperials, while it is an established fact that the Imperials are superior than the Nords.

      Meaning the Redguards >>> Nords by no small amount.

      care to provide a source that proves this?

      If it isn't obvious enough I was trolling.

      On a slightly more serious note. The Redguards do have a better track record than the Nords as a whole. Plus if it really bugs you so much...

      Weaponry: Redguards and Nords have special culture weapons. Redguards have racial Orichalc weapons, Nords have Nordic Weapons. Redguards gets an edge because they have Gunpowder weapons proven in TES Adventures: Redguard. 

      Special magic: Nords have Thu'um, Redguards have Shehai. At the end of 1st Era, Nords were punished by divine retribution as they abuse the great power Thu'um gave them without any shame. Nords no longer use the Thu'um outside religious purpose. Redguards no such problem because they are wiser as a whole and not just specific/exceptional groups like the Greybeards since the Redguards knew to hold their swords/shehai after they fulfill real needs.

      Situation: At the present, Nords in Skyrim are divide into Stormcloaks and Imperials by the Civil War. Hammerfell has become united as one during the Great War. Even though Hammerfell suffered heavy losses, Redguards as a race is more united and Hammerfell is more politically stable than Skyrim. Hell, Hammerfell as a whole ties with Cyrodiil as the two most stable human states in Tamriel the other being Cyrodiil. High Rock is divided into 5 Kingdoms, Skyrim divided into 2, Orsinium or Orcs has never been able to form an effective kingdom.

        Loading editor
    • If you look up the history of Taneth, you will find that Kematu is the one that is telling the truth.

        Loading editor
    • I like to think that both of the parties are telling the truth. Saadia might be innocent as she says, and those trying to find her, might have been told a lie that they think is the truth. In life this happens a lot.

        Loading editor
    • Or both sides have twisted some parts of the truth so it stay true but to their own convenience. Happens even more often in rl.

        Loading editor
    • saadia's story has too many holes to be true. she didn't know the alik'r were in the city, but she did know that one of them was caught while they were getting into the city.

        Loading editor
    • Found out Saadia was lying, if you search up the City that Kematu mentions it will say in it's 4th era description: "When Hammerfell was fighting against the Aldmeri Dominion in the beginning of the fourth era, the city of Taneth fell to the Dominion after supposedly being betrayed from within. The Alik'r were hired to find the traitor who apparently fled to Whiterun.[5]"

        Loading editor
    • 80.61.49.121 wrote: Found out Saadia was lying, if you search up the City that Kematu mentions it will say in it's 4th era description: "When Hammerfell was fighting against the Aldmeri Dominion in the beginning of the fourth era, the city of Taneth fell to the Dominion after supposedly being betrayed from within. The Alik'r were hired to find the traitor who apparently fled to Whiterun.[5]"

      a wikia article does not count as evidence

        Loading editor
    • Just some facts to consider.

      1. No one knows you are dragonborn.

      2. Eight mercenaries and Kematu have the drop on you.

      3. Instead of attack when having numbers, higher ground, the element of surpise.. they want to talk?

      4. Perhaps because they think you know where Saadia is.

      5. Only real conclusion is Saadia wants you to kill eight men, and they want her alive.

      I usually side with whoever doesn't want me to kill people if I can because that's more good. If they were going to kill her even if there was a 50% chance she's guilty, I'd like side with her because its unfair and she's outnumbered.

        Loading editor
    • Is no-one going to bring up the fact that the enemies that you will need to kill or sneak by are labeled 'bandit [varient]'?

        Loading editor
    • 72.228.85.164 wrote:
      Is no-one going to bring up the fact that the enemies that you will need to kill or sneak by are labeled 'bandit [varient]'?

      I believed it was addressed. Kematu and the Alik'r Warriors choose to "employ" the bandits because they wanted to use their hideout as a base.

        Loading editor
    • Screw it, i'll just kill them both,

        Loading editor
    • Now the problem with this is that the Thalmor are involved. Most TES fans have only played Skyrim and possibly one other game in the series. I have played all twelve games and think of myself as unbiased unlike people who have only played Skyrim or Legends in which the Third Aldmeri Dominion are painted in a bad light. I highly recommend finding out more about the Thalmor and the Third Aldmeri Dominion (TAD) before judging them.

      The Ra Gada or Redguards or Yokudans arrived on the West Coast of Tamriel in Volenfell (later renamed Hammerfell) around 1E 792 to 1E 808. They later split into two political groups, The Crowns who are more traditional and worship the Yokudan pantheon and The Forebears who more readily accept the cultures and gods of other races. After many years (in which they were only conquered once by Tiber Septim in the events of The Elder Scrolls Adventures : Redguard  and even then he needed the help of Dram and Nafaalilargus and the betrayal of the Forebears) they were faced with yet another conflict, The Great War. The Crowns and Forebears formed a truce and worked together to hold off the TAD. Ten years after the White-Gold Concordat the Redguards were still fighting.

      With that in mind, how do you feel about Saadia who sold out her city, Taneth and people in return for some money. This caused the deaths of many people including children and allowed the TAD to get a better foothold in Hammerfell. When the deal went bad and she was forced to flee to Skyrim where she changed her name from Iman to Saadia and is prepared to pull a knife on you and threaten you just to live another day.

      Btw the best way to do this quest if you want the most gold is to sell her to Kematu and take the 500 gold then kill Kematu and take 250 from his corpse as well as some rare scimitars and Alik'r clothes. Saadia should not be hostile and now available for marriage.

        Loading editor
    • 86.141.8.93 wrote: With that in mind, how do you feel about Saadia who sold out her city, Taneth and people in return for some money. This caused the deaths of many people including children and allowed the TAD to get a better foothold in Hammerfell. When the deal went bad and she was forced to flee to Skyrim where she changed her name from Iman to Saadia and is prepared to pull a knife on you and threaten you just to live another day.

      Btw the best way to do this quest if you want the most gold is to sell her to Kematu and take the 500 gold then kill Kematu and take 250 from his corpse as well as some rare scimitars and Alik'r clothes. Saadia should not be hostile and now available for marriage.

      the thing is, either Saadia or Kematu might be telling thr truth. if kematu's story is true, then yes, she deserves to be put to death, but if Saadia is telling the truth, it's clearly best to help her.

      also, Saadia is never available for marriage

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, really interesting tale of the further history of Hammerfell and the Redguards, but your last bit made no sense. The whole idea of this is 'who is telling the truth' and as usual, Bethesda have left it purposefully vague who might be telling the truth, and given their habit of making history vague so you can pretend your version of previous characters are the real ones in your playthrough (for instance the ledger of Thirst Mead Hall in Solstheim being damaged so the time around the Nerevarine having had the chance to lead is illegible), if they even bother to think about this largely inconsequential side quest when (and if) they give us ES6, they'll probably again leave it vague. As the previous guy said, whoever' telling the truth it makes sense to help them, but the point is we don't know for sure who is telling the truth, or even if either are.

      Also, the best money to be made from it is actually from selling Saadia out, getting the 500 from Kematu, killing him, looting the 250 off his body, then casting calm on Saadia, as she will be hostile when she comes out of paralysis if you too Kematu's payment, and getting the 500 from there. Then, if you leave it long enough I think she'll be willing to see you again without trying to kill you, but I'm not certain of that. Also, Saadia is never a candidate for marriage.

        Loading editor
    • None of you have mentioned that the Alik'r prisoner you talk to says that if you know anything about Kematu you know you won't leave the hideout alive. That sounds pretty ominous to me, you don't get a reputation like that by being a chill guy.

        Loading editor
    • That's Hammerfell job, I'm dragonborn in Skyrim, so I do my job for people who live in Skyrim.

      Saadia now is living in Whiterun, in a bard, and have a peaceful job. So, I help her, I don't know how guilty she is, well, the game don't give me much detail about it, so, what's the point try to guess it? Yeah, I'm stupid, so, I side with Saadia.

        Loading editor
    • saadia is a liar if you think otherwise you are easly deceived

      being chased by speaking aagainst the dominion in hammerfell when hammerfell is againt the dominion?

      no this isnt just a small detail and no it doesnt matter if you find her urn cause she was a traitor its abvious she would get executed

      accept the truth

        Loading editor
    • Ye Kematu is definitely telling the truth, most people side with Saadia cause she is female and most find her hot. I bet if Saadia was a male people would take Kematus side without hesitation. The only thing I hate is you have to lie to help Kematu. But the morally GOOD choice is definitely helping Kematu, murdering 8 alikir for smicitars is also not the right choice...

        Loading editor
    • This whole debate is debate is very interesting.  It reminds me of that episode of Rick and Morty where Rick sells a specialized weapon to the assassin to kill a specific target (the gaseous mind reading being)...Morty finds this morally unaccpetable and takes it upon himself to prevent the assassination; a reluctant Rick (eventually) decided to assist Morty with this task to ensure his grandson's safety.  Their quest to save the gaseous alien results in a massive chase that results in chaos and great loss of innocent life. When they finally succede in getting the alien to safety, the alien explains to Morty that upon returning home to his native galaxy, he plans return  to the milky way with the rest of his kind so they can wipe out all solid life forms. (Morty, then waits until the alien lets his guard down, then kills him with the weapon that Rick initally sold to the assassin.

      I think my point speaks for itself.

        Loading editor
    • It's actually quite amazing that this debate is going on while the game is already this old. I recently started playing with the Special Edition and got to this quest. Actually, I can't make sense of it and I think it's just a case of sloppy writing, for reasons as:

      1) Kematu talks about a city being betrayed to the Dominion. But military operations in Hammerfell ended 20-odd years before the game. Saadia can't be more than 30, max 35 years old. Did she sell the city to the Thalmor as a child? The same applies about the dissident theory. Would really the Thalmor single out a child and persecute her for twenty years for something as widespread as opposition in an occupied city? When that weird priest is badmouthing them all the time in the center of the city?

      2) If Saadia was a Thalmor agent, she could have sought for better places to be protected. Even if the Elves didn't want to shelter her in Alinor, one of the Elsweyr client kingdoms or Cyrodiil would have been better than war-torn Skyrim. If she was an anti-Thalmor voice, then fleeing from Hammerfell wouldn't have make sense. It's not like partisans fleed their countries AFTER the nazis had left. 

      3) Thalmor wouldn't need to employ Redguard mercenaries to hunt down a tavern maid, when they are able to drag people out of their homes at night. 

      4) The prisoner describes Kematu as a guy willing to kill just to maintain cover, but he seems nice and willing to negotiate with the very person having discovered his hideout. On the other hand, he has no official note, no ring, no seal to prove his affiliation. As far as the DB knows, nothing even proves he's a true Alik'r.  

      I just think BethSoft messed up with the timeline and didn't think out the quest properly. Or, if we want an in-universe explanation, it's quite problable that neither side is telling the thruth, and they are bringing about Thalmor references just to mud the waters. It seems like a matter of Hammerfellian political intrigue to me, but we have no way to investigate the thing. But even this theory, which I think is the most likely, conflict with the involvment of Thalmor in the aftermath. So maybe they *are* somewhat involved, but not in the way Saadia and Kematu think. 

        Loading editor
    • she pulled a knife on me, she dies

        Loading editor
    • Who cares? I get to butcher filthy redguards, the worst race in TES. The only negative to this quest is you can't kill more. A DLC to burn Hammerfell to the ground would have been great. Side with her, you get to kill more Sand-people.

        Loading editor
    • I understand both sides, but for me, the poor kahjit's stolen moon amulet was in their room, and they were in a cave full of bandits. If Saadia was a noble who sold out her whole city, I think she'd have a bit more then living above a bar being a waitress, even if she fled. If she was telling the truth, some sell swords who aren't into doing much work themselves seems to fit. 

      Either way, they both want you to do their dirty work and aren;t giving you the full story. But I DO like those scimtars and I have empty weapon racks on my wall

        Loading editor
    • 81.100.29.243 wrote:
      Who cares? I get to butcher filthy redguards, the worst race in TES. The only negative to this quest is you can't kill more. A DLC to burn Hammerfell to the ground would have been great. Side with her, you get to kill more Sand-people.

      Racist thalmor-supporting scum.

        Loading editor
    • I help the Alik'r as she always bothers me when im cooking and the holes in her story me hating the Thalmore (All hail Ulfric Stormcloak) and the Alik'r are bosses even sneaking and I was called out befor I could even see THEM and I was a Khajiit but she felt untrustworthy and I did the quest late game on my first as I tryed to find her and did not check the inn so I killed Alduin and she pulls out a dagger on ME, she is cleary insane.

        Loading editor
    • 81.100.29.243 wrote:

      Who cares? I get to butcher filthy redguards, the worst race in TES. The only negative to this quest is you can't kill more. A DLC to burn Hammerfell to the ground would have been great. Side with her, you get to kill more Sand-people.

      lol what did the redguards do? theyve only ever done good, really. they told the thalmor to fuck right off outta their province, and they have curved swords. curved. swords. and cool clothes. theyre just overall good guys.

        Loading editor
    • I always find this quest funny because I don't get around to bothering with it until late game, if I even bother with it at all.

      As with all ES games, I spend a fair amount of my early game making and enchanting iron daggers. This levels you pretty quickly, but the enchantments, gold, and weapons it gives you access to balances things out.

      Just gathering the resources to do it will grant you enough experience to still handle the enemies once you can enchant a Blade of Finger of God, Bow of Massive Killitude, and Ha, That Enchanted Daedric Sword Tickles Armor of Regen Health, Magica, and Stamina. I also tend to grind Stealth, which helps.

      Also, I think I've played Skyrim without Mods all of once, and I vastly prefer mods that make things harder and add things to the game as opposed to cheat mods. The game is already too broken in your favor for cheats to be all that useful as anything but a way to skip some grinding. In which case, why play an ES game?

      Whatever floats your boat and all that, but I like grinding my way to legitimate Godhood before venturing forth on my quest to steal every Sweetroll in whatever part of Tamriel I'm currently playing in, hoarding every bottle of liquor in the land, building my collection of expensive plates, cabbages, and cheese wheels, sneaking copies of The Lusty Argonian Maid in married men's pockets and giggling about it, seeing how much stuff I can make Lydia carry before she breaks,  stealing the clothes from every resident of every town, making orgy scenes by posing the naked and dismembered bodies of my victims, shouting things off of high places,  keeping Sofia drunk as much as possible, and occasionally killing dragons for fun and profit, mostly fun.

      Anyway, I follow Saadia up the stairs wearing stupidly overpowered enchanted Daedric armor, with an arsenal of stupidly overpowered Daedric weapons, and she pulls an iron dagger on me in a bar maid outfit. That's cute.

      Saadia is a liar, probably a bigger one that the Redguards that are after her. I usually just decide on a whim to be honest. Lore backs up the Redguards story as more true than hers, but doesn't fully support either.

      Sometimes I kill both, though I usually help Saadia. It mostly comes down to how not lazy I'm feeling. Killing the Redguards is pretty much the easier option by that point and requires less running around to complete the quest and get it off my list.

      Plus, I usually don't want to deal with my Dragonborn pretending to be weak for some scam. I've played through as male and female and either way my character is never the type to put up with lying about losing a fight. They might lie to swindle you out of money or goods, but aren't about to pretend to be weak for anyone.

      If I bother with going against her I just kill her. Chances are I'm in the Dark Brotherhood anyway. I just look at it as another job for them. By that point it's not like the gold is really worth the effort.

      At any rate, she might have done something wrong, but selling out Hammerfell to the Elves doesn't jive with the lore. It's probably some political crime or something of that nature, but the lore just doesn't support what she's accused of. I doubt either side has anything to do with the Dominion. Both are trying to use me.

      I really do wish there were better dialogue options in Bethesda games that don't make your character out to be an ingorant and gullible rube who is new to everything in the world and needs everything explained to them as if they just dropped from the sky and don't know basic things about how things work.

      It's especially bad if you're running one or more of the faction organizations and still get treated like a moron who knows nothing about things related to them. I'm the Archmage and likely the most powerful  and prolific magic user that isn't a Daedric Prince in all of Tamriel, but yes, please tell me about the basics of novice spell casting random NPC.

      Fully voiced games were a step back in regard to dialogue options for games like this. It severely limits the system and as a result ends up treating your character like an idiot who knows nothing. That sort of thing should be there for new players, but there should also be more advance "Do you know who the &$^# I am? I am Lord Dinglehopper-Shmidt the IIIrd, the greatest master of this %*&^ing subject in this age!" or "Who the $&%# doesn't kow what a Daedric Prince is?" dialogue options.

      At any rate, both are lying. Saadia probably is a wanted criminal, but probably not for the crime you're told she's guilty of.  I usually side with her anyway, but only because it's less running around. Also, she brings me mead and sometimes sweetrolls.

        Loading editor
    • Contrabardus wrote:
      I always find this quest funny because I don't get around to bothering with it until late game, if I even bother with it at all.

      As with all ES games, I spend a fair amount of my early game making and enchanting iron daggers. This levels you pretty quickly, but the enchantments, gold, and weapons it gives you access to balances things out.

      Just gathering the resources to do it will grant you enough experience to still handle the enemies once you can enchant a Blade of Finger of God, Bow of Massive Killitude, and Ha, That Enchanted Daedric Sword Tickles Armor of Regen Health, Magica, and Stamina. I also tend to grind Stealth, which helps.

      Also, I think I've played Skyrim without Mods all of once, and I vastly prefer mods that make things harder and add things to the game as opposed to cheat mods. The game is already too broken in your favor for cheats to be all that useful as anything but a way to skip some grinding. In which case, why play an ES game?

      Whatever floats your boat and all that, but I like grinding my way to legitimate Godhood before venturing forth on my quest to steal every Sweetroll in whatever part of Tamriel I'm currently playing in, hoarding every bottle of liquor in the land, building my collection of expensive plates, cabbages, and cheese wheels, sneaking copies of The Lusty Argonian Maid in married men's pockets and giggling about it, seeing how much stuff I can make Lydia carry before she breaks,  stealing the clothes from every resident of every town, making orgy scenes by posing the naked and dismembered bodies of my victims, shouting things off of high places,  keeping Sofia drunk as much as possible, and occasionally killing dragons for fun and profit, mostly fun.

      Anyway, I follow Saadia up the stairs wearing stupidly overpowered enchanted Daedric armor, with an arsenal of stupidly overpowered Daedric weapons, and she pulls an iron dagger on me in a bar maid outfit. That's cute.

      Saadia is a liar, probably a bigger one that the Redguards that are after her. I usually just decide on a whim to be honest. Lore backs up the Redguards story as more true than hers, but doesn't fully support either.

      Sometimes I kill both, though I usually help Saadia. It mostly comes down to how not lazy I'm feeling. Killing the Redguards is pretty much the easier option by that point and requires less running around to complete the quest and get it off my list.

      Plus, I usually don't want to deal with my Dragonborn pretending to be weak for some scam. I've played through as male and female and either way my character is never the type to put up with lying about losing a fight. They might lie to swindle you out of money or goods, but aren't about to pretend to be weak for anyone.

      If I bother with going against her I just kill her. Chances are I'm in the Dark Brotherhood anyway. I just look at it as another job for them. By that point it's not like the gold is really worth the effort.

      At any rate, she might have done something wrong, but selling out Hammerfell to the Elves doesn't jive with the lore. It's probably some political crime or something of that nature, but the lore just doesn't support what she's accused of. I doubt either side has anything to do with the Dominion. Both are trying to use me.

      I really do wish there were better dialogue options in Bethesda games that don't make your character out to be an ingorant and gullible rube who is new to everything in the world and needs everything explained to them as if they just dropped from the sky and don't know basic things about how things work.

      It's especially bad if you're running one or more of the faction organizations and still get treated like a moron who knows nothing about things related to them. I'm the Archmage and likely the most powerful  and prolific magic user that isn't a Daedric Prince in all of Tamriel, but yes, please tell me about the basics of novice spell casting random NPC.

      Fully voiced games were a step back in regard to dialogue options for games like this. It severely limits the system and as a result ends up treating your character like an idiot who knows nothing. That sort of thing should be there for new players, but there should also be more advance "Do you know who the &$^# I am? I am Lord Dinglehopper-Shmidt the IIIrd, the greatest master of this %*&^ing subject in this age!" or "Who the $&%# doesn't kow what a Daedric Prince is?" dialogue options.

      At any rate, both are lying. Saadia probably is a wanted criminal, but probably not for the crime you're told she's guilty of.  I usually side with her anyway, but only because it's less running around. Also, she brings me mead and sometimes sweetrolls.

      The redguards are actually telling the truth. They've been at war with those filthy men-hating yellow-skinned elves who thinks they are better than all the other races. That is some lore-supporting fact right there. What other things does Saadia have to back that up?, Nothing. Also keep in mind that the very first conversation she did was pull a dagger out and she attempted to threaten you during the very first conversation furtherly supported by her hesitant tone. Kematu on the other hand, talked in a calm manner and doesn't attack you on-sight unless you started it first. It is indeed clear that she is a thalmor-spy,  All you have to do is snitch on her by teleporting to Rorikstead (If you already visited the place) and talk to those ali'kir warriors and BAM! That is the very first short-way to deal with questline.

      If i wanted sweet-rolls and ale, Then i'll ask a bartender for that. Than have it served by someone who supports the Egomaniacs.

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:

      80.61.49.121 wrote: Found out Saadia was lying, if you search up the City that Kematu mentions it will say in it's 4th era description: "When Hammerfell was fighting against the Aldmeri Dominion in the beginning of the fourth era, the city of Taneth fell to the Dominion after supposedly being betrayed from within. The Alik'r were hired to find the traitor who apparently fled to Whiterun.[5]"

      a wikia article does not count as evidence ​​​​​​

      Said wikia article also only has Kematu as the source

        Loading editor
    • I think this is just another sarcastic quest that the player is asked to do their dirty work, so there isn't much to debate in that respect. And for game wise reason I prefer just leaving the two Alik'r warriors there so that they can help defend the city against vampire attack, dragon attack etc which may result in unwanted death of NPCs such as Adrianne. The guards in Whiterun are all lazy you know.

        Loading editor
    • wikia articles are evidences not proofs

      but they  are evidences

        Loading editor
    • the real question is why do people still even care

        Loading editor
    • Allright lets do this from both sides. First lets assume that Saadia betrayed her city. Nobles would send some badass mercenaries - sure. Would Thalmor help her? After losing the city they wouldn't care for some turncoat. They wouldn't protect her. She would be on her own and forced to use her liquid assets to run away. However if noble families were to send mercenaries, wouldn't they give them some kind of iron letter? If everyone was sure that Saadia is a traitor then yes, they would. But if that is still a matter of debate, then sending mercenaries is more plausible. Now lets assume that Saadia tells the truth and Thalmor did send merceneries after her. Mercenaries make reports which means that the Thalmor would know about Saadia being in Skyrim. Even if mercenaries tried to hide that fact, Thalmor would realise that their mercenaries are within Skyrim, added two to two and came to conclusion that one of their enemies is in Skyrim. Does that mean that Saadia's name would wind up in Thalmor documents at embassy? Not really. There are only dossiers of major players and dangerous agents like Delphine, Esbert and Ulfric. Besides seaking against conquerors after they are driven off is not a reason enough to waste money on mercenaries. And the third option: none of them is telling the truth. Why send mercenaries? Why waste money on someone who left your sphere of influence and obviously no longer poses a threat? Vengeance? The need to prove sth with a public execution? Maybe she knows sth that she shouldn't and needs to be killed just in case? If it was about silencing her, then Kematu wouldn't mind if Dragonborn killed her. On the other hand he could just as well fake his reaction. I come to the conlclusion that we can't be certain of anything. Anything - except of the outcome of our actions. From a moral point of view we have to decide whether to kill one person or eight. If we kill the mercenaries, more may come and more will die. If we kill/handle over Saadia then only one person dies. Or maybe not? What if during her public execution she becomes a martyr and new evidence comes to light about her innocence? That could spark a new confilct within Redguard nobility that would bring more death. One of them may lie. Both of them may lie. And even none of them may lie. We have no evidence - only testimonies of two oposing sides. We can't be certain of anything, even the outcome of our actions.

        Loading editor
    • First off, just wanted to say that it's super interesting how this debate is still going on! There's no doubt that Bethesda left this quest intentionally vague, but maybe it's a good thing - it made an otherwise unremarkable quest go down in Skyrim history.

      From the perspective of who is more likely to be the most honest, I side with Kematu.

      Saadia clearly has something to hide. You don't pretend to be defenceless, lead someone to your room, and then pull a dagger on them. Because this is a video game where the player character will obviously be OP, she doesn't pose much of a threat; but if that happened in real life, she would be serious about killing you then and there. If she's willing to kill a stranger just for mentioning the Alik'r, what else might she be willing to do?

      Also, as others have said: she says she doesn't know the Alik'r were close, yet she knows one of them is in the Whiterun prison? A lie as clear as day.

      Hammerfell is publicly opposed to the Aldmeri. A noble of Hammerfell would not be forced to flee her homeland for speaking out against a public enemy of that land. The only reason she would flee is if she betrayed her own people. Not to mention she's being pursued by her own people as well. If the Aldmeri really did want her dead, it would be the Thalmor after her--and if the Thalmor were really after her, the Bannered Mare is not going to be nearly enough to stop them.

      If you go to the Swindler's Den and make it to Kematu, he wants to talk. He's even willing to forgive you for killing some of his own men. He also predicts the fake name that Saadia uses (it's reasonable to believe that he hasn't personally come into contact with Saadia yet and wouldn't have heard her use that name, otherwise he would have captured her already), so he knew Saadia on a personal level at one point. All this indicates that bringing her back ALIVE is his top priority. It isn't just a matter of vengeance or tying up loose ends; it's a matter of pride and honour.

      If you lie to Saadia, bring her to the stable, and kill her before Kematu can paralyze her, he says this: "All that effort, and you just kill her. You've ruined everything." 

      To top all this off, there is a book in the game which states that there is a Redguard traitor hiding in Whiterun. Bethesda took the time to write and implement hundreds of books, and each and every one serves a purpose.

      At the end of the day, you've got someone who's willing to kill you for saying something, and someone who's willing to talk to you after you slaughter their companions. Also, there are many people arguing for Kematu and many arguing for both sides being manipulative liars. But very few directly support Saadia...

      So whether you look at their individual behaviour or use logic to put the facts together, it is what it is.

      (And for the people saying that it's more NPCs asking you to do their dirty work, that's kind of what the game is about. That's how quests work. If nobody gave you anything to do, it would make a very boring game.)

        Loading editor
    • The main reason I always side with Saadia is so that she can keep helping out in the Bannered Mare cause Hulda deserves a break. In addition, Hulda considers handing over the inn to Saadia so she can retire. Who am I to keep an innkeeper from their hard-earned retirement?

        Loading editor
    • When you think about the state of Tamriel during Skyrim's civil war, several of the "holes" start to make sense when looked at from a written point of view, regardless of how well the game portrays them.

      Saadia hides in a war-torn country probably because in all the chaos it may prove quite difficult to find her, and her pursuers may get caught up in the fighting and die or decide it isn't worth the risk. 

      She chose to hide in Whiterun as at the start of the game it is the only city in Skyrim which holds a neutral stand-point in relation to the civil war (although the Jarl is leaning towards supporting the Empire and the Thalmor by default, but this isn't really relevant). This could be in an effort to avoid arousing suspicion of a newcoming arriving into a faction city and being subjected to questioning. 

      The Dominion would not openly support a foreign advocate in such a situation. Doing so might lead to the resuming of hostilities with the only country who successfully resisted them, and is not so heavily influenced by them compared to provinces such as Skyrim and Cyrodiil. They clearly would rather focus their efforts on taking over the weaker parts of Tamriel before entering such a fight.

      If the Thalmor did protect her, it would give creedance to the Ali'Kir claims that she was a thalmor associate. They also might view her as nothing more than a pawn in their long game, not worth the effort to protect, which is why she's alone.

      Maybe the Thalmor want her dead too, to keep her silent. That would have been a cool detail, and it would explain why she would be reluctant to trust the Dragonborn initially.

        Loading editor
    • 92.238.159.169 wrote:

      ...Maybe the Thalmor want her dead too, to keep her silent. That would have been a cool detail, and it would explain why she would be reluctant to trust the Dragonborn initially.

      i actually think this is a good assumption, a theory that saadia is hiding from bth sides, veery interesting! (the rest is pretty good too, i just wanted to talk about this part)

        Loading editor
    • For me, I killed Kematu because first there's no way in hell that a proper legitimate military personel would rely on petty bandits... And lastly because he and his men are nothing but a bunch of coward saracen dogs who would rely even on useless bandits just for protection... I mean, what are they even afraid of?

        Loading editor
    • Reaper666th wrote:
      For me, I killed Kematu because first there's no way in hell that a proper legitimate military personel would rely on petty bandits... And lastly because he and his men are nothing but a bunch of coward saracen dogs who would rely even on useless bandits just for protection... I mean, what are they even afraid of?

      Kematu never wanted to kill you at all. Saadia is the one who pulled a dagger against you and attempted to threaten your life. You sided with the manipulative liar.

        Loading editor
    • are you saying if somebody strolled into town and asked about soldiers looking for you, you wouldnt be cautious?

        Loading editor
    • I always side with Saadia on this one. I don't think she's telling the truth, but I don't believe Kematu is telling the truth either. Since her guilt can't be proven, I'm not comfortable turning her over to a band of mercenaries wielding curved swords (hell, I wouldn't hand over Nazeem without some damn evidence, and he's...you know...Nazeem). Also, I'm Thane of Whiterun and she's a resident of my city, so I feel honorbound to protect her. Whatever the intrigues of Hammerfell, they really don't concern me. I'm not wild about chopping down Kematu's crew from a moral standpoint, however, by the time I get there I have no choice but to betray a woman with no actual evidence against her or fight for my own skin, so down they go.

        Loading editor
    • 75.97.239.173 wrote:
      I always side with Saadia on this one. I don't think she's telling the truth, but I don't believe Kematu is telling the truth either. Since her guilt can't be proven, I'm not comfortable turning her over to a band of mercenaries wielding curved swords (hell, I wouldn't hand over Nazeem without some damn evidence, and he's...you know...Nazeem). Also, I'm Thane of Whiterun and she's a resident of my city, so I feel honorbound to protect her. Whatever the intrigues of Hammerfell, they really don't concern me. I'm not wild about chopping down Kematu's crew from a moral standpoint, however, by the time I get there I have no choice but to betray a woman with no actual evidence against her or fight for my own skin, so down they go.

      So you have no problem killing eight men who might just as well be innocent and telling the truth and are just doing their job trying to bring a traitor to justice? All because of one pretty face?

      At the end of the day, the facts are:

      1. We DON'T know for sure if Kematu is lying, he might be lying or he might be telling the truth. 2. We DO know for sure that Saadia is lying because she claims she's wanted for speaking against the dominion in hammerfell but hammerfell is actually against the dominion. 3. Saadia wants Kematu and his crew dead. 4. Kematu and his crew don't want Saadia dead and want her alive instead.

      So on one hand you have a proven liar who wants you to slaughter eight men without any question versus a group of people who want to arrest someone and take them alive without any bloodshed AND wanted to talk things through even when they clearly outnumbered you and had the chance to kill you.

      If it weren't for the whole damsel in distress thing, it would be pretty clear that the best option is to side with the Alik'r since that's the path with the least bloodshed. Even if we don't know if Kematu is telling the truth we know for sure that Saadia is lying, so even if she's not guilty of what Kematu claims she's still guilty of something since she wouldn't try to hide it and lie to you otherwise.

      I'd rather not take the lives of eight men, who I have no proof of that they're lying, by listening to someone who I actually know for a fact that she's lying.

        Loading editor
    • My Dragonborn is an Orc.  Bardoc the Bruiser.  Bardoc doesn't like that they dragged him into their politics.  He leads Saadia to the stables and once Kematu pays him he piledriver kills Kematu and loots his body.  When Saadia wakes up and attacks him he beheads her and loots her body (no bounty gained). He then goes back to the cave, kills all the Alik'r and loots their bodies and the entire cave.  He heads straight to Whiterun, sells all loot for seps, and throws a cut to his housecarl because she cracks many skulls in his name. 

      On the road he goads all Thalmor into fights so he can kill them, loot their bodies, and trade their gear for seps.  Bardoc has lots and lots of money.  He gives to beggars and orphans, never kills foxes, and dreams of his chance to kill Ulfric so he can loot his body and sell his stuff for seps.

        Loading editor
    • 99.13.118.232 wrote:
      My Dragonborn is an Orc.  Bardoc the Bruiser.  Bardoc doesn't like that they dragged him into their politics.  He leads Saadia to the stables and once Kematu pays him he piledriver kills Kematu and loots his body.  When Saadia wakes up and attacks him he beheads her and loots her body (no bounty gained). He then goes back to the cave, kills all the Alik'r and loots their bodies and the entire cave.  He heads straight to Whiterun, sells all loot for seps, and throws a cut to his housecarl because she cracks many skulls in his name. 

      On the road he goads all Thalmor into fights so he can kill them, loot their bodies, and trade their gear for seps.  Bardoc has lots and lots of money.  He gives to beggars and orphans, never kills foxes, and dreams of his chance to kill Ulfric so he can loot his body and sell his stuff for seps.

      I wish I had a FANDOM account so I could give kudos to this message :D

      Long live Bardoc the Bruiser! Seems like a great guy especially since he never kills foxes.

      May he kill many more on his adventures, loot their bodies and sell their stuff for seps!

        Loading editor
    • Yes definite props to Bardoc the Bruiser, 10/10 would fight by his side.

        Loading editor
    • My god, I think I am an utter moron. In was using clairvoyance to try and team her down, not really knowing a thing about this quest. However, I apparently managed to select the quest where you get the first part of the whirlwind shout. I go there, barely making it through the death lord ad dying 21 times. I get the shout, run the fray away from the boss (level 8 btw), and then I notice the quest is gone after I get back to the beginning. That's when I look it up, and I flip out. But anyways, enough ranting. I agree with the girl, though I am slightly suspicious. Sorry for making you read all that:).

        Loading editor
    • I've decided that the only thing we know for sure about this quest, other than the same things people keep citing over and over, is that it strongly supports the idea of confirmation bias. The woman is guilty or innocent depending upon one's pre-existing notions regarding a variety of factors involved in the quest. The truth is that the truth in this storyline does not matter. It's just whatever you want to believe it to be.

      Having said that, I'll go ahead and share my choices and reasoning--then there'll be one more comment on the interwebz regarding something nobody will care about in 100 years. Consider that for a moment and let it sink in. How much of what you do will matter in 2 or 3 generations? You can change that if you want to.

      I usually side with Saadia. Why?

      1. The quest name suggests something about the reality--"In My Time of Need." This is a literary technique used to suggest something about the state of mind of the central figure--Saadia. Villains and assassins don't generally think that way. Oh, sure, mundane I'm-not-evil-I'm-just-... (insert whatever you want here--following orders, getting by, making a living) types might think that way, but this is generally meant to indicate the person feels persecuted or victimized. Such persons are not always innocent, but they are more likely in need of help than armed thugs. I know there are exceptions, but without more to go on, I'll side with the persecuted every day of the week. Now, if she deserved the attention she got, that's a different story, but I'm not given enough to know that, so I'll err on the side of caution, generosity, kindness, and the underdog. Prove me wrong after the fact, and well, accidents can happen any time and place.

      2. The thugs looking for her can randomly be seen out in the countryside of Skyrim harassing lone women on the road. You want to convince me you're the good guys, but you're harassing people you might want to escort to a safe place like an inn or something? You can jump in a lake.

      3. You don't know anyone in the country, but you're claiming you're an enemy of the High Elves--in a country about to be in open civil war, and your homeland/employers have a bitter enmity against the empire, yet, instead of holding up with Stormcloaks or Ulfric sympathizers while seeking this woman, you hold up in the imperial half of Skyrim... with a bunch of bandits... in a cave, a cave known as Swindler's Den. You can jump in a lake.

      4. You walk around speaking finely and trying to seem reasonable, but you leave one of your own behind to rot in prison because he was captured--and doing what? Having seen the guards run the other two out of Whiterun,  I'm still clueless about what he actually did. He had a curved sword perhaps? They all did. At any rate, any group who claim to be the best, who willingly abandon their own, are dishonorable scum. You never leave anyone behind, ever.

      5. If you do hand her over to be taken back for trial, she ends up in the Hall of the Dead. Hmmm.... How'd that happen?

      6. I like things to go in my personal arsenal, trophy rooms, etc. I also like money. I also like killing scum who hide in caves and pretend to be something they aren't. 20 guys surrounding the entrance with curved swords against me. Sounds like a fair fight. (And it isn't anywhere close to 20, but that always plays well to the ladies at the tavern afterward.)

      7. In the end, there were two parties seeking a favorable resolution. Both of them lied to the lawgiver, both of them paid for their lies in like kind. The woman got what remained of her crappy life back--and paid me for the privilege. The man got his eternal reward in the afterlife--and paid me for the privilege.. albeit post mortem. Justice is served.

        Loading editor
    • I reiterate what I have always said.

      Help Kematu, betray him after he pays you, magic Saadia's money out of her by charming her with illusions, then kill her too. Loot everything. Profiting from the situation is the least you can do.

      I mean, you don't even have to decide on taking sides if you killed both sides. You get more profit too.

        Loading editor
    • Warning: English is not my main language.

      If you look into CK, you find that Mralki and Saadia are friends. This leads to believe Saadia's story is obviously an unfinished one, and probably Mralki would have had a role to play in it if the quest would have been developed furthermore. For those who wonder who Mralki is, the man is the owner of the Frostfruit Inn in Rorikstead, and a veteran of the Great War for the Empire. And as with most characters in the game, not much details are explained on his past…to leave the player fill in the wholes with its imagination. Stating your beliefs upon the faction you aligned yourself, or moral judgement, is totally irrelevant, when almost no facts are available.

      I also find difficult to believe such a young woman could have played a determinant role in the capture of Taneth by the Dominion, on the other hand there is something shady about her, probably not personal, but by the nobility she represents for house Suda.

      When it comes to Mralki’s feeling about the Legion, we see he’s reluctant to give away information about the location of the Imperial courier by saying "I tend to keep my patrons' privacy.", from the False Front quest line if you align with the Stormcloaks.  The Wiki mentions he is still in the Legion’s faction, which is not true, check the CK, but this sole action in the game is enough to conclude his loyalty seems real.

      As for facts, this is in my opinion the best we can get, Saadia is friend with a veteran Legionnaire, her only relation in Skyrim. And that is really not much to conclude anything; as far I can tell, I found no hidden (unused) dialogues between the two since I looked a lot into the sultry lines for a mod I do. Also, if you put the two side by side, there is no interaction. Something was planned about them in development phase…and abandoned. Still, this unique friendship is something, I seriously doubt she can be aligned with the Dominion as a traitor to her people, but I could see her in a diplomatic/spying role though, if her quest would have been pushed on furthermore. Up to imagination, these two are not prime actors, their story is probably irrelevant to TES lore in its present state.

        Loading editor
    • 69.181.192.223 wrote: I might of noticed something, disregarding both sides and the stories themselves, the game seems to put a lot of focus on taking the coward's route out. THe coward's route is kematu becuase instead of taking the eight warriors head on, you get a potentially inoccent woman captured. And it has you lie to saadia that your own strengh wasn't enough, calling yourself weak as if the game mocks you. So it leads me to wonder, why would the game spit at your foot almost? I wonder...... not to mention it tries as hard as it can to bring the crushing guilt of betraying someone's trush on you

      Siding with Kematu doesn't mean that the player is a coward; it seems that he/she thinks he's the more trustworthy person.

        Loading editor
    • Remember guys, as Sanji said "A real man is someone who forgives a woman for her lies." I stand with Saadia 😎

        Loading editor
    • 112.207.104.104 wrote:
      wikia articles are evidences not proofs

      but they  are evidences

      No, they're really not evidence. In-game evidence is evidence. As someone already pointed out, the wikia article in question only lists Kematu as a source, which brings us back to the unsolvable issue of this quest, in that - as these sorts of quests always are - it's a case of he said/she said.

        Loading editor
    • well said

        Loading editor
    • its matters like these that should be heard and determined in court 

        Loading editor
    • ... Mmm so accorrding to some people's logic, Saadia "sold Hammerfell out to the Aldmeri Dominion" so she could tend bar and clean rooms at The Bannered Mare... I suppose there was no dragon and Helgen was really an inside job. And the Winterhold College Tragedy was a false flag operation and Savros Arven is just another crisis actor; also I guess Delphine is really a shill for the Thalmor and she is only just improvising the Dragonborn's next adventures following a botched ambush that took place within the Thalmor Embassy, and she also takes part in Black Sacraments with the other paedophiles in the Dark Brotherhood :/

        Loading editor
    • One thing I have learned about people in general is they run if they feel their life is in danger, innocent or guilty. if they do not believe in the power of the system they will be judged under as innocent they run, if they feel they will be judged fairly as guilty they will run.

      Here lies the inconsistencies, if she knew or said something she wasnt supposed to she would be silenced ASAP via asassin, and what better 'clean kill' to say she was colateral damage in the CIvil War.  From various dialogues all other nations know full well Skyrim is in a Civil War, its no secret and those other nations are doing what they can to make a profit, as would and does happen IRL, a Nobel fleeing to such a chaotic nation would be to disuade pursuers and trake advantage of the chaos to provide an asylum.

      Given the lengths to which she is being pursued and alive at that, it stinks of a Nobles 'game' for power, likely using manipulated/misinformation to make her appear traitor to further themselves, and their dedicated pursuit of 'justice' bringign her back to trial. The Alik'r may very well believe those who hired them was under the pretext that she was a traitor and running from persecution as she is likely being framed as back in Hammerfell, turning the people against her using superficial and circumstancial evidence.

      Case and point, they NEED her alive, politics is a dirty business, the more ignorant your people, the easier it is to sway, like Farengar says: "Straight to the point, eh? No need for tedious hows and whys. I like that. Leave those details to your betters, am I right?"  Just like how religion was created to expalin the unexplainable, then twisted into a tool to control the ignorant masses.

      Is she guilty of anything other than her Noble birth? Likely only that she is naiev to how politics work as nobility and got a rude awakening.  Either way both sides of the conflict are trying to use the situation of Skyrim to their advantage to gain support for their cause, desperation does that.  Why after doing this quest my first playthrough, I never took sides again.

        Loading editor
    • You can tell who is telling the truth by a few hints:

      When you first meet the Alik'r warriors in Whiterun, they are stopped by guards which don't let them walk around town to get their suspected traitor, Saadia. If asked, why are they looking for her, they refuse to provide reason. That alone is doesn't show the Alik'r in best light at least. If they had an underlying reason to take Saadia away, they would have some kind of order from higher places in Hammerfell, they would not be hiding their intentions. And they would get an official order to arrest her, but seems like they don't have good relationships with either emperor or their influence simply isn't enough powerful in Skyrim. That leaves them with no choice but to forcefully drag Saadia back to Hammerfell and execute her.

      While I don't believe Saadia story fully, I believe her arguments a little bit more. From her story, especially questionable is the part that she claims to be wanted by Thalmor. Even though Thalmor has a lot of influence not only in Skyrim but probably some in Hammerfell, I really doubt they would be looking for her because she is part of the Hamerfell nobility. But the fact that she had to change her name says she needed to get rid of her history in Hammerfell. What is the true reason of her being chased to another part of Tamriel, is still a little bit of mystery.

      My theory is, that the nobility in Hammerfell started to lose influence and the warriors of Alik'r successfully started some rebellions in cities situated by the great Alik'r desert, forcing nobility to retreat. The argument that Saadia betrayed Alik'r might have been an excuse. Well, it still doesn't really explain why would they've been chasing her even through province that's not their home.

      The whole truth might never be known and it's was probably the intention of Bethesda developers to let everyone make their own story of this.

      Actually this quest can be related to some famous refugees we see today in real world. There is always some truth in what the refugees are saying and sometimes there is part of the truth in the nations that are trying to arrest them abroad, they sometimes send agents or even try to murder those people when they fail all the attempts to bring them to justice.

        Loading editor
    • It's fun reading the comments here of people trying to find who's the bad guy and who's the good. And what's more fun is that I'm commenting in this article for a game that has been released way back 2011. Damn this game is really good.

      That aside, on my first play of this quest, I was only thinking of what's the best choice, and that is answerable by which one has greater rewards. Of course I chose to sell Sadia, kill Kematu, then calm Saadia, then ask her to pay me.

      But after reading the comments here of people finding loopholes of each other's sides, I am more willing to side with Saadia at this point.

      This is what I believed in so far:

      1. Sadia was a noble. A great noble who has enough influence or has done something enough to make a group of Alik'r men to track her, and drag her back ALIVE to Hammerfell. If she isn't then they could have assassinated her in the first place.

      2. The Thalmor part is nothing but an excuse for both sides to incite the Dragonborn, or any other Skyrim resident, coz almost everyone in Skyrim (especially the Nords) hate those yellow knife-eared bastards.

      3. Both sides are clever in their words. Or the Dragonborn is an idiot. Both sides made use of the Thalmor's bad reputation to incite the heart of the Dragonborn.

      Whatever happened to them in the past, I don't know. What is important is the present. Saadia is now a powerless barmaid in the Bannered Mare. When she pulled her knife I first thought she's going to kill herself rather than to get caught, then get the Dragonborn charged with murder in the process. (But we know that it does not work to this game where these paper NPC's chase out a freaking dragon with their butter daggers). A desperate move for a desperate woman. Kematu only talks to you once you "proven your strength" to him, and that is by killing all the bandits you encounter in that dungeon they're hiding. Meaning you can't be dealt with by brute force that easily. Clever punk does not want to die eh?

      Putting facts aside, why is the quest entitled "In My Time of Need"? Just who is needing help in this quest? And why, of all the caves in Skyrim, would Kematu choose to reside in a lair called "SWINDLER'S DEN"???? I think it's an obvious subliminal messaging.

        Loading editor
    • It sounds to me like Kematu is telling the truth. Let's play through the series of events:

      Saadia betrays her city to the AD.The city falls and Saadia lives the high life there, in a position of wealth and trust, since the AD are grateful to her. Those who still live in the city, but hate the AD become aware that Saadia is the one responsible for the fall of the city, so they hire some local mercs/ assassins to properly repay her for role in toppling their city. Saadia survives the first attempt on her life, thanks to her AD allies and/ or bodyguards. She realises, however, that sooner or later, she's toast, so she flees the city to try to start a new life under an assumed name...

      ... Leading us to Skyrim.



      To find out if this is true, all we need is the current status of the city of Taneth. If it is in AD hands, then Kematu has the truth of it. If not, then Kematu is lying. Unfortunately, all reports seem to indicate Taneth has indeed fallen.

      Ps: The AD doesn't seem to care about people who 'bad mouth' them, certainly not to the point of sending expensive assassins after them! I'm inclined to believe Kematu.

        Loading editor
    • Look ill say this...at that time the high elves WARED WITH THE REDGUARDS and saadia speaking out,againts the diminin was like CHINA saying fuck trump. and if u ask the lady in solitude aka the redguard envoy she says whats a alikr and if u say WHAT there are aka warrior's for hammer fell she says bo there assassins PS,SAADIAS URN US IN THE HALL OF THE DEAD IF U SIDE EITH THR ALIKR

        Loading editor
    • eh watch yer language brah

        Loading editor
    • We don't know if Saadia's ashes in the Hall of the Dead mean that she was killed. If a character is taken out of the game, Bethseda puts their ashes in the Hall of the Dead.

      We don't know if that's an oversight or canon yet.

        Loading editor
    • "If a character is taken out of the game, Bethseda puts their ashes in the Hall of the Dead."

      Not to disagree but doesn't somebody get placed in the hall if they are KILLED? 

        Loading editor
    • ummm I asked on the Bethesda help and hints web site and it was confirmed in skyrim that the ashes of dead saadia if kamato gets her ass is in the HoTD i have several Youtube Videos confirming it and one from The Bethesda help and hints web site soooo yea and its even in Skyrim code and dont say "AND how would you know that" cuz my ANSWER would be thats how people make game mods...Alter game code

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley
      The Beautiful Princess Ashley removed this reply because:
      unnecessary hostility
      13:58, October 10, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley
      The Beautiful Princess Ashley removed this reply because:
      reply to removed message
      13:58, October 10, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • One thing kept bothering me about this quest. A lot of people have mentioned if she were fleeing the TAD then why would she go to Skyrim or better yet why would she go to Whiterun of all places? Kematu mentions that she is a noble and it makes sense that she would be better protected from the TAD in Hammerfell since the treaty saw the retraction of their forces from Hammerfell. They are actively against the TAD. That leads me to believe she fled for other reasons like part of Hammerfells royalty supports them while others don't and since she doesn't she must be silenced. I usually side with her. Why else would she flee Hammerfell unless the royals there wanted to kill her. Plus if Kematu is working with the Thalmor then why isn't he allowed in Whiterun? It's a legion controlled city which is under the employ of the TAD. His story makes less sense than hers.

        Loading editor
    • 2605:6000:ECC8:9D00:A41F:6E21:3AFA:3F82 wrote:
      This whole debate is debate is very interesting.  It reminds me of that episode of Rick and Morty...

      Stop - just, oh my f**king god, please stop right there...

        Loading editor
    • Saadia is clearly the truthful one...irrefutable evidence as follows.

      1) The timeline doesn't add up: Kematu says she sold out a city that led to it's fall, but Hammerfell pushed out the Dominion a good 20 years ago, going by the 3rd/4th era timeline on this site. That would mean the city fell, and was recaptured, at least 20 years ago. Using the high estimate (imo) of Saadia's age as 35, this would make her 15 at the oldest when she "sold out the city." Also, why would Kematu only be coming after her now, 20 years later?

      2) Just because Hammerfell pushed back the Dominion 20 years ago, doesn't mean that their government is trying to become hostile with the Dominion at this time. they have had peace for 20 years after a tough war, and not all factions of their government would be pro war at this point. However, Saadia could have been a voice speaking out against the growing Dominion influence in other countries, arguing that a more aggressive stance should be taken against the Dominion. If this wasn't already the consensus in the Hammerfell government, the Dominion and their spies would want to quiet her as soon as possible.

      3) It's obvious that Kematu and his men are thuggish mercenaries at best. They are clearly doing it for money, not for duty as an official Hammerfell task force would be.

        Loading editor
    • What a lot of people aren't considering is that if Kematu was working for the Thalmor, they'd be using Thalmor influence to better search the towns. Any hold that had loyalty to the Empire would pretty much have to abide by Thalmor will if they were searching for someone. Surely the Thalmor would think up a better reason for her capture other than she worked for them. It just doesn't make sense that they were working for the Thalmor because pretty much no hold allows them to thoroughly search for her.



      It makes more sense that she worked for them by letting them in the city back in Hammerfell. Her aiding them doesn't mean she'd be protected by them though. She was probably bribed and then had to flee when she was discovered. The Thalmor aren't really the type to reward loyalty from outsiders unless they can continue to prove useful to them. Once that usefulness is gone, they don't care. We see this during the College of Winterhold quests. The Thalmor guy there, no matter how cooperative you are with him, always tries to kill you once your usefulness runs out. So it makes more sense that Saadia(Imam) just helped them then fled. It doesn't really make sense that Kematu was with the Thalmor because otherwise they'd be able to carry around a letter or something from the Thalmor that would make any Empire loyal holds to cooperate with their search.

        Loading editor
    • there's no real point is trying to figure out who is right, the quest is intentionally written as a mystery. you do the best you can with your roleplaying, make the judgement your character would feel it's best.

      As for us real humans behind the keyboard, it's only human nature to wonder about the real outcome to see if our characters made the "right" choice or not. Unfortunately for us, there is no real right choice, no matter how much we can go back and forth. Every argument for Saadia and be countered, in the same vein as every argument for Kematu can also be countered due to the sheer lack of evidence and truths on both sides. I'll use what I found to be the most common reasons given on this post as an example: 

      If Saadia is innocent, then her knife pulling can be attributted to fear. She's been chased out of her home, forced to live in a foreign country as a low paid barmaid dealing with drunk nords. And here is this stranger asking about her and mentioning the Alik'r. Of course she'd panic. She hasn't seen the Alik'r herself, but she's overheard the offduty guards mention a foreign redguard mercenary thrown in prison. Kematu's calm demeanor is due to him being an experienced mercenary. He knows a friendly smile can do more for his cause than threatening everybody he meets. That's why he's in charge of the operation, and not his constantly accusatory grunts. Her story is not far-fetched on its own, though she likely did more than simply speak out against the thalmor to be wanted for capture. Even though the mercenaries are her own people, they're still mercenaries. They'll take the thalmor gold, and the thalmor will be pleased to have themselves distanced from this little embarrassment. Saadia is innocent!

      Using the same arguments for the otherside now:

      If Saadia is lying, her knife pulling was an act of desperation. She knew the alik'r were in town looking for her, so she plays the damsel in distress knowing full well one of them was in prison. And here is this mysterious stranger hanging onto every word. Wouldn't it be wonderful if this stranger killed them off for her? Or even if he got killed in the process, then good riddance, they were a liability.  Kematu is far more relaxed in his demeanor. He's sent to this too-cold province on what is basically a glorified escort quest, he has no reason to be rough on a possible lead. If this stranger can help him, great. If not, then whatever, they'll find her eventually. And the sooner they find her, the sooner they can go back home. Best case scenario, she stands trial but honestly the damage is already done anyhow. She betrayed her country and the thalmor betrayed her in turn providing her no protection or means to live. She's already lost. Kematu at this point only wants the job done so he and his men can go back home and collect their gold. Saadia is guilty!

      It's such a simple thing, but quite ingenious to whichever quest creator did this one all those years ago. All in all, the right answer basically boils down to which of the four outcomes your character opted to take. She's guilty, she's innocent, they're both liars, or just walk away and don't get involved in this political mess :)

        Loading editor
    • what Saadi say just don't make any sense 

      why she should talk about aldemri dominion she say little why 

      because she want to hide something 

      the mercenaries are not lying 

      she is afraid and when you are afraid like that its for sure you hiding somethings and are lying 

        Loading editor
    • I think one of the most convincing arguments is that: Every time the thalmor want to hunt someone down for being a heretic they do it themselves. They believe mer are superior to men. I think if saadia was telling the truth then there would be dominion hunters. But to be honest I reckon they are both lying a bit. To try and get someone to help them, neither of their stories can be that clean. 

        Loading editor
    • Kematu is telling the truth. I say that with 100% certainty.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: Kematu is telling the truth. I say that with 100% certainty.

      can you give any arguments for it though?

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:

      Ifnsman wrote: Kematu is telling the truth. I say that with 100% certainty.

      can you give any arguments for it though?

      Ditto. I would like to see your evidence.

        Loading editor
    • CatholicPrincess15 wrote:

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:

      Ifnsman wrote: Kematu is telling the truth. I say that with 100% certainty.

      can you give any arguments for it though?
      Ditto. I would like to see your evidence.

      Can you think of any reason why Alik'r warriors would work for the Thalmor? How would such a task fit their philosophy?

      Saadia even calling them "Alik'r", and claiming them to be mercenaries, was her last mistake.

      Saadia pulls a dagger on you. Regardless of her being afraid of capture, that is a bad move to pull on anyone when you're supposed to be "innocent".

      Lastly, Kematu paralyzes her and proves her "assassin" claim to be a lie.

        Loading editor
    • The Alik'r are telling the truth. Ok done, question answered.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: Can you think of any reason why Alik'r warriors would work for the Thalmor? How would such a task fit their philosophy?

      Saadia even calling them "Alik'r", and claiming them to be mercenaries, was her last mistake.

      Saadia pulls a dagger on you. Regardless of her being afraid of capture, that is a bad move to pull on anyone when you're supposed to be "innocent".

      Lastly, Kematu paralyzes her and proves her "assassin" claim to be a lie.

      Oops. I actually read your original post as Saadia was innocent.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: Can you think of any reason why Alik'r warriors would work for the Thalmor? How would such a task fit their philosophy? Saadia even calling them "Alik'r", and claiming them to be mercenaries, was her last mistake.


      It appears that you seem to believe that if one is an Alik'r, then they cannot commit wrong doing, but I would have to disagree. Anyone can be a mercenary, regardless of background; dessert bandits are especially common in general due to the desolate nature of the region, so I'm positive that Alik'r mercenaries are more common than you think.

      Saadia pulls a dagger on you. Regardless of her being afraid of capture, that is a bad move to pull on anyone when you're supposed to be "innocent".

      I can agree with you that that was a stupid idea, although in her defense, she might be running away from death, so it wouldn't surprise me. In any case, I don't believe Saadia is telling the whole truth anyway.

      Lastly, Kematu paralyzes her and proves her "assassin" claim to be a lie.

      I wouldn't use that as evidence for much of anything. She might be running from death, but whoever wants her that way could want to kill her him/herself. If they are mercenaries, they might have "other plans," if you know what I mean.

      If you want to know my opinion, it's that neither are telling the truth, and are using the Thalmor ploy to appeal to the Dragonborn in order to settle some personal squabble.

        Loading editor
    • Well, Saadia could've pulled the knife because she was afraid she was getting kidnapped or murdered.

        Loading editor
    • I side with Saadia because I don't see her running around threatening random redguard men she finds out on the road and then getting all huffy when it's suggested she's an incompetent moron that can't be bothered to notice the lack of an important identifying mark before badgering somebody.

        Loading editor
    • Ottoman Hold wrote:

      It appears that you seem to believe that if one is an Alik'r, then they cannot commit wrong doing, but I would have to disagree. Anyone can be a mercenary, regardless of background; dessert bandits are especially common in general due to the desolate nature of the region, so I'm positive that Alik'r mercenaries are more common than you think.

      Wrong. I believe that if one is an Alik'r nomad, then they're simply not going to join or work with the Thalmor.

      Whether it's "wrongdoing" is a matter of perspective. The Alik'r, even as "mercenaries", are only out to physically better themselves as per their own culture. Do tell me how assassinating a fugitive, or handing her over to the Thalmor, somehow furthers that goal? 

      Saadia's very implication when she calls them "mercenaries" is that they'd been paid to kill her.  They're more like bounty hunters, and even then, they're obviously doing this for more than just money.

        Loading editor
    • Ottoman Hold wrote: I wouldn't use that as evidence for much of anything. She might be running from death, but whoever wants her that way could want to kill her him/herself. If they are mercenaries, they might have "other plans," if you know what I mean.

      If you want to know my opinion, it's that neither are telling the truth, and are using the Thalmor ploy to appeal to the Dragonborn in order to settle some personal squabble.

      And I would still use that as evidence. The point being that the Alik'r aren't assassins, and Kematu uses a paralyze spell in order to capture & bring her back to Hammerfell.

      It's already self-evident that bringing Saadia to justice (Redguard justice) could easily result in her death, because she is responsible for selling out the city of Taneth to the Dominion, resulting in its destruction during the Great War.

      For such a cowardly act, I can see why the punishment of death would be the end-result regardless.

        Loading editor
    • You may be a die-hard Kematu supporter, but I am on neither side, to be honest...so let's poke some holes in his story:

      "'ll gladly share a portion of the bounty in return for your efforts."
      This statement makes me immediately suspicious. Apparently, Kematu and the Alik'r were paid before bringing her back, which is rarely done for something like this unless the payment is needed up front, like with a mercenary. His dialogue at the stables already confirms that he is but a minion to the "noble houses of Teneth" if he's telling the truth, and if not, then it becomes even more suspect. In addition, if killed after Saadia is brought to the stables, he will have an additional sum of gold on him, numbering in the hundreds. Considering that they had already hired bandits to "protect them" in Swindler's Den, the "Alik'r" have way too much money to simply be searching for a fugitive that all of Hammerfell wants found.

      "She sold the city out to the Aldmeri Dominion. Were it not for her betrayal, Taneth could have held its ground in the war."
      I've said this before in another thread, and I'll say it again: how could a single noble "sell out" an entire city to have it fall? During a siege, warriors are defending the city; if it could have "held its ground," then it had ample forces and supplies to last until the invalids from the Imperial legion arrived. I suppose it's possible that she could have revealed a secret entrance, but honestly, that's highly doubtful; after all, why would Kematu leave out such a simple detail to prevent confusion? I feel that using vague words like he does here only causes more doubt; surely someone telling a true story would know that.

      "The resistance against the Dominion is alive and well in Hammerfell, and they want justice."
      What "resistance?" Hammerfell isn't controlled by the Dominion! The Redguards are currently neutral, but seeing as they fought against them for years after the Empire, the nation would certainly hate them greatly, especially considering the desolation that occurred during the war to the southern cities. It would make far more sense if Kematu stated something along the lines of, "Hammerfell has retained its disdain for the Dominion since the war, and still want justice for the atrocities committed." While Kematu's statement doesn't prove the Alik'r are necessarily working for the Dominion, it does confuse me every time I read or hear the line.

      Another fun little detail about Kematu is that he will become hostile if a spell of any kind is cast on him. While this proves nothing, along with the other points, cast an even larger shadow.

      The doubt also comes from the generic warriors as well when asked for more information:
      "It's none of your concern. All you need to know is that we're paying for information. If that doesn't interest you, feel free to walk away."
      If you're looking for a fugitive, does it not feel counter-productive to be withholding information about her crimes? No one is willing to help you if you reveal nothing. Telling details is the only way to really convince someone. If she really did "sell out the city," then telling that information would do no harm; it would be easy to get people on your side with this because people are very receptive to betrayal; no one likes it, and would be glad to help in the capture of a treasonous criminal. This makes it seem like only Kematu knows the details, which makes no sense if these men are personally invested in the story. Once again, it appears as if they are but mercenaries.

      The general harassment of random Redguard women in Skyrim is also of suspicious nature; instead of going to Jarl Balgruuf to speak about finding a fugitive in their hold, they ask the guards to search for her. Once again, this is confusing, for if the story as told by the Alik'r is true, then why would Kematu not go to Whiterun and inform the Jarl about the issue. Instead, they aim for the guards, who turn them away because of their suspicious actions. Once this "failed," they take to the roads and accuse random citizens of being Saadia, to the point where they're willing to "get rough" and take them back to Hammerfell. Such clumsiness comes from a lack of general understanding; it's only when the second Redguard realizes that there's no scar, something that should have been the primary identifier, that gets them to stop. Yet another reason to be suspicious of the Alik'r.

      Saadia's story is filled with holes, and is almost certainly embellished...but the Alik'r have an equally patchy tale. I hope you can see why I have decided that both are trying to manipulate the Dragonborn into their own agenda.

        Loading editor
    • Well Skyrim itself doesn't tell us who is right here, so we're stuck with the dilemma people face in real life: we have to make the best choice with the information we have.

      Ultimately, my decision is to side against the Alik'r (NOT the same thing as siding with Saadia!):

      • they have been causing trouble in Whiterun, to the point of getting thrown out, or perhaps arrested
      • the Alik'r out searching refuse to give any reasons for hunting Saadia
      • they don't have any sort of official documentation of their hunt
      • they have been harassing Redguard women in general who are travelling throughout Skyrim
      • they are operating from a bandit hideout

      All of the hard evidence is against the Alik'r acting in an acceptable or legitimate fashion, with only Kematu's honeyed words suggesting otherwise...and they have already been instructed to cease their activities. As Thane of Whiterun, Dovahkiin is sworn by his honour to eliminate the Alik'r for their continued activities against Whiterun hold.

        Loading editor
    • Ottoman Hold wrote:
      You may be a die-hard Kematu supporter, but I am on neither side, to be honest...so let's poke some holes in his story:

      "'ll gladly share a portion of the bounty in return for your efforts."
      This statement makes me immediately suspicious. Apparently, Kematu and the Alik'r were paid before bringing her back, which is rarely done for something like this unless the payment is needed up front, like with a mercenary. His dialogue at the stables already confirms that he is but a minion to the "noble houses of Teneth" if he's telling the truth, and if not, then it becomes even more suspect. In addition, if killed after Saadia is brought to the stables, he will have an additional sum of gold on him, numbering in the hundreds. Considering that they had already hired bandits to "protect them" in Swindler's Den, the "Alik'r" have way too much money to simply be searching for a fugitive that all of Hammerfell wants found.

      "She sold the city out to the Aldmeri Dominion. Were it not for her betrayal, Taneth could have held its ground in the war."
      I've said this before in another thread, and I'll say it again: how could a single noble "sell out" an entire city to have it fall? During a siege, warriors are defending the city; if it could have "held its ground," then it had ample forces and supplies to last until the invalids from the Imperial legion arrived. I suppose it's possible that she could have revealed a secret entrance, but honestly, that's highly doubtful; after all, why would Kematu leave out such a simple detail to prevent confusion? I feel that using vague words like he does here only causes more doubt; surely someone telling a true story would know that.

      "The resistance against the Dominion is alive and well in Hammerfell, and they want justice."
      What "resistance?" Hammerfell isn't controlled by the Dominion! The Redguards are currently neutral, but seeing as they fought against them for years after the Empire, the nation would certainly hate them greatly, especially considering the desolation that occurred during the war to the southern cities. It would make far more sense if Kematu stated something along the lines of, "Hammerfell has retained its disdain for the Dominion since the war, and still want justice for the atrocities committed." While Kematu's statement doesn't prove the Alik'r are necessarily working for the Dominion, it does confuse me every time I read or hear the line.

      Another fun little detail about Kematu is that he will become hostile if a spell of any kind is cast on him. While this proves nothing, along with the other points, cast an even larger shadow.

      The doubt also comes from the generic warriors as well when asked for more information:
      "It's none of your concern. All you need to know is that we're paying for information. If that doesn't interest you, feel free to walk away."
      If you're looking for a fugitive, does it not feel counter-productive to be withholding information about her crimes? No one is willing to help you if you reveal nothing. Telling details is the only way to really convince someone. If she really did "sell out the city," then telling that information would do no harm; it would be easy to get people on your side with this because people are very receptive to betrayal; no one likes it, and would be glad to help in the capture of a treasonous criminal. This makes it seem like only Kematu knows the details, which makes no sense if these men are personally invested in the story. Once again, it appears as if they are but mercenaries.

      The general harassment of random Redguard women in Skyrim is also of suspicious nature; instead of going to Jarl Balgruuf to speak about finding a fugitive in their hold, they ask the guards to search for her. Once again, this is confusing, for if the story as told by the Alik'r is true, then why would Kematu not go to Whiterun and inform the Jarl about the issue. Instead, they aim for the guards, who turn them away because of their suspicious actions. Once this "failed," they take to the roads and accuse random citizens of being Saadia, to the point where they're willing to "get rough" and take them back to Hammerfell. Such clumsiness comes from a lack of general understanding; it's only when the second Redguard realizes that there's no scar, something that should have been the primary identifier, that gets them to stop. Yet another reason to be suspicious of the Alik'r.

      Saadia's story is filled with holes, and is almost certainly embellished...but the Alik'r have an equally patchy tale. I hope you can see why I have decided that both are trying to manipulate the Dragonborn into their own agenda.

      There's no reason to believe that a bounty hunter wouldn't get [or appreciate] up-front payment to motivate him/her to do the job for a larger portion of money later.  Mercenaries are just the soldier/killer variant.

      Of course he's a "minion of Taneth", because for whatever reason, survivors/former residents of Taneth (or simply the Crowns; since Saadia is former nobility) want her captured.  That's not near enough to make Kematu suspicious.

      All of Hammerfell is obviously still rebuilding in the meantime, and it would be unwise to send more than a small party just to search for a single fugitive; said fugitive would easily catch news of it and flee before a gargantuan army searching for her would ever get there, if at all (counting the locals' perception of a large foreign army possibly meaning invasion).

      How could a single noble "sell out" an entire city? Watch Game of Thrones. 'nuff said.

      As for the "resistance being alive and well", it's pretty obvious that he's saying Hammerfell is wary of the Dominion.  That doesn't necessarily mean Hammerfell is preparing for another war, simply that they're still very much recognize it as an enemy nation, and no Redguard is accepting any notion of it being a potential ally.

      Saying it "proves nothing" and "casts an even larger shadow" in the same sentence in itself doesn't make any sense.  Many NPCs in the game [that aren't Followers] turn hostile when using spells on them.

      The generic warriors are what prove nothing about your suspicions in the end, because Kematu himself was willing to explain their presence in Skyrim. Keeping information from subordinates isn't an uncommon practice, and it certainly isn't exclusive to the Thalmor.  On the other hand, it could just be that they want to get out of Skyrim as quickly as possible, what with all the complaints from various NPCs about how cold the province is in general.  They certainly don't have the right clothing for the weather.

      How is their treatment of Redguard women make you more suspicious of their true intent?  It's supposed to make you question what's going on, ultimately leading you to Kematu, and even if Kematu's subordinates are evasive of their purpose; Saadia on the other hand outright lies, and does something no-one would expect of an actual innocent person, no matter how "scared" they are.

      The truth is revealed by the very end of the quest if you side with Kematu, anyway. Saadia accused them of intending to "assassinate" her... and Kematu doesn't do that; just paralyzing her with a spell for capture, to bring her back to Hammerfell for judgment (and likely public execution).

      The Alik'r version of the story isn't nearly as patchy, as they clearly told the truth more often.  I'll take the story of someone working in interest of Hammerfell over some liar who pulls a dagger on you.

        Loading editor
    • Your perspective is that just bcos somebody pulls a knife on u it AUTOMATICALLY justifies them being a liar?? Regardless of what the truth is?

      The Alkir do no such thing as what Saddia does and so they are the honest ones??

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote:
      Your perspective is that just bcos somebody pulls a knife on u it AUTOMATICALLY justifies them being a liar?? Regardless of what the truth is?

      The Alkir do no such thing as what Saddia does and so they are the honest ones??

      My perspective is that it's an absolutely stupid move for some supposedly "innocent" person to pull a dagger and threaten a stranger who just asked around.

      Saadia actually tells a complete lie.  I never said pulling a dagger is a lie itself.

        Loading editor
    • but HOW THE HELL do WE know who the true liars are? The game itself DOES NOT say anything about who is honest! I made this point in my previous post: "Skyrim does not tell us who is right"

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote:
      but HOW THE HELL do WE know who the true liars are? The game itself DOES NOT say anything about who is honest! I made this point in my previous post: "Skyrim does not tell us who is right"

      I said it in an earlier post, and I'll say it again.

      If you side with Kematu, and lead Saadia to him, it's immediately revealed that Saadia's the true liar.

      Saadia accuses the Alik'r "mercenaries" of coming to assassinate her.

      Kematu doesn't. He just captures her for judgment.

        Loading editor
    • Well 'capture' and 'assassinate' aren't too mutually exclusive given that after her capture, she will be killed.

        Loading editor
    • Is it possible that she won't necessarily be killed but rather she will be TRIALED for whatever the heck she did??

        Loading editor
    • I remember one of the Alikr specifically said she will be brought back to Hammerfell for execution. That's not what Kematu says when the quest ends, but it was one of the others.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe HE wants her to be executed, but he may not speak for the REST of the men. Meaning there is a chance she could stand in court rather than be killed. But it is possible the guy who claimed she would be executed is speaking for HIMSELF rather than for the others.

        Loading editor
    • I'd say it's a very high chance she'd be publically executed after court.

      This is the Crowns we're talking about, here.  The traditionalists & descendants of Yokudan nobility among Redguards, and Saadia is confirmed to be a former noble.

        Loading editor
    • Kematu said they were taking her to Hammerfell to be brought to trial. She may be put to death, but they won't necessarily do it themselves.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah but her burial urn can be found in the HotD. Unless the game developers somehow made an unintentional mistake, this could mean that she was killed. 

        Loading editor
    • Saadia herself said she'll be dragged back to hammerfell to be executed. what Kematu did doesn't disprove that

        Loading editor
    • Whoever is truly honest, Sherlock Holmes says that "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains however improbable is the truth". 

        Loading editor
    • regardless of what happens to Saadia in Hammerfell, her remains would not end up in the whiterun hall of the dead. this was probably an oversight.

        Loading editor
    • This is one of Saadia's lines of dialogue: "The men who are looking for me, the Alik'r, they are assassins in the employ of the Aldmeri Dominion. 

      Saadia's story simply doesn't add up.  I had to look back in the game and redo the quest, and the fact that she so desperately says "drag me back to Hammerfell for an execution" already seals her fate.

      She is obviously the guilty one here. Both that slip of the tongue, and her earlier misconstruing of the Alik'r as "assassins in the employ of the Thalmor", suggests that she's trying to deceive the Dragonborn into believing that the Thalmor hold control over Hammerfell.

      The Thalmor would have to be IDIOTS to want her brought back to Hammerfell.

      It's quite simple. She's betting on you not knowing of the Great War events.

      Luckily, I read the "A Concise Account of the Great War" lore-book (or just called "The Great War", found in Dragonsreach) before I ever did the In My Time of Need quest for the first time back in late 2011.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I would rather err on the side of caution, and side with MY own opinion rather than with any one of them.

      Evidence against Saadia in her claim that Alik'r cooperate with the Aldmeri Dominion...

      I will base this claim not on what Kematu or Saadia has said or done as a person (which might be subjective) but on hard facts.

      My assumptions:

      • Kematu is an Alik'r warrior.
      • "The Great War" chronicle accurately depicts the events that unfolded during the war between the empire and the Aldmeri dominion.

      Having those assumptions out of the way here are some history facts from "The Great War":

      • Skyrim begins at 4E 201
      • In 4E 174 (27 years prior to Skyrim)General Decianus was preparing to drive the Aldmeri back from Skaven when he was ordered to march for Cyrodiil. Unwilling to abandon Hammerfell completely, he allowed a great number of "invalids" to be discharged from the Legions before they marched east. These veterans formed the core of the army that eventually drove Lady Arannelya's forces back across the Alik'r late in 174, taking heavy losses on their retreat from harassing attacks by the Alik'r warriors.

      We learn that General Decianus left some troops behind referred to in the book as "Alik'r warriors" who kept battling the Aldmeri Dominion when Decianus had to heed the call of emperor Titus Mede II to march to Cyrodiil.

      • In 4E 175 (26 years prior to Skyrim)The Emperor encouraged [The Aldmeri Dominion] in their belief that he was preparing to surrender; meanwhile, he gathered his forces to retake the Imperial City. [...] One army, with the legions from Hammerfell under General Decianus, was hidden in the Colovian Highlands near Chorrol.

      We learn that General Decianus was directly involved in the retaking of the Imperial City during the Battle of the Red Ring.

      • In 4E 175 at the end of the warIn the end, the main Aldmeri army in Cyrodiil was completely destroyed. The Emperor's decision to withdraw from the Imperial City in 4E 174 was bloodily vindicated. Lord Naarifin was kept alive for thirty-three days, hanging from the White-Gold tower. It is not recorded where his body was buried, if it was buried at all. One source claims he was carried off by winged daedra on the thirty-fourth day.

      We learn that Lord Naarifin a general of the Aldmeri Dominion was gibbeted at the end of the retaking of the Imperial City.

      • In 4E 175 the White-Gold Concordat is signed.Empire and the Aldmeri Dominion signed the White-Gold Concordat, ending the Great War. [...] Hammerfell, however, refused to accept the White-Gold Concordat, being unwilling to concede defeat and the loss of so much of their territory. Titus II was forced to officially renounce Hammerfell as an Imperial province in order to preserve the hard-won peace treaty. The Redguards, understandably, looked on this as a betrayal.

      We learn that the Redguards refuse to accept the treaty (and are expelled from the empire) and continue to wage war with the Aldmeri Dominion.

      • In 4E 180 (21 years before Skyrim)In the end, the heroic Redguards fought the Aldmeri Dominion to a standstill, [...] to allow the eventually Second Treaty of Stros M'kai in 4E 180 and the withdrawal of Aldmeri forces from Hammerfell.

      We learn that the Aldmeri Dominion were eventually forced to widthdraw from Hammerfell as the war lead to a standstill. Although not explicitly mentioned, judging by the White-Gold Concordat I doubt that the treaty of Stros M'kai left the Aldmeri Dominion empty handed (which might explain Kematu saying that the resistance in Hammerfell is still ongoing).

      My Conclusions - Feel free to make your own based on the given facts

      • I doubt that 21 year is enough to clear up all the bad blood between the High elf and the redguards especially with the latter being involved in gibbeting one of their more famous generals.
      • Even though the Aldmeri Dominion could have control over part of Hammerfell after the treaty, I doubt that they would be able to employ Alik'r who were part of the Hammerfell military during the war just a few decades ago.
      • Since Aldmeri Dominion justiciar parties are freely roaming throughout Skyrim (prisoners in tow), hiring a third party to do the same job seems questionable.
      • It makes sense that Alik'r warriors are turned away everywhere because they are seen as a military unit of Hammerfell which is no longer part of the empire, having a non-empire military unit march through a city could be seen as potentially dangerous, provocative and bearing heavy implications politically.
      • Kematu asks you to meet him in Rorikstead. Rorik himself is an old war dog who fought in the Great War. Since he himself has most likely fought alongside redguards from Hammerfell, he might have allowed them to stay in his town as fellow veterans of war. I doubt that Rorik (having fought against the Aldmeri Dominion) would let them stay in his town if he had any suspicions about them making deals with the Thalmor.
        Loading editor
    • I hate how we can't figure it out.

        Loading editor
    • CatholicPrincess15 wrote: I hate how we can't figure it out.

      i'd say the ambiguity is what makes it fun to debate

        Loading editor
    • It is a stark contrast to Blood on the ice ;)

        Loading editor
    • It's not ambiguous at all.

      It becomes clear who the real guilty party in this is, the moment Saadia lets slip that they're going to take her to Hammerfell, which simply doesn't add up when you have knowledge of the Great War.

        Loading editor
    • As proven by this years-long discussion, it's not "clear" in the slightest. I have a feeling that you're taking a couple of your assumptions and believing them to be the truth.

      Like I said, Saadia's story doesn't add up, but to say that she is "clearly" the "guilty party" in a quest intentionally filled with holes is too much of a jump. Both parties seem to mention that there are Thalmor in Hammerfell, although both claims seem nonsensical considering that the Redguards and invalids utterly trashed the Dominion in the Great War and were able to initiate a stand-still (not neccessarily a complete victory, but most likely enough for the Dominion to deem Hammerfell too hard to conquer with their current strategy).

      I believe that the only thing "clear" about the entire situation is that both sides are using the Thalmor as a weapon to get the Dragonborn to side with them. I have doubts that the Thalmor are even involved; since the people of Skyrim clearly hate them, they're the perfect scapegoat to get random citizenry on Saadia/Kematu's side.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote:
      It's not ambiguous at all.

      It becomes clear who the real guilty party in this is, the moment Saadia lets slip that they're going to take her to Hammerfell, which simply doesn't add up when you have knowledge of the Great War.

      You seem to be obsessed and fixated over the fact that Saadia's claims don't show truth in them. Rather one-sided considering you don't take into account Kematu's POV.

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote:
      Ifnsman wrote:
      It's not ambiguous at all.

      It becomes clear who the real guilty party in this is, the moment Saadia lets slip that they're going to take her to Hammerfell, which simply doesn't add up when you have knowledge of the Great War.

      You seem to be obsessed and fixated over the fact that Saadia's claims don't show truth in them. Rather one-sided considering you don't take into account Kematu's POV.

      Except I have.

      @Ottoman Hold: And, as proven by this year-long discussion, it's not clear to everybody.  It's certainly clear to me and a few others.

      The holes in this quest are all on Saadia's side. It's quite clear that Kematu's side are Alik'r, therefore there's absolutely no reason to believe that in this context they could be the liars.

      And it's made clear by the result of siding with Kematu.

        Loading editor
    • that is IF you side with him. then again...not everybody would do that

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote:
      that is IF you side with him. then again...not everybody would do that

      Not everybody would ultimate take either side.

      Because after all, if you kill both of them... you get 1,000 Gold from their corpses instead of just 500 as a reward.

      I've noticed that greed tends to win the Dragonborn over more often than any form of altruism (at least among players).

        Loading editor
    • Well, you said it yourself...even if Saadia IS in fact the liar, and thus Kematu is telling the truth, 'not everybody would utimately take either side'. In other words, not everybody would side with the mercs.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote:

      Spirit Slasher wrote:
      that is IF you side with him. then again...not everybody would do that

      Not everybody would ultimate take either side.

      Because after all, if you kill both of them... you get 1,000 Gold from their corpses instead of just 500 as a reward.

      I've noticed that greed tends to win the Dragonborn over more often than any form of altruism (at least among players).

      Who cares about gold? it's not like you'll ever not have enough gold to buy whatever you want

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote:
      Spirit Slasher wrote:
      that is IF you side with him. then again...not everybody would do that
      Not everybody would ultimate take either side.

      Because after all, if you kill both of them... you get 1,000 Gold from their corpses instead of just 500 as a reward.

      I've noticed that greed tends to win the Dragonborn over more often than any form of altruism (at least among players).


      As for greed winning over the player...you ASSUME this is the case. What if some people simply want to unearth the true facts??

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote:
      Well, you said it yourself...even if Saadia IS in fact the liar, and thus Kematu is telling the truth, 'not everybody would utimately take either side'. In other words, not everybody would side with the mercs.

      Except, in this case, this isn't about who's the liar.  This is about the reward in itself.

      And OF COURSE I assume this is the case. The vast majority of quests in the game offer Gold rewards, and some NPCs assume they're appealing to the Dragonborn's sense of greed.

        Loading editor
    • You know, you can double cross them for the cash and kill them both. In that case, all possible guilty people are dead and a case is closed. There is no need to decide who is right or wrong when all are equally punished.

        Loading editor
    • I have said this and I will repeat it;

      Just because there is a double gold reward DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYBODY WILL NECESSARILLY DO THIS FOR THE QUEST. THERE ARE PLAYERS WHO WANT TO FIGURE OUT THE G**DAMNED TRUTH.

      Sorry for the caps lock rant, but I was kinda frustrated.

        Loading editor
    • ^A very unnecessary frustration, considering I'm not talking about what everybody will do.

      My point is that it's ultimately evident Saadia is the liar.

      And hey, if you care more for greedy needs, kill both of them at the end for 1,000 Gold.

        Loading editor
    • I was referring to Datadragon, but whatever, you're entitled to your point of view but so is everybody else

        Loading editor
    • And while Saadia may be a liar to you, there was already a rather lengthy post pointing the flaws in the Alikr's words as well, as Ottoman hold suggested. Regardless of she being a truthful or otherwise, I'd take this entire quest with a VERY LARGE pinch of salt. ;)

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote: I have said this and I will repeat it;

      Just because there is a double gold reward DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYBODY WILL NECESSARILLY DO THIS FOR THE QUEST. THERE ARE PLAYERS WHO WANT TO FIGURE OUT THE G**DAMNED TRUTH.

      Sorry for the caps lock rant, but I was kinda frustrated.

      The truth cannot be revealed, so the next best alternative is that justice is served.

      If Saadia is guilty, she has been punished. Kematu died in the line of duty but justice is duly served. Kematu knew the risks of his job, so he bears the consequences of choosing such a job.

      If Kematu is guilty, he and his cronies has been punished and Saadia is just some collateral damage in the slaying of the "bad guys". In the end, "justice" prevails.

      If both are lying, then all the toxic liars have been killed so there is a happy ending. There is no case where they are both good people, so we can discount that route.

      Hence, killing them all is reasonable and you might as well profit from it. The truth is irrelevant if all criminals are given due justice.

        Loading editor
    • You are insinuating a scenario whereby  "IF" people are guilty then something happens. Meaning you are not even sure WHO is guilty. 

      Also, even if Kematu IS indeed guilty, how do you know Saadia is collateral damage? She could very well survive unscathed!

      And while the truth may certainly be as irrelevant as you imply it to be, are there NO players whatsoever who will truly want to render justice in the way you claim it should be delivered?

        Loading editor
    • >>>The truth cannot be revealed, so the next best alternative is that justice is served.

      Are you trying to speak on behalf of the editors here, or are you saying this as YOUR own opinion??

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote:
      And while Saadia may be a liar to you, there was already a rather lengthy post pointing the flaws in the Alikr's words as well, as Ottoman hold suggested. Regardless of she being a truthful or otherwise, I'd take this entire quest with a VERY LARGE pinch of salt. ;)

      And none of those "flaws" were either so lengthy or significant.  I already posted my own response to it as well, as you may have seen.

      The only pinch of salt that should be taken is for Saadia's story.

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote:
      >>>The truth cannot be revealed, so the next best alternative is that justice is served.

      Are you trying to speak on behalf of the editors here, or are you saying this as YOUR own opinion??

      I am answering your questions directed at me. Do you feel I am giving my opinion or doing the foolish act of speaking for others? I believe you should know better.

      Skyrim isn't a real life situation with courts. Justice is delivered by blades and assumptions, not by due process. Hence, there is no need care that deeply about the truth in such a situation. Bethesda obviously didn't intend for a truth to be revealed in the first place.

        Loading editor
    • Datadragon Seraphim wrote:

      Spirit Slasher wrote:
      >>>The truth cannot be revealed, so the next best alternative is that justice is served.

      Are you trying to speak on behalf of the editors here, or are you saying this as YOUR own opinion??

      I am answering your questions directed at me. Do you feel I am giving my opinion or doing the foolish act of speaking for others? I believe you should know better.

      Skyrim isn't a real life situation with courts. Justice is delivered by blades and assumptions, not by due process. Hence, there is no need care that deeply about the truth in such a situation. Bethesda obviously didn't intend for a truth to be revealed in the first place.

      beth did not intend for an absolute truth to be in the game, but they did intend for players to think on the evidence and decide from there who's telling the truth.

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:

      beth did not intend for an absolute truth to be in the game, but they did intend for players to think on the evidence and decide from there who's telling the truth.

      The evidence is insufficient, as far as can be said. This is because a lot of dialogue and other potential questlines were cut from Skyrim.

      I have a feeling this quest was supposed to have more content than what we are presented with.

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote: beth did not intend for an absolute truth to be in the game, but they did intend for players to think on the evidence and decide from there who's telling the truth.

      It looks like they did, because Lore is provided in the game that allows for you to find the answer.  The Alik'r are enemies of the Thalmor, and the Dominion itself was driven out of Hammerfell.

      It may not be easy for everybody (because not everybody can be counted on to spend the time required to read), but it is discernable that the one telling the truth is Kematu.

      Compared to him, there are several holes in Saadia's argument that have already been pointed out.

        Loading editor
    • Pardon any possible bluntness:

      It utterly bewilders me that you cannot see that Kematu's story is flawed; I thought I, Datadragon, Ashley, and Spirit Slasher made it clear, but apparently not. It is almost completely impossible for Kematu to be the "clear" answer; as I said, the quest is intentionally filled with holes. None of the evidence for either story makes sense, and neither side is without fault. I rarely do this, but I have to say that it cannot be disproven that there is no "clear" side.

      It is quite difficult to have an entertaining debate when your opponent rejects all possible evidence of the contrary, and claims that their side is 100% true, with no possible chance of exception. I would highly suggest you cease such actions, for it makes every argument petty, repetitive, and overall very frustrating.

        Loading editor
    • this is so boring 

        Loading editor
    • Ottoman Hold wrote:

      It is quite difficult to have an entertaining debate when your opponent rejects all possible evidence of the contrary, and claims that their side is 100% true, with no possible chance of exception. I would highly suggest you cease such actions, for it makes every argument petty, repetitive, and overall very frustrating.

      Confirmation Bias is a common kind of bias in this world...

        Loading editor
    • Ottoman Hold wrote:
      Pardon any possible bluntness:

      It utterly bewilders me that you cannot see that Kematu's story is flawed; I thought I, Datadragon, Ashley, and Spirit Slasher made it clear, but apparently not. It is almost completely impossible for Kematu to be the "clear" answer; as I said, the quest is intentionally filled with holes. None of the evidence for either story makes sense, and neither side is without fault. I rarely do this, but I have to say that it cannot be disproven that there is no "clear" side.

      It is quite difficult to have an entertaining debate when your opponent rejects all possible evidence of the contrary, and claims that their side is 100% true, with no possible chance of exception. I would highly suggest you cease such actions, for it makes every argument petty, repetitive, and overall very frustrating.

      What bewilders me is that you apparently believe I'm ignoring what you've said. You DID make your perspective on it clear, but I've already stated that I did not see your previous reply as sufficient evidence for huge "flaws" in Kematu's side, as I've indicated in my own reply.

      It is entirely possible for Kematu to be the clear answer, because the answer can be determined by finding another resource that's right within the game (i.e. the "Great War" book lying on a table on the 2nd floor of Dragonsreach), as I had just explained in one of my previous replies.

      I mean... call it confirmation bias if you so wish, Datadragon. It's not even new evidence. I also don't see how any of you are any less biased than I am, just because you believe neither side can be determined as telling the complete truth; you're still taking a side in this.

      If you want to stop this argument from seeming "petty, repetitive, and overall very frustrating", then stop trying to get the last word after I reply.

      I, for one, am not annoyed in the least. I've been enjoying this discussion.

        Loading editor
    • I tend to side with the pretty woman, even if she is evil.  I'm an idiot that way.  However, her threat to cut/stab you -even after you agree to help her- always kind of rubbed me wrong.  I generally go with the end-around/exploit of collecting the bounty and then killing the mercenary and getting her reward as well.  Less hassle that way.
      72.50.120.162 wrote:
      I prefer relay To chivaldry than a word of a "mercenary", The exotic girl who serve me Mead And a Plus 0f 250 gold for kill a Lady molestor! Think about is common sence, rather political crap, also if will be related to dominion agents, develpers provably will trow a note or something on her quarters, or even so far as put saadia as enemy when searching for esbern on the rift during blades quest!   p.s. curved swords for a low level player is a nice reward!
        Loading editor
    • In summation, Saadia is clearly the guilty party in this, trying to deceive the Last Dragonborn whom likely wouldn't be knowledgable of Hammerfell's recent events.

      Side with Kematu, or kill 'em both for a greater reward.

        Loading editor
    • Oh great, here we go again opening yet ANOTHER can of worms.

        Loading editor
    • I would like to point out that siding with Saadia doesn't make you a knight in shining armor. It is entirely possible that she is a war criminal. If it was 100% stated that Kematu was out to get her for being a noblewoman and was going to kidnap her, then you would be a knight in shining armor.

        Loading editor
    • exactly. @ifnsman, CP15 is OBVIOUSLY CORRECT. the truth is NEVER revealed. ffs man, QUIT YER BITCHING ABOUT WHO IS RITE AND WRONG!

      sorry for any offense this was NOT pointed towards anybody specifically but this fuckin argument is SERIOUSLY  getting on my nerves

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote:
      exactly. @ifnsman, CP15 is OBVIOUSLY CORRECT.

      the truth is NEVER revealed. ffs man, QUIT YER BITCHING ABOUT WHO IS RITE AND WRONG!

      sorry for any offense this was NOT pointed towards anybody specifically but this fuckin argument is SERIOUSLY  getting on my nerves

      I'd say you're the one "opening the can of worms".  No-one is under any obligation to continue replying in this thread.

      If you want to believe I was "bitching", go right ahead. I made that comment with no intention of continuing the argument.

      I remain absolutely convinced that my side of the argument is obviously correct, because of the source I used.

        Loading editor
    • Oh, my comment wasn't at Ifnsman, it was at whoever said siding with Saadia was siding with chivalry.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: I remain absolutely convinced that my side of the argument is obviously correct, because of the source I used.

      So, remember the two books, one of which states the Akatosh Alduin dichotomy and the other which states they are the same? How would you prove if each author is correct? A book is an author's opinion per se.

      You yourself has not seen the Great War, so it would not be possible to assume an unbiased author. All information about the Great War are presented in the perspectives of others, never from yourself.

      You are making a similar type of error to the prosecutor's fallacy (not exactly the same). Since from your sources, you can rightly conclude it is much more probable that Kematu is right and Saadia is wrong, you immediately leap in reasoning that Saadia is wrong. You are discounting the chance that both are guilty by already positing that the end state is dichotomous (one is wrong or right, when a third state that both are wrong is possible).

      In any case, you have not considered the probability that books may be false, or that Kematu is purposely mixing truths with lies to trick you into carrying out his own motive against a spy. It is true that it is highly likely for Saadia to be "evil" per se, but Kematu's wrong-doing is independent of Saadia's - he is not intrinsically good because Saadia is intrinsically bad. If you went to prison for multiple homicides and beat a pedophile to death inside, you aren't automatically a saint.

      Also, if we were to say that books are always absolutely right, then how did Darwin and Galileo discard all the previous silly Aristotlian mistakes that were committed before? If you do not question the validity of the source, you are only assuming it is truthful and correct. However, if the source is biased, it adds another shadow of doubt across the drawn conclusion.

      In essence, you argument is:

      • In the Great War, Taneth was A (we actually can not prove this and we do not know who controls Taneth other than Redguards. The resolution is not to the level of a sub faction)
      • Kematu states Taneth was A (true, we see this in game)
      • Saadia sold Taneth out (unknown)
      • Hence, Kematu is truthful as he states historical fact (conclusion from statements 1 and 2)
      • Hence Saadia is guilty and Kematu is right (conclusions from statements 3 and 4)

      You notice how many logical leaps have to be made and the number of assumptions - the only truth we know is that Kematu stated a certain condition of Taneth which may or may not be true.

        Loading editor
    • ENOUGH of this bullshit arguments already. if bethesda wanted to answer this damn mystery, they wouldve made it clear. and who the hell cares about who's right. 

        Loading editor
    • If you bothered to read my argument, I am simply stating clearly that it is impossible to clear up the whole mystery. Of course, as I mentioned much earlier on this thread, this quest is part of a chain of cut content. I am pretty sure Bethesda actually had a solution to it, but they decided it wasn't worth the time, so they removed most of the quest and never bothered to finish it, tacking on the unsatisfactory ending.

        Loading editor
    • Datadragon Seraphim wrote: So, remember the two books, one of which states the Akatosh Alduin dichotomy and the other which states they are the same? How would you prove if each author is correct? A book is an author's opinion per se.

      You yourself has not seen the Great War, so it would not be possible to assume an unbiased author. All information about the Great War are presented in the perspectives of others, never from yourself.

      You are making a similar type of error to the prosecutor's fallacy (not exactly the same).

      Those two books are written by people who've never seen nor interacted with Alduin.

      The Great War lore-book I refer to as my source is compiled by a Legate who served in both Hammerfell & Cyrodiil during said conflict, as the author's note lends to; "Author's Note: Much of what is written in this book is pieced together from documents captured from the enemy during the war, interrogation of prisoners, and eyewitness accounts from surviving soldiers and Imperial officers. I myself commanded the Tenth Legion in Hammerfell and Cyrodiil until I was wounded in 175 during the assault on the Imperial City. That said, the full truth of some events may never be known. I have done my best to fill in the gaps with educated conjectures based on my experience as well as my hard-earned knowledge of the enemy."

      Thereby making him a far more trustworthy account than some random priests who've stayed in their chantries.

      And that is where your whole attempt to convince me of "fallacy" in my argument falls apart. I remain 100% convinced of being right due to every single piece that adds up, which I've listed before.

      And yes, I have considered the possibility that books may be false. That doesn't automatically mean people somehow can't determine the truth.

      Your analysis of my argument is missing quite a few steps, too.  You're conveniently leaving out parts such as 1.) Saadia pulls a dagger on you. 2.) Saadia tries to convince you that they're assassins. 3.) Right after her assassins claim, she blurts out that they're Alik'r warriors. 4.) Alik'r warriors were responsible for pushing the Dominion out of Hammerfell. 5.) Kematu doesn't even kill Saadia.

      I used the book as my primary source, but I thought I made it perfectly clear that it wasn't the only thing I relied on to determine the truth.

      You've even strawmanned my argument by comparing an eyewitness account from a soldier to the accomplishments of real-life philosophers.

      I must say, this attempt of yours has been rather silly.

        Loading editor
    • It doesn't matter how trustworthy the author is, since his writing is still a singular source without a second, agreeing source. The fact is that you are still basing your argument on belief, not absolute fact. You conveniently ignore the author himself saying "there are full truths which may not even be known".

      Also, an author's foreword is a good way to boost his own credibility. This declaration has no real bearing, other than making easily convinced individuals like you follow the author's arguments which he presents as facts. It's a common persuasive in books, so you can sympathise with the author.

      I have stated that it does not matter if Saadia is a good person or not. Saadia being "a liar" or "a truthful one" is independent of Kematu being "a liar" or "a truthful one". Saadia lying has nothing to do with Kematu lying, because these are not mutually exclusive.

      You seem unable to accept that there may be no one being "morally superior" within this whole line. Saadia doing shady things does not prove Kematu is not shady, so why even bring up Saadia's actions? You are the one here arguing that there has to be one "correct choice" when a side is taken. We don't know what Kematu does with Saadia after taking her away. Heck, we don't even know why Kematu came to catch Saadia (his story to you is a nice pitch, but as I mentioned, it is easily possible he is purposely screening his purpose with partial truths and some lies).

      Your assumptions, if they happen to be correct, add up to the conclusion, yes, but the fact is that they are at best reasonable assumptions, not actual truth. The most "reasonable" outcome is not always the "true" outcome.

      You brought up the book as a new piece of evidence. Everything you brought up earlier has already been shown to be doubtable. There is no necessity to restate old arguments to contradict the points already addressed.

      All you statements cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, again, because as I said, Bethesda cut a lot of events in the quest, making it impossible to determine what ending they had in mind. All we are left with is a half baked mess.

      If you wonder why I don't buy your arguments, it is simply because you are pushing what you imagine the narrative to be as absolute fact, when it is nothing more than one reasonable line of thought.

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote: ENOUGH of this bullshit arguments already. if bethesda wanted to answer this damn mystery, they wouldve made it clear. and who the hell cares about who's right. 

      you know, if you click on the "following" thing at the top of the thread, you will unfollow it

      All you statements cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, again, because as I said, Bethesda cut a lot of events in the quest, making it impossible to determine what ending they had in mind. All we are left with is a half baked mess.

      i highly doubt they would have given us a clear answer; this quest was obviously made ambiguous on purpose

        Loading editor
    • thanks BPA

        Loading editor
    • Oh, good. Let's pick out the flaws in this damned list which i've seen a GAZILLION times.

      1.) Saadia pulls a dagger on you.

      Person who wrote this conveniently assumes that the character who pulls out a knife WANTS to kill dovahkiin, BUT FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SELF-DEFENSE ISSUE. And self-defense is NOT full fledged murder, for the record.

      2.) Saadia tries to convince you that they're assassins.

      Of course she does THIS, to persuade you they want to kill her!

      3.) Right after her assassins claim, she blurts out that they're Alik'r warriors. 

      And what, they CANNOT possibly be running a double-duty? For all you know, they're employed BOTH as assassins AND warriors!

      4.)Alik'r warriors were responsible for pushing the Dominion out of Hammerfell.

      Even assuming the Aldmeri Dominion could have control over part of Hammerfell after the treaty, I HIGHLY suspect they would NOT hire Alik'r who were part of the Hammerfell military during the war just a few decades ago.

      5.) Kematu doesn't even kill Saadia.

      WHY the fuck should he?! He's merely 'bringing her to face justice elsewhere. 

      Honestly, enough is enough. this debate is starting to get on EVERYBODY's nerves. I'm not trying to stop you from being SO EXTREMELY religious in your pointing out flaws in Saadia's story, but PLEASE do stop trying to shove it down other people's throats as though YOU ALONE are the winner and EVERYBODY else is considered a failure.

        Loading editor
    • Datadragon Seraphim wrote:
      It doesn't matter how trustworthy the author is, since his writing is still a singular source without a second, agreeing source. The fact is that you are still basing your argument on belief, not absolute fact. You conveniently ignore the author himself saying "there are full truths which may not even be known".

      Also, an author's foreword is a good way to boost his own credibility. This declaration has no real bearing, other than making easily convinced individuals like you follow the author's arguments which he presents as facts. It's a common persuasive in books, so you can sympathise with the author.

      I have stated that it does not matter if Saadia is a good person or not. Saadia being "a liar" or "a truthful one" is independent of Kematu being "a liar" or "a truthful one". Saadia lying has nothing to do with Kematu lying, because these are not mutually exclusive.

      You seem unable to accept that there may be no one being "morally superior" within this whole line. Saadia doing shady things does not prove Kematu is not shady, so why even bring up Saadia's actions? You are the one here arguing that there has to be one "correct choice" when a side is taken. We don't know what Kematu does with Saadia after taking her away. Heck, we don't even know why Kematu came to catch Saadia (his story to you is a nice pitch, but as I mentioned, it is easily possible he is purposely screening his purpose with partial truths and some lies).

      Your assumptions, if they happen to be correct, add up to the conclusion, yes, but the fact is that they are at best reasonable assumptions, not actual truth. The most "reasonable" outcome is not always the "true" outcome.

      You brought up the book as a new piece of evidence. Everything you brought up earlier has already been shown to be doubtable. There is no necessity to restate old arguments to contradict the points already addressed.

      All you statements cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, again, because as I said, Bethesda cut a lot of events in the quest, making it impossible to determine what ending they had in mind. All we are left with is a half baked mess.

      If you wonder why I don't buy your arguments, it is simply because you are pushing what you imagine the narrative to be as absolute fact, when it is nothing more than one reasonable line of thought.

      It does matter who the author is, because you tried to compare that author to people in a different position who don't have eyewitness accounts.  And if I "conveniently ignored" that, I never would've posted it.

      "No real bearing" other than the fact that he's an actual soldier who participated in the Great War. You're not convincing me that his word somehow means only as much as a civilian who fled to another province.

      I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I'm saying I'm well aware that Saadia's the liar and Kematu's telling the truth.  This is a clear example of you strawmanning.

      And I never said nor cared about moral superiority. I only care about the fact that Kematu was actually right. What YOU seem incapable of accepting is that the truth can be determined. It was clear right from the beginning that you're being hypocritical for accusing me of bias.

      These "assumptions" are based on things that actually happened. Not guesswork. Unless you want to tell me that the Great War never actually happened, or that every single account of life in the Alik'r Desert is a lie (making TESO a lie too), or even that Saadia pulling a dagger on you is just some Illusion spell, you're not making any progress here.

      No, I brought up the book as an OLD piece of evidence. I mentioned that I read it before completing "In My Time of Need" for the very first time back in 2011, and that it helped me arrive to the conclusion that Saadia is the liar. Honestly, that book should've been brought up loooong before I entered this debate.

      And I'm saying your doubt isn't reasonable because of all of the evidence weighed against Saadia. You are looking for any excuse to find both parties suspicious or equally unworthy of support, as is your bias. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you've been watching too much CSI.

      And if you're wondering why I don't buy YOUR arguments, it's because you don't realize that you're attempting the exact same thing. I'm simply not as subtle as you are about my perspective.

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote:

      Person who wrote this conveniently assumes that the character who pulls out a knife WANTS to kill dovahkiin, BUT FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SELF-DEFENSE ISSUE. And self-defense is NOT full fledged murder, for the record.

      Of course she does THIS, to persuade you they want to kill her!

      And what, they CANNOT possibly be running a double-duty? For all you know, they're employed BOTH as assassins AND warriors!

      Even assuming the Aldmeri Dominion could have control over part of Hammerfell after the treaty, I HIGHLY suspect they would NOT hire Alik'r who were part of the Hammerfell military during the war just a few decades ago.

      WHY the fuck should he?! He's merely 'bringing her to face justice elsewhere. 

      Honestly, enough is enough. this debate is starting to get on EVERYBODY's nerves. I'm not trying to stop you from being SO EXTREMELY religious in your pointing out flaws in Saadia's story, but PLEASE do stop trying to shove it down other people's throats as though YOU ALONE are the winner and EVERYBODY else is considered a failure.

      1.) Incorrect. I noted that Saadia is stupid enough to believe that her attempted threat would help her case for innocence in any way.

      2.) Thanks for agreeing with me. They're not "assassins in the employ of the Thalmor" after all, which would make no sense whatsoever considering their involvement in the Great War.

      3.) Nope. They can't possibly be "assassins in the employ of the Thalmor", and they already prove they aren't at the end of the quest if you side with Kematu.

      4.) Which is why it's impossible to believe Saadia. Thanks.

      5.) Exactly.

      You are reacting to these far too emotionally to convince me that I'm somehow actively trying to get on people's nerves; you seem to be doing it for me, purposefully to give others the false impression.  As I said, no-one else is under any obligation to reply anymore in this thread, and you can turn notifications off. I'm not even pretending to be "the winner"; I just know that I remain unconvinced that Kematu could be lying, or that Saadia could possibly be innocent.

      You haven't picked out any flaws, just corroborating me.

      (Addendum): But hey, if you truthfully want to continue this "can of worms", that's all on you. I doubt I'd have to dare you to continue.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. I'm saying I'm well aware that Saadia's the liar and Kematu's telling the truth.  This is a clear example of you strawmanning.

      And I never said nor cared about moral superiority. I only care about the fact that Kematu was actually right. What YOU seem incapable of accepting is that the truth can be determined. It was clear right from the beginning that you're being hypocritical for accusing me of bias.

      Actually, it is obvious you have a hot need for a confirmation that one side has to be right. Again, you state Kematu telling the truth as absolute fact, when it is in fact an unknown variable that is at best "reasonably assumable" based on what little in game evidence there is. The fact is that single sources are often harder to believe than multiple sources that check out. You seem to be incapable of believing that it is possible that you are wrong.

      I am not stating that Kematu is absolutely lying here - I am only stating that it is possible that he is lying and this possibility is not small enough to discount. Again, just because he states so called "accurate history" and his version of events may fit better with the timeline, doesn't mean it is absolutely correct. You seem unwilling to accept that it is possible that Kematu is mixing truth and lies together, when conmen do this all the timee.

      These "assumptions" are based on things that actually happened. Not guesswork. Unless you want to tell me that the Great War never actually happened, or that every single account of life in the Alik'r Desert is a lie (making TESO a lie too), or even that Saadia pulling a dagger on you is just some Illusion spell, you're not making any progress here.

      Again, because they happened doesn't mean the sequence of events, or the actual specific events have occurred. For example, do you know what exactly went on inside say, Hitler's personal bunker when World War II was going on? Do you know what Donald Trump is writing now just because you know he is the current POTUS? You shouldn't accuse others of strawmanning when you yourself do it as well.

      Kematu is rather vague about a lot of things. He has to be, because of course he can't trust an outsider like you. But this vagueness only makes it hard to determine his actual intent and purpose. Again, even if Taneth fell, so what we know it did? We still do not know HOW it fell, WHO made it fall and WHY it fell. These questions are only answered by a singular source in game, the man under suspicion.

      So yes, it is guesswork - you are like an artist restoring a faded painting. Sure, you have some idea how things fit because of some contextual knowledge, but it doesn't mean your restoration is actually correct.

      And I'm saying your doubt isn't reasonable because of all of the evidence weighed against Saadia. You are looking for any excuse to find both parties suspicious or equally unworthy of support, as is your bias. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you've been watching too much CSI.

      And if you're wondering why I don't buy YOUR arguments, it's because you don't realize that you're attempting the exact same thing. I'm simply not as subtle as you are about my perspective.

      It is not called subtlety, it is called qualification. I am not stating it is absolute that I am right here - I am simply stating that you may be wrong. It is akin to "do not reject the null hypothesis" in statistics - it doesn't meant you ACCEPT the null hypothesis. You just cannot discount it.

      Because you are wrong doesn't automatically mean any other crackpot theory I or someone else put up is correct, so why would I waste time stating a whole theory to prove it? I simply provide an alternative which is plausible. Your line may be plausible, but so long as another probability exists, your line cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      I speak in conditionals. You speak in absolutes. This is the main difference. And you should know well enough, any argument in absolutes has to be certain fact which is incontrovertible. Facts which are easily perceivable to all, not based on opinions and probabilities.

      Even when you present statistics in the court that is one in a billion, you can only say "highly likely, highly unlikely". You cannot say "definitely".

        Loading editor
    • Datadragon Seraphim wrote:
      Actually, it is obvious you have a hot need for a confirmation that one side has to be right. Again, you state Kematu telling the truth as absolute fact, when it is in fact an unknown variable that is at best "reasonably assumable" based on what little in game evidence there is. The fact is that single sources are often harder to believe than multiple sources that check out. You seem to be incapable of believing that it is possible that you are wrong.  I am not stating that Kematu is absolutely lying here - I am only stating that it is possible that he is lying and this possibility is not small enough to discount. Again, just because he states so called "accurate history" and his version of events may fit better with the timeline, doesn't mean it is absolutely correct. You seem unwilling to accept that it is possible that Kematu is mixing truth and lies together, when conmen do this all the timee.

      Interesting, but wrong.  I'm simply convinced that one side is right due to every last bit of evidence presented, and you are unable to prove otherwise in the face of it.  Instead, you simply settle for not being convinced yourself. I could even sarcastically counter by accusing you of "a desperate need for entertainment from a guy who decided to comment here again", but I'm not sinking that low.

      No, you're not outright stating that Kematu is lying, but you are insinuating that Kematu is using the fact that he & his men are Alik'r in order to lie. All you've done is convince me that your perspective is colored by your utter lack of knowledge regarding the Alik'r warrior way of life. I don't claim to know much more either, but I do have access to limited sources on them which tell what the Alik'r throughout history revere above all else, in addition to previous evidence.

      What I'm "unwilling to accept" is the fact that, even now, you're still uselessly trying to sway my perspective. I already acknowledged the possibility of being wrong, but I remain 100% convinced due to the evidence.

      And, before I forget, here is an actual new piece of evidence introduced to my argument; "The Alik'r", a book which can't be found in TES5: Skyrim, but was first seen in TES2: Daggerfall and reintroduced in TESO.  Shedding light on who the Alik'r warriors are is the purpose.

      Datadragon Seraphim wrote:
      Again, because they happened doesn't mean the sequence of events, or the actual specific events have occurred. For example, do you know what exactly went on inside say, Hitler's personal bunker when World War II was going on? Do you know what Donald Trump is writing now just because you know he is the current POTUS? You shouldn't accuse others of strawmanning when you yourself do it as well.

      Kematu is rather vague about a lot of things. He has to be, because of course he can't trust an outsider like you. But this vagueness only makes it hard to determine his actual intent and purpose. Again, even if Taneth fell, so what we know it did? We still do not know HOW it fell, WHO made it fall and WHY it fell. These questions are only answered by a singular source in game, the man under suspicion.

      So yes, it is guesswork - you are like an artist restoring a faded painting. Sure, you have some idea how things fit because of some contextual knowledge, but it doesn't mean your restoration is actually correct.

      You are completely missing the point here, which is not surprising when you tried to compare eyewitness accounts to religious indoctrination.

      The definition of "strawmanning" is refuting an imaginary argument that an opponent didn't actually present in place of their actual argument, which you did by accusing me of saying the guilt or innocence of both parties is mutually exclusive. I know I didn't strawman yours, because you did in-fact earlier state in #164 that there was use of prosecutor's fallacy in my argument.

      If by "vague" you actually mean telling the Dragonborn of Saadia's exact crime, suspects Saadia of convincing you she's the 'victim', telling the Dragonborn exactly who Saadia is wanted by, and exactly why they were hired to venture into Skyrim? No, it's perfectly clear. You don't understand what "vague" means.

      And yes, we DO know "how" Taneth fell: Besieged by the Dominion. "Who" made it fall? Iman (Saadia) and the Dominion forces (the "who" isn't that hard to figure out; Southern Hammerfell during the Great War was razed by the Dominion). "Why" did it fall? Betrayal from within. Not "vague" at all.

      You want to continue calling it "guesswork", despite failing to refute me? That's fine. Your entire argument is reliant on your own lack of knowledge.

      Datadragon Seraphim wrote:
      It is not called subtlety, it is called qualification. I am not stating it is absolute that I am right here - I am simply stating that you may be wrong. It is akin to "do not reject the null hypothesis" in statistics - it doesn't meant you ACCEPT the null hypothesis. You just cannot discount it.

      Because you are wrong doesn't automatically mean any other crackpot theory I or someone else put up is correct, so why would I waste time stating a whole theory to prove it? I simply provide an alternative which is plausible. Your line may be plausible, but so long as another probability exists, your line cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      I speak in conditionals. You speak in absolutes. This is the main difference. And you should know well enough, any argument in absolutes has to be certain fact which is incontrovertible. Facts which are easily perceivable to all, not based on opinions and probabilities.

      Even when you present statistics in the court that is one in a billion, you can only say "highly likely, highly unlikely". You cannot say "definitely".

      If you actually believe I'm discounting a possibility just because I'm totally convinced in what is right, you haven't actually been paying attention. And if I was discounting it, by definition I would've ignored it entirely, which replying directly to these concerns [and acknowledging that books can be wrong] does not constitute.

      I know you're not speaking in conditionals, because you're one of those who insist that the truth can't be determined, no exception; which IS an absolute because you're totally reliant on the quest being unfinished in order to justify not buying either side's arguments. You're no authority on certain fact, since you've apparently blatantly skimmed dialogue from both Kematu & Saadia; when the goal is to catch either of them in lies.

      I can say "definitely", because of everything that leads me to my conclusion. You can't stop me from saying "definitely" because you are incapable of convincing me.

      (Addendum): Do you now see the futility of your stance in this?

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: (Addendum): Do you now see the futility of your stance in this?

      Actually, no. I only see the stubbornness of someone who cannot accept that he may not be right. The onus is not on me to prove that Kematu is a wildcard - the onus is on you to prove that he is being honest, which you seem to have miserably failed given your continued insistence on the same points which people do not accept, as these are leaps in logic.

      When the truth cannot be determined, your whole line of thought recedes into being still possible under it, which indeed states that "no possibility was rejected". Again, your presentation of your assumptions as facts means there is little point in arguing - it is like how you cannot disprove religion to the religious, because they are convinced that a possibility is an absolute.

      Basically, you stated that Kematu is "not lying" as an absolute, which would imply the automatic refutation of alternatives which are very much still possible. The truth cannot be determined is a broader category as is includes all probabilities, like comparison of a 99% confidence interval to a 90% confidence interval. Sure, if has less precision, but the amount of logical leaps and assumptions required to reach it is far less.

      And yes, it is a strawman that you used, because you presented generic, irrelevant "unspecific cases" which I did not talk about as being equivalent to "specific cases which are unknown". So I simply state irrelevance of your argument. You are unable to see that? It is a false equivalence, therefore you are falsely representing my argument using a false one.

      Your last sentence - everything couched in the way you want to see it leads to your conclusion. So either you acknowledge you are stating your opinion as fact, or more fallaciously, you genuinely believe your opinion is fact, when it is no more than opinion. Because you, as a singular person, is convinced of X, does not mean X has to be accepted by everyone, especially all the skeptics.

      So perhaps, your question, you should think about it in your own. You are, after all, the one presenting the more controversial point that requires a much larger burden of proof based on many more doubtable provenances.

        Loading editor
    • 1) "The onus is not on me to prove that Kematu is a wildcard"

      Oh yes, I'm afraid it is, because you insist that he is but have not proven it.

      2) "The onus is on you to prove that he is being honest, which you seem to have miserably failed"

      Except I have, because unlike you, I have used both book sources AND in-game dialogue as well as actions to make my stance clear.

      3) "which people do not accept"

      What, all two of you don't accept? Not only are neither of you the majority of people, but one of you has only succeeded in corroborating my argument.

      Datadragon Seraphim wrote:
      When the truth cannot be determined, your whole line of thought recedes into being still possible under it, which indeed states that "no possibility was rejected". Again, your presentation of your assumptions as facts means there is little point in arguing - it is like how you cannot disprove religion to the religious, because they are convinced that a possibility is an absolute. 

      And here you are again, predictably receding into the "truth cannot be determined" spiel. My perspective is that it can, and have already proven such. Unlike religion, which you facetiously compare this to, it does not require belief alone.

      Datadragon Seraphim wrote:
      Basically, you stated that Kematu is "not lying" as an absolute.

      Wrong again, and that's another for the strawman counter.

      I stated that I'm 100% convinced he isn't lying, furthermore that you've failed to refute this. Had I sought to impose this as an absolute truth, we would not still be arguing right now.

      Datadragon Seraphim wrote:
      And yes, it is a strawman that you used, because you presented generic, irrelevant "unspecific cases" which I did not talk about as being equivalent to "specific cases which are unknown". So I simply state irrelevance of your argument. You are unable to see that? It is a false equivalence, therefore you are falsely representing my argument using a false one.

      A strawman is when you refute an argument your opponent didn't actually present. Nice try, but it's clear you don't remember accusing me of guesswork; my reply to that very accusation started with "unless you want to tell me..." (which is most likely what you're referring to right now). I'd love to see how many people you can convince of this, because you can't even keep track of your own past arguments.

      And I'm afraid "unless you want to tell me" is exceedingly relevant, because you attacked the credibility of the evidence I provided.

      Datadragon Seraphim wrote:
      Your last sentence - everything couched in the way you want to see it leads to your conclusion. So either you acknowledge you are stating your opinion as fact, or more fallaciously, you genuinely believe your opinion is fact, when it is no more than opinion. Because you, as a singular person, is convinced of X, does not mean X has to be accepted by everyone, especially all the skeptics.

      Wrong once again. The evidence provided is what ultimately lead to the conclusion. Do I believe my conclusion is the only one people should arrive to? Nope. But I am 100% convinced of the conclusion I arrived at.

      Either you're too stupid to realize that a person with evidence can say "definitely" in their perspective, OR you're equating the very notion of having that perspective with unavoidably imposing one's opinion. Pick one.

      Datadragon Seraphim wrote:
      So perhaps, your question, you should think about it in your own. You are, after all, the one presenting the more controversial point that requires a much larger burden of proof based on many more doubtable provenances.

      Proof which I've already provided, hence there being no such burden on me anymore. And hence why your silly attempt to continue this, and call it "more" controversial, is futile.

      The burden has been on you, but you have admitted to not feeling the obligation, nor have you ever resorted to anything beyond "the truth cannot be determined".

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote:

      --Snip--

      Therefore, I rest my case. Your stubborness again shines through clearly, so I understand why all the wiser, less free ones have left. Your argument is equal to saying F(X) = 1, while mine is simply stating F(X)=Y., with 1 being a possible value of Y, but also 2 or 1000. Clearly, you say that the burden of proof is on me, but the fact is that is is on you, since you are proving the more specific case. Kematu being a wildcard means he can be anything, including your view of him. Your lame attempt at dichotomizing my argument opposite yours is equivalent saying a square is not a quadrilateral (by the way, it takes more work to prove a polygon is a square compared to proving it is a quadrilateral). The false dichotomies you are forming through semantic play hardly lends you credibility. How many different times do I have to restate this, before your logical faculty can process it free of your emotion?

      There is no more necessity to argue against someone who does not use logic, but purely conviction and a try at wordings, because it was your choice to continue to try and prove an ages old controversy in Skyrim to begin with (much like people trying to prove that the Stormcloaks or Imperials are right), even when other people have already repeatedly called your "proofs" as nothing more than assertion based on what you believe. Many have accepted there is only "their view", not an objective "truth" that was never even considered by Bethesda to begin with (in this case, the appeal to authority works, since the authority in this case knows the exact truth, or lack thereof).

      As for the part on Strawmen - I didn't state implausible things like the "Great War didn't happen". Trying to be lame and again trying to link the generic cases to the specific cases isn't helping you here. Which is clearly a strawman argument. You cannot commit the logic equivalents of ecological or atomistic fallacy then say it is logical to do so, or that my argument is such. Which means I did not state it. So, it is quite clear you are making a strawman by purposely linking two unreleated things.

      Believe what you wish and continue to state your opinion as fact. Indeed, I am stupid. Extremely stupid. Stupid for bothering to even attempt educated discussion with someone blinded by religious conviction. It is indeed a stupid man who tries to force a blind man to see. You know, if you used qualifiers like "I therefore feel as if Kematu is right, because I believe X, Y, Z are true", you would not have exposed your stubborness and come across as trying to impose your opinion as fact. Nobody would have bothered to argue, which is basically just restating the broad community consensus.

      In fact, you wouldn't even need to use rather lame, repeated ad hominem attacks to try and appear clever instead of stubborn. Before you call me out on using fire to fight fire, please, trace back your arguments.

        Loading editor
    • Haterdeureun beolsseo hageul tte

        Loading editor
    • @Ifnsman you just posting comments about how right YOU are for 100% of your posts can get IRRITATING AS FUCK after doing it FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THIS THREAD.

      I have my beliefs and I'm not changing my mind just cuz YOUR arguments are somehow 'superior'. And I SINCERELY believe you are somehow obsessive-compulsive or otherwise ADDICTED to arguing YOUR point and YOUR point ALONE MULTIPLE times despite Datadragon, Beautiful Princess Ashley, Ottoman hold and GAZILLION others proving you incorrect time and time AGAIN.  I just love instigating goofs like you who take this shit so fuckin seriously.

      go get some psychological therapy ;)

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote: @Ifnsman you just posting comments about how right YOU are for 100% of your posts can get IRRITATING AS FUCK after doing it FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THIS THREAD.

      if it irritates you so much, why are you still here?

      I have my beliefs and I'm not changing my mind just cuz YOUR arguments are somehow 'superior'.

      this sentence shows you're just as stubborn as he is. i'm not saying he's right, but you should be open-minded.

      And I SINCERELY believe you are somehow obsessive-compulsive or otherwise ADDICTED to arguing YOUR point and YOUR point ALONE

      whose points should he be defending? Vladimir Putin's?

      Ifsnman wrote: Oh yes, I'm afraid it is, because you insist that he is but have not proven it.

      the claim that he is telling the truth is a positive claim and therefore can be proven. the claim that we don't know is a claim that, by nature, cannot be proven, only disproven. therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

      What, all two of you don't accept? Not only are neither of you the majority of people, but one of you has only succeeded in corroborating my argument.

      "people" refers to your debate opponents. there's no point in continually bringing up points that your opponents have already countered (like you constantly bringing up Saadia's dagger even though it was probably for self defense)

      No, you're not outright stating that Kematu is lying, but you are insinuating that Kematu is using the fact that he & his men are Alik'r in order to lie.

      nice strawman you set up there. he's not insinuating that they are lying, he's insinuating that we don't know.

      I don't claim to know much more either, but I do have access to limited sources on them which tell what the Alik'r throughout history revere above all else, in addition to previous evidence.

      list these sources please. claiming to have a source is of no value if you do not present the source.

      And, before I forget, here is an actual new piece of evidence introduced to my argument; "The Alik'r", a book which can't be found in TES5: Skyrim, but was first seen in TES2: Daggerfall and reintroduced in TESO. Shedding light on who the Alik'r warriors are is the purpose.

      i do not see how this book relates to this issue in any way. it does not state anywhere that the alik'r warriors are always honest and never lie to achieve their goals.

      And yes, we DO know "how" Taneth fell: Besieged by the Dominion. "Who" made it fall? Iman (Saadia) and the Dominion forces (the "who" isn't that hard to figure out; Southern Hammerfell during the Great War was razed by the Dominion). "Why" did it fall? Betrayal from within. Not "vague" at all.

      we do not know for a fact that there was a betrayal, or that a person named Iman was involved. the only source stating that is Kematu, and he's the person whose reliability we are questioning here.

      why am i getting back into this debate?

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      "people" refers to your debate opponents. there's no point in continually bringing up points that your opponents have already countered (like you constantly bringing up Saadia's dagger even though it was probably for self defense)

      And yet I can't be sure that's what he means. Neither opponent has convinced me these points are erroneous or can't be used as evidence, and so I don't consider them "countered".  Why do I bring up Saadia's dagger as one of these points? Because self-defense notwithstanding, it's a stupid idea for any innocent person to pull a weapon on any stranger who hasn't threatened them. I bring that up because it doesn't help her case, and only raises suspicion.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      nice strawman you set up there. he's not insinuating that they are lying, he's insinuating that we don't know.

      You're either taking the piss right now, or you didn't actually read "No, you're not outright stating that Kematu is lying".

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      list these sources please. claiming to have a source is of no value if you do not present the source.

      I was expecting this. Since I know you can't be bothered to go back and read over previous comments to see that I have presented sources, or actually search the books up yourself, here are the book source-links for your convenience; Great War and The Alik'r (and before I forget, here's the 2nd Era version of the latter book).

      Furthermore, here's the pages for Kematu and Saadia, just in-case. I trust you'll never be too lazy to click on the Dialogue sections of each page for reference.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      it does not state anywhere that the alik'r warriors are always honest and never lie to achieve their goals.

      Since you were not involved in the argument at the time, allow me to clarify that the reason I used "The Alik'r" book is to prove a separate point of there actually being a warrior-nomad society living in the Alik'r Desert, and cementing their mentality.

      I did this because my opponent displayed relative lack of knowledge on the relevant aspect of Redguard culture.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      we do not know for a fact that there was a betrayal, or that a person named Iman was involved. the only source stating that is Kematu, and he's the person whose reliability we are questioning here.  why am i getting back into this debate?

      I did not say we know the betrayal happened for a fact. I said that Kematu wasn't being vague, and have proven it.

      We DO know the "how" and "who" for a fact, even if you try to argue that Iman wasn't responsible. The Dominion destroyed the city just as they did most of Southern Hammerfell.

      Yes. Why are you getting back into this?  You're certainly not forced to continue.  I only came back a few days ago to summarize the argument I had, and now this continued argument happened.

      Purrington wrote:
      Haterdeureun beolsseo hageul tte

      lol, Indeed. I had to go on a lengthy Google search to figure out what that means. __________________________________________________________________

      And while I could always go back and reply to Datadragon again; I can see he continues to attempt making himself appear smarter than he really is, condescending all the way in retaliation to my defense, not to mention deliberately twisting which statements I accused of being strawman arguments, doesn't want to believe that the burden of proof can ever be on someone who argues a character as a total wildcard (indicating he didn't pay attention), and doesn't even bother with direct quoting of statements right now.


      But if he wants to accuse me of ad hominem? If you want that, you've seen nothing yet. This is restraint, and I've been having fun since I first replied on January 11th, so I see no need to get angry about anything like another certain user has. If I really wanted to attack people, I wouldn't still be attempting argument.

      And just as he chooses to sardonically portray me as incapable of logic, I'll echo his "believe what you wish". He's never realized his own hypocrisy in this argument, so if he replies again (at all), we'll see how much longer this lasts.


      I didn't come here to "win" an argument, as I'm sure one other person likes to believe, but I am here to reaffirm that the evidence in the quest has me 100% convinced in my decision.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: Why do I bring up Saadia's dagger as one of these points? Because self-defense notwithstanding, it's a stupid idea for any innocent person to pull a weapon on any stranger who hasn't threatened them. I bring that up because it doesn't help her case, and only raises suspicion.

      she thought you were working for the alik'r. it's not weird to draw a weapon on someone when you think they want to kill you.

      You're either taking the piss right now, or you didn't actually read "No, you're not outright stating that Kematu is lying".

      you did indeed say that he wasn't outright stating Kematu was a liar, but you did say that he was insinuating it, which he also was not.

      I was expecting this. Since I know you can't be bothered to go back and read over previous comments to see that I have presented sources, or actually search the books up yourself, here are the book source-links for your convenience; Great War and The Alik'r (and before I forget, here's the 2nd Era version of the latter book).

      i am familiar with both of these books. they do not prove that Kematu is who he says he is. one of them is a book describing the Alik'r that, while painting them as a tough people from an inhospitable land, does not state that they are necessarily more honest than anyone else. the other is an account of the great war that doesn't even mention Taneth or how it fell. "The Great War" may prove that Kematu isn't working for the Thalmor, but it doesn't prove that Saadia is.

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      she thought you were working for the alik'r. it's not weird to draw a weapon on someone when you think they want to kill you.

      So you actually believe that 1. (Telling her that Alik'r warriors are looking for "a Redguard woman", not specifically mentioning her name, in the middle of a tavern.) and 2. (You demanding to know what's going on) both lend credence to her pulling a dagger on you, and isn't out of the ordinary?

      No, that's definitely weird. Especially since she tries it in the middle of a public place meant for people to drink and relax. If she can't trust her employer or anyone else in the tavern to help, and essentially resorts to committing a crime against a total stranger within city walls, her innocence is in question.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      you did indeed say that he wasn't outright stating Kematu was a liar, but you did say that he was insinuating it, which he also was not.

      Since you haven't kept up with the argument, this is the quote I was replying to from his post #174; "You seem unwilling to accept that it is possible that Kematu is mixing truth and lies together, when conmen do this all the time." (If you can't find it, copy/paste this quote into the Find function to make it easier). To that end, I'm well aware he's trying to appear noncommittal to whether Kematu's actually lying or telling the truth, but he is insinuating that Kematu is using a conman tactic. He does not have to outright say it.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      i am familiar with both of these books. they do not prove that Kematu is who he says he is. one of them is a book describing the Alik'r that, while painting them as a tough people from an inhospitable land, does not state that they are necessarily more honest than anyone else. the other is an account of the great war that doesn't even mention Taneth or how it fell. "The Great War" may prove that Kematu isn't working for the Thalmor, but it doesn't prove that Saadia is.

      Then you are not listening nor are you as familiar with either book as you claim yourself to be, and I've already explained why I brought up the "The Alik'r" book at a later point in the argument.

      The Great War book also points out the damage done to Hammerfell during said conflict, in which case it states that the entire south was conquered and its cities were destroyed. Taneth was one such city located in Southern Hammerfelll; it seriously doesn't require a genius detective or rocket scientist to figure this out.

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote: @Ifnsman you just posting comments about how right YOU are for 100% of your posts can get IRRITATING AS FUCK after doing it FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THIS THREAD.

      I have my beliefs and I'm not changing my mind just cuz YOUR arguments are somehow 'superior'. And I SINCERELY believe you are somehow obsessive-compulsive or otherwise ADDICTED to arguing YOUR point and YOUR point ALONE MULTIPLE times despite Datadragon, Beautiful Princess Ashley, Ottoman hold and GAZILLION others proving you incorrect time and time AGAIN.  I just love instigating goofs like you who take this shit so fuckin seriously.

      go get some psychological therapy ;)

      Hey, hey, my friend Sarah has OCD. I don't know if you're using it as an insult, but . . .

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: So you actually believe that 1. (Telling her that Alik'r warriors are looking for "a Redguard woman", not specifically mentioning her name, in the middle of a tavern.) and 2. (You demanding to know what's going on) both lend credence to her pulling a dagger on you, and isn't out of the ordinary?

      No, that's definitely weird. Especially since she tries it in the middle of a public place meant for people to drink and relax. If she can't trust her employer or anyone else in the tavern to help, and essentially resorts to committing a crime against a total stranger within city walls, her innocence is in question.

      when you know you're being hunted and someone comes in asking for info on someone like you, it's not that weird to freak out pull a dagger to defend yourself. people do strange things when they're panicking.

      Since you haven't kept up with the argument, this is the quote I was replying to from his post #174; "You seem unwilling to accept that it is possible that Kematu is mixing truth and lies together, when conmen do this all the time." (If you can't find it, copy/paste this quote into the Find function to make it easier). To that end, I'm well aware he's trying to appear noncommittal to whether Kematu's actually lying or telling the truth, but he is insinuating that Kematu is using a conman tactic. He does not have to outright say it.

      i actually have read every post on this thread since the moment i joined it in 2017, i just couldn't be bothered to respond bc it's a pointless debate (in fact i'm not really sure why i'm bothering now). it was very clear from the start that Seraphim was defending the position that we cannot know. that particular quote was a response to you citing Kematu's historical accuracies as proof that he is telling the truth (citing "The Great War" as if it proves he's being honest), when in fact it's entirely possible that he's not.

      The Great War book also points out the damage done to Hammerfell during said conflict, in which case it states that the entire south was conquered and its cities were destroyed. Taneth was one such city located in Southern Hammerfelll; it seriously doesn't require a genius detective or rocket scientist to figure this out.

      i know Taneth was destroyed, i'm not stupid. however, that in no way proves that Kematu is telling the truth. the book does not provide evidence that there was treason, so it adds no weight to Kematu's story.

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      when you know you're being hunted and someone comes in asking for info on someone like you, it's not that weird to freak out pull a dagger to defend yourself. people do strange things when they're panicking.

      It most definitely is weird to pull a weapon on a total stranger who's just asking questions. Saadia even says she knows you're not one of them, yet she still pulled the dagger on you. Being totally irrational is out of the ordinary.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      i actually have read every post on this thread since the moment i joined it in 2017, i just couldn't be bothered to respond bc it's a pointless debate (in fact i'm not really sure why i'm bothering now). it was very clear from the start that Seraphim was defending the position that we cannot know. that particular quote was a response to you citing Kematu's historical accuracies as proof that he is telling the truth (citing "The Great War" as if it proves he's being honest), when in fact it's entirely possible that he's not.

      Had you actually read and paid attention to every post up to now, I wouldn't have needed to give you the quote I responded to, so I'm not inclined to believe this current claim.

      It's "entirely possible that he's not" when he also has absolutely no reason or incentive to be dishonest about it. Seraphim claimed that Kematu could be trying a "conman tactic" so, using Seraphim's logic, why would he need to lie at all when the truth is on his side?

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      i know Taneth was destroyed, i'm not stupid. however, that in no way proves that Kematu is telling the truth. the book does not provide evidence that there was treason, so it adds no weight to Kematu's story.

      You "know" Taneth was destroyed, and yet you just said earlier that it "doesn't even mention Taneth or how it fell". So far, the only difference between you and Seraphim is that the latter would attempt to use that to prove that Taneth isn't an actual city or (more likely) that "we don't know" it fell. Furthermore, the earlier argument with Seraphim regarding Taneth itself was whether Kematu was being vague about it; He wasn't, regardless of whether "why" it fell is actually known. I'm afraid it does add weight to Kematu's story.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: It most definitely is weird to pull a weapon on a total stranger who's just asking questions. Saadia even says she knows you're not one of them, yet she still pulled the dagger on you. Being totally irrational is out of the ordinary.

      being totally irrational when you're panicking is definitely not out of the ordinary. fear tends to override your ability to reason in such circumstances.

      It's "entirely possible that he's not" when he also has absolutely no reason or incentive to be dishonest about it. Seraphim claimed that Kematu could be trying a "conman tactic" so, using Seraphim's logic, why would he need to lie at all when the truth is on his side?

      if the truth is indeed on his side, then he doesn't need to lie. if it is not (which we still cannot rule out based on the evidence), then he would most definitely need to lie.

      You "know" Taneth was destroyed, and yet you just said earlier that it "doesn't even mention Taneth or how it fell".

      yes, i know it was destroyed. i know where it is, and i know all the cities there were destroyed. what i meant was that the book offered no specifics on the destruction of Taneth, thus it is not evidence for Kematu's story

      I'm afraid it does add weight to Kematu's story.

      you keep saying this, but you have yet to explain how

        Loading editor
    • how bout this, let's just abandon this thing, and ASK BETHESDA about who is TRULY correct. saves people the rage and negativity. ;)

        Loading editor
    • Spirit Slasher wrote: how bout this, let's just abandon this thing, and ASK BETHESDA about who is TRULY correct. saves people the rage and negativity. ;)

      bethesda clearly intended this quest to not have a clear answer. also, no one here is raging but you. if you're bothered so much by this thread, stop commenting on it. simply unfollow it and continue on with your life

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      being totally irrational when you're panicking is definitely not out of the ordinary. fear tends to override your ability to reason in such circumstances.

      Hence why it's out of the ordinary.  The circumstances are not ordinary, and the very act of panicking is not ordinary. And it's certainly not going to seem ordinary to her employer or the patrons in the tavern.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      if the truth is indeed on his side, then he doesn't need to lie. if it is not (which we still cannot rule out based on the evidence), then he would most definitely need to lie.

      I don't know if you can, but I most definitely can. That's what Seraphim needed to get through to his head.

      I can rule it out because of the truth in Kematu's favor combined with the lies Saadia told. That's why the "why" of Taneth's destruction no longer matters, because we know "why" Kematu is there to capture Saadia; because the nobles (Crowns) want her captured.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      yes, i know it was destroyed. i know where it is, and i know all the cities there were destroyed. what i meant was that the book offered no specifics on the destruction of Taneth, thus it is not evidence for Kematu's story

      Yet it did. Just like almost every other city in the south, Taneth was ultimately besieged by Dominion forces and successfully destroyed.

      And for the record, if you read, you must know why I say "almost".

      Because I think you skimmed when reading. Hegathe is the only southern city that held out, and ultimately survived thanks to aid from Sentinel. 1st Quote from "The Great War" book: "In Hammerfell, the Thalmor were content to consolidate their gains as they took control of the whole southern coastline, which was in fact their stated objective in the ultimatum delivered to the Emperor. Of the southern cities, only Hegathe still held out. The survivors of the March of Thirst regrouped in northern Hammerfell, joined by reinforcements from High Rock." And now the 2nd Quote: "In early 4E 173, a Forebear army from Sentinel broke the siege of Hegathe (a Crown city), leading to the reconciliation of the two factions."  

      Based on that, Kematu's story still holds strong. He is convinced that, were it not for Saadia's betrayal, Taneth could've held its ground in the war.

      And further based on both the fact that Hegathe is historically a Crown city, and the fact that noble houses want Saadia captured, it's also easy to surmise that Taneth was a Crown city.  If you know even the slightest bit about Redguard politics, you know where this is leading.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      you keep saying this, but you have yet to explain how

      I already have, and I just gave more in this current reply.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: I can rule it out because of the truth in Kematu's favor combined with the lies Saadia told. That's why the "why" of Taneth's destruction no longer matters, because we know "why" Kematu is there to capture Saadia; because the nobles (Crowns) want her captured.

      Saadia's story being a lie does not mean Kematu's isn't. the only source we have stating that the nobles want to capture Saadia (or anyone for that matter) is Kematu. essentially, you're saying that Kematu is telling the truth because his story is in line with what Kematu said. if you assume from the start that Kematu is telling the truth, of course you're going to conclude that he is telling the truth.

      Based on that, Kematu's story still holds strong. He is convinced that, were it not for Saadia's betrayal, Taneth could've held its ground in the war.

      Kematu claims that were it not for Saadia's betrayal, Taneth could have held its ground. again, the only source stating there even was a betrayal is Kematu. this is again a case of "what kematu is saying is in line with what kematu is saying, therefore it is true". try some real arguments next time.

      Because I think you skimmed when reading.

      i did indeed skim for info that might be relevant to the fall of Taneth. the siege of Hegathe is not relevant to the fall of Taneth

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      Saadia's story being a lie does not mean Kematu's isn't. the only source we have stating that the nobles want to capture Saadia (or anyone for that matter) is Kematu. essentially, you're saying that Kematu is telling the truth because his story is in line with what Kematu said. if you assume from the start that Kematu is telling the truth, of course you're going to conclude that he is telling the truth.

      And the source corroborating Kematu's claim is the Great War book, partly because Taneth is easily deduced as a Crown city. I'm saying that Kematu's telling the truth because his story is in line with both historical events and the political situation of his home province, not to mention the impossibility of the Thalmor being involved.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      Kematu claims that were it not for Saadia's betrayal, Taneth could have held its ground. again, the only source stating there even was a betrayal is Kematu. this is again a case of "what kematu is saying is in line with what kematu is saying, therefore it is true". try some real arguments next time.

      And again, the source that corroborates his claim is the Great War book. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense that the Crowns would want her captured, regardless of whether Kematu made the claim. Try an accurate accusation next time, instead of attempting facetious paraphrases.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      i did indeed skim for info that might be relevant to the fall of Taneth. the siege of Hegathe is not relevant to the fall of Taneth

      The siege of Hegathe IS relevant to Taneth's fall. 1) It's a Crown city. 2) Crowns are nobles. 3) Saadia herself confirmed she's from a noble house (e.g. Crown). 4) Taneth is a Crown city. 5) Hegathe only survived due to help from a northern city. 6) Kematu insists Taneth could've held its ground, if not broken its siege. 7) The northern city that helped Hegathe could've helped Taneth.

      You're hopeless if you're blind to how it's relevant. In the wake of reconciliation between Crown and Forebear, and Hegathe surviving where Taneth didn't, the Crowns are bound to send someone after a treasonous fugitive.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: And the source corroborating Kematu's claim is the Great War book, partly because Taneth is easily deduced as a Crown city. I'm saying that Kematu's telling the truth because his story is in line with both historical events and the political situation of his home province

      again, he can be mixing in truth with lies to get you on his side. of the things he says, only the fact that Taneth has fallen can be verified by an independent source, the rest could all be lies.

      not to mention the impossibility of the Thalmor being involved.

      i never said or suggested they were involved in any way. you're the one who claims they're involved in this quest in the form of Saadia being on their side.

      And again, the source that corroborates his claim is the Great War book. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense that the Crowns would want her captured, regardless of whether Kematu made the claim. Try an accurate accusation next time, instead of attempting facetious paraphrases.

      it only makes sense that the nobles would want her captured if there was indeed a betrayal and if it was indeed done by her. we have no evidence for either of these things, other than the word of the very guy whose credibility we're debating here. you seem to be assuming that it is true, and using it as an argument why the guy saying it is reliable. my paraphrase was thus completely accurate.

      The siege of Hegathe IS relevant to Taneth's fall. 1) It's a Crown city. 2) Crowns are nobles. 3) Saadia herself confirmed she's from a noble house (e.g. Crown). 4) Taneth is a Crown city. 5) Hegathe only survived due to help from a northern city. 6) Kematu insists Taneth could've held its ground, if not broken its siege. 7) The northern city that helped Hegathe could've helped Taneth.

      1 irrelevant

      2 see 4

      3 see 5

      4 see 1

      5 see 2

      6 relying on the words of a potential liar again?

      7 we're discussing the events surrounding the fall of Taneth here. what could have happened had Taneth not fallen doesn't matter.

      You're hopeless if you're blind to how it's relevant. In the wake of reconciliation between Crown and Forebear, and Hegathe surviving where Taneth didn't, the Crowns are bound to send someone after a treasonous fugitive.

      you're once again blindly assuming that what kematu says is true and that she is indeed a treasonous fugitive. if Kematu is lying, then she is not a treasonous fugitive. when will that finally sink into that thick skull of yours?

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      again, he can be mixing in truth with lies to get you on his side. of the things he says, only the fact that Taneth has fallen can be verified by an independent source, the rest could all be lies.

      It is verified by both a lie from Saadia, in addition to a book source, that the Thalmor aren't actually involved in the fugitive search. It's verified by the book source that the Alik'r are enemies of the Thalmor. More importantly, it's verified that Taneth could not have fallen due to the Forebears. Hegathe's survival in the Great War, before help from Sentinel ever came, verifies that it was possible for a southern city to survive that conflict.

      And now that's four more verified things that you don't need Kematu's word for. All of which corroborate his story, and expose Saadia's lie.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      i never said or suggested they were involved in any way. you're the one who claims they're involved in this quest in the form of Saadia being on their side.

      I never said you said they were. How is it that you can't catch on that the reason I mention that is because it's who Saadia accuses the Alik'r of being employed by? (Unless you actually haven't been keeping up with past posts; which I'm now 100% convinced you haven't)

      And don't bother with the strawman... Just use the Find function and type in "Thalmor"; There is no instance of me arguing that Saadia is "on their side". (Seriously, go back and read every single one of these replies that contain "Thalmor" highlighted for ease of viewing)

      Good Try.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      it only makes sense that the nobles would want her captured if there was indeed a betrayal and if it was indeed done by her. we have no evidence for either of these things, other than the word of the very guy whose credibility we're debating here. you seem to be assuming that it is true, and using it as an argument why the guy saying it is reliable. my paraphrase was thus completely accurate.

      Your paraphrase was a useless attempt at portraying my argument as circular. I've already made it clear that Kematu's word is not the only source I'm using, and the first book source corroborates his word.

      And how could I possibly trust the word of my opponent who's only assuming that one "could be" lying?

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      1 irrelevant

      2 see 4

      3 see 5

      4 see 1

      5 see 2

      6 relying on the words of a potential liar again?

      7 we're discussing the events surrounding the fall of Taneth here. what could have happened had Taneth not fallen doesn't matter.

      1) The only way anything here would be "irrelevant" is if this entire thing didn't involve what happened in Hammerfell. Not to mention the political reconciliation factor between Crown and Forebear.

      6) It's funny that you flail at this point again, when it's clear I'm using it here as only a single piece of the puzzle.

      7) And it's reinforced by the fact that Hegathe held its ground before help from Sentinel arrived, implying that Taneth could've done the same regardless of whether Kematu said anything about it.

      Again, good try. You can't even provide reasons why you assume the first 5 are "irrelevant".

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      you're once again blindly assuming that what kematu says is true and that she is indeed a treasonous fugitive. if Kematu is lying, then she is not a treasonous fugitive. when will that finally sink into that thick skull of yours?

      First off, Saadia is confirmed a former noble of House Suda in Hammerfell; therefore, regardless of whether she committed treason, she IS a fugitive by definition. She fled, and is in hiding, to avoid capture. 

      Secondly, there is no plausible alternative for why the Alik'r would be after Saadia. The vast majority of other reasons you could invent could be easily shot down by virtue of the sole fact that they are Alik'r warriors, and all the rest need only a reminder that Saadia is a former noble (Crown). Not to mention the obvious that they aren't assassins.

      Sorry, but there's nothing "blind" about forming an argument different from yours, and using all possible evidence to support it.

      When will it finally sink into that thick skull of yours that it is possible to arrive to the conclusion I have? I care little for your, or Seraphim's, attempts at convincing me the notion that both of them "could be lying" is the only right way. Both of you are blind to your own bias.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: It is verified by both a lie from Saadia, in addition to a book source, that the Thalmor aren't actually involved in the fugitive search.

      never said they were

      It's verified by the book source that the Alik'r are enemies of the Thalmor.
      

      never said they weren't

      More importantly, it's verified that Taneth could not have fallen due to the Forebears.

      no shit sherlock. it fell due to the thalmor.

      Hegathe's survival in the Great War, before help from Sentinel ever came, verifies that it was possible for a southern city to survive that conflict.

      Hegathe and Taneth are completely different cities. it is quite possible that Hegathe is more defensible than Taneth, or that it had a more competent fighting force. this does not prove that Taneth could only have fallen to treason.

      and expose Saadia's lie

      we already agree that Saadia is a liar. providing evidence for that is a waste of both of our time

      I never said you said they were. How is it that you can't catch on that the reason I mention that is because it's who Saadia accuses the Alik'r of being employed by? (Unless you actually haven't been keeping up with past posts; which I'm now 100% convinced you haven't)

      it doesn't matter that Saadia's story is a lie, as we're not talking about her story

      And don't bother with the strawman... Just use the Find function and type in "Thalmor"; There is no instance of me arguing that Saadia is "on their side". (Seriously, go back and read every single one of these replies that contain "Thalmor" highlighted for ease of viewing)

      wait, you aren't claiming that Kematu is telling the truth? cause if you are, then you are saying that Saadia was working with the Thalmor during the war

      Your paraphrase was a useless attempt at portraying my argument as circular. I've already made it clear that Kematu's word is not the only source I'm using, and the first book source corroborates his word.

      And how could I possibly trust the word of my opponent who's only assuming that one "could be" lying?

      you claim to be using other sources, yet the ones you cited do not prove in any way that there was treason. we only have Kematu's word for that.

      also, when did i ask you to trust my word?

      Again, good try. You can't even provide reasons why you assume the first 5 are "irrelevant".

      123: so because Saadia is a crown and Taneth is a crown city, Saadia must have betrayed Taneth? by that logic, all crowns have betrayed Taneth 4: this is literally the exact same point as 1 5: Hegathe held out long enough for help to arrive, but that doesn't mean that Taneth could have. again, they're completely different cities, so the circumstances would be completely different

      let me grab some facts that are equally relevant to this issue as your points are 1 Julianos is a god 2 Valenwood is west of Elsweyr 3 Uriel Septim died during the oblivion crisis 4 Julianos is a god 5 Nazeem is annoying

      6) It's funny that you flail at this point again, when it's clear I'm using it here as only a single piece of the puzzle.

      7) And it's reinforced by the fact that Hegathe held its ground before help from Sentinel arrived, implying that Taneth could've done the same regardless of whether Kematu said anything about it.

      6 we do not know any specifics about the siege of Taneth. therefore, we do not know how well it could have held its ground.

      7 see above. don't feel like typing it again.

      First off, Saadia is confirmed a former noble of House Suda in Hammerfell; therefore, regardless of whether she committed treason, she IS a fugitive by definition. She fled, and is in hiding, to avoid capture.

      maybe i should have made this more clear, but i wasn't doubting that she is a fugitive. the "treasonous" part is what i was casting doubt on

      Secondly, there is no plausible alternative for why the Alik'r would be after Saadia. The vast majority of other reasons you could invent could be easily shot down by virtue of the sole fact that they are Alik'r warriors, and all the rest need only a reminder that Saadia is a former noble (Crown). Not to mention the obvious that they aren't assassins

      i can think of tons of reasons why the Alik'r would be after her. maybe it's a political power struggle? maybe Kematu and Saadia have had a personal conflict? tons of possibilities.

      Both of you are blind to your own bias.

      what was that saying again? something about a pot and a kettle?

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      -Snip of first 3-

      I never said you said they were or weren't. I'm not going to explain myself everytime you feel the need to demonstrate your lack of understanding.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      Hegathe and Taneth are completely different cities. it is quite possible that Hegathe is more defensible than Taneth, or that it had a more competent fighting force. this does not prove that Taneth could only have fallen to treason.

      They're both southern cities, and the entire south of Hammerfell was under attack during the Great War. This proves that some southern cities did have a chance to survive. Do try to remember that Hegathe ultimately survived thanks to northern aid; or it could've fallen like Taneth did.

      And by the way, "could ONLY have fallen to treason"?. Nice try, but we both acknowledge that it primarily fell to siege. Did you think I wasn't going to catch that?

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      we already agree that Saadia is a liar. providing evidence for that is a waste of both of our time

      You insisted that "only Taneth's fall" (one thing) could be verified by an independent source, conveniently ignoring other details for a moment. It's only prudent to bring that up again, hence it's not a waste of time for me; At this point, I could care less if it's a waste of time for you. (And the answer's the same to your second reply about Saadia.)

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      wait, you aren't claiming that Kematu is telling the truth? cause if you are, then you are saying that Saadia was working with the Thalmor during the war

      You're the one saying that I'm saying Saadia was working with them.  She does not have to "work" with them to be considered an asset (see Ulfric Stormcloak); Kematu accuses her of selling Taneth out to the Thalmor, which doesn't strictly mean she was on their side.

      I knew you were going to try this. So much for accusing me of "absolutes", when both you and Seraphim argue the same.

      Good Try. You aren't getting anywhere with this, but good try nonetheless.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      you claim to be using other sources, yet the ones you cited do not prove in any way that there was treason. we only have Kematu's word for that.

      It's not my fault that you're incapable of discerning the recent history of Hammerfell, its politics, or exactly the kind of group Kematu is part of. You just see plain words to skim over.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      123: so because Saadia is a crown and Taneth is a crown city, Saadia must have betrayed Taneth? by that logic, all crowns have betrayed Taneth 4: this is literally the exact same point as 1 5: Hegathe held out long enough for help to arrive, but that doesn't mean that Taneth could have. again, they're completely different cities, so the circumstances would be completely different let me grab some facts that are equally relevant to this issue as your points are 1 Julianos is a god 2 Valenwood is west of Elsweyr 3 Uriel Septim died during the oblivion crisis 4 Julianos is a god 5 Nazeem is annoying

      1, 2, & 3) Impeccable misinterpretation. It proves that the ones who hired the Alik'r to capture Saadia are the Crowns.

      4) Nope. It's determined by the fact that Saadia was once a member of the noble House Suda. Since Taneth is where House Suda resides, it's a Crown city.

      5) Funny thing is, you have absolutely no idea how different the two cities are, especially at this time in the Fourth Era. The only other thing I know about Taneth is that it used to be a Forebear city before the Oblivion Crisis.

      The rest are all excellent examples of your misinterpretation. Too bad.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      6 we do not know any specifics about the siege of Taneth. therefore, we do not know how well it could have held its ground. 7 see above. don't feel like typing it again.

      6) Just because the truth of it is currently being disputed, doesn't mean that the claim of betrayal from within is automatically 100% disregarded; that's not how investigation works.  And I know you're one of those who like to argue on the side of uncertainty, so try not to out yourself as a hypocrite.

      7) Good for you, then. You've made absolutely no progress.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      maybe i should have made this more clear, but i wasn't doubting that she is a fugitive. the "treasonous" part is what i was casting doubt on

      Since Saadia being formerly of House Suda confirms Taneth to have been a Crown city, there's no other plausible reason for Saadia fleeing other than having committed treason. Especially since it's already confirmed that the Thalmor have nothing to do with either Kematu or Saadia; therefore, there's no outside culprit. Whoever wants Saadia captured is obviously based in Hammerfell (as both Saadia & Kematu basically confirm this); and they hired a group of Alik'r, a nomadic people who helped the Crowns and Forebears fight off the Thalmor during the Great War.

      It's definitely not the Forebears who want her captured, because despite reconciliation and help during wartime, Taneth wasn't one of the cities under their jurisdiction. There's no reason to assume the Alik'r warriors themselves to personally want her captured or assassinated (the latter being completely ruled out because she's not assassinated in the end), especially because doing so doesn't line up with their lifestyle in the desert.

      So, who else living in Hammerfell even has the money to hire an entire band of Alik'r warriors to risk their lives crossing the border into Skyrim and deal with Nords, just to find a single fugitive? Who else living Hammerfell has a very good reason to want her captured?

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      i can think of tons of reasons why the Alik'r would be after her. maybe it's a political power struggle? maybe Kematu and Saadia have had a personal conflict? tons of possibilities.

      Political power struggle? Nope, makes no sense since she's fled the political scene in Hammerfell altogether, and chooses to continue hiding if you help her. And this reason conveniently ignores the Crowns & Forebears' reconciliation.

      Personal conflict? She'd actually be dead if that were the case.

      Tons of possibilities which are weak and easily shot down.

      The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:
      what was that saying again? something about a pot and a kettle?

      Something which you've already tried to turn against me, and have been found wanting.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote: Something which you've already tried to turn against me, and have been found wanting.

      because you are an accurate judge of whether you are biased, even though it is psychologically impossible to accurately judge one's own biases? lol get real

      anyway, i'm done. have fun with your closed-mindedness and circular reasoning. i won't be commenting here anymore.

        Loading editor
    • The Beautiful Princess Ashley wrote:

      Ifnsman wrote: Something which you've already tried to turn against me, and have been found wanting.

      because you are an accurate judge of whether you are biased, even though it is psychologically impossible to accurately judge one's own biases? lol get real

      anyway, i'm done. have fun with your closed-mindedness and circular reasoning. i won't be commenting here anymore.

      This coming from one of two people who've been attempting to shame me for my own bias. "lol get real" right back at you, hypocrite. Have fun believing you actually know what circular reasoning means.

      I doubt you won't be commenting anymore. Just as soon as you get over your hurt pride, I bet you'll be back.

        Loading editor
    • Ifnsman wrote:
      there's no other plausible reason for Saadia fleeing other than having committed treason

      hahahaha are you sure? buddy, there are dragons in the sky and reanimated corpses walking around

      let me try make up a story! this is so fun.

      1. Skyrim is a part of Tamriel 

      2. Ulfric Stormcloak is/was the Jarl of Windhelm

      3. Ulfric knows the Queen

      4. Ulfric killed his High King

      5. Ulfric claims he did that because he wants Nords in power

      All of the above is true.

      Random person from a tavern who seemingly has nothing to gain from claiming: Ulfric killed the High King in a fit of rage and jealousy because he's secretly in love with the Queen. After all, there's no other plausible reason for Ulfric to do such a thing. 

      I'm sure Ifnsman would be convinced that this random troll is telling the truth. 

        Loading editor
    • By saying 'this random troll' who are you talking about? Saadia??

        Loading editor
    • Wintersbreath wrote:
      hahahaha are you sure? buddy, there are dragons in the sky and reanimated corpses walking aroundlet me try make up a story! this is so fun.

      1. Skyrim is a part of Tamriel 

      2. Ulfric Stormcloak is/was the Jarl of Windhelm

      3. Ulfric knows the Queen

      4. Ulfric killed his High King

      5. Ulfric claims he did that because he wants Nords in power

      All of the above is true.

      Random person from a tavern who seemingly has nothing to gain from claiming: Ulfric killed the High King in a fit of rage and jealousy because he's secretly in love with the Queen. After all, there's no other plausible reason for Ulfric to do such a thing. 

      I'm sure Ifnsman would be convinced that this random troll is telling the truth.

      Literally none of this has to do with what's happened in Hammerfell.

      Your point?

        Loading editor
    • Have you heard of something called an analogy? Nevermind.

        Loading editor
    • Wintersbreath wrote:
      Have you heard of something called an analogy? Nevermind.

      Oh yes, but I fail to see the relevance of your analogy.

        Loading editor
    • Just something to consider... Bethesda is miserably incompetent at consistent world building and keeping all in-game accounts straight.
      An example would be books in Valerica's study in castle Volkihar. A room no one has been in since the times Serana was sealed away, which took place before the forming of the empire. Nevermind said books being still intact to begin with, but some of them *refer to the empire* or are from authors who wouldn't have been born in thousands of years (unless Crassius Curio just so happens to be an ancient vampire too, of course...)
      Also, in Oblivion, Mankar Camoran, whom I expect would be an expert on all Daedric matters, gets the planes of Oblivion and their ruling Princes hilariously wrong.
      So again, it's just something to consider. Any inconsistensies or nonsense in TES could VERY well be because of Bethesda being unable to keep their story straight if their lives depended on it. After all, this is all just a videogame and a work of fiction. Made by people.

      That said, I think people should focus on evidence that there *IS*, rather than evidence that there *ISN'T*.
      Ulfric has three sets of genitals and all of Nirn exists in the left nostril of a giant skooma cat. There's no evidence in any games that these statements COULDN'T be true, so should we consider them as actual possibilities? Probably not.

      There is evidence of Kematu telling the truth (other than his word), while there isn't evidence of Saadia telling the truth (other than her word).
      These pieces of evidence being:
      1. The Alik'r are warriors from Hammerfell, which opposes the Thalmor.
      2. Saadia is already definitely telling *a* lie. (Warriors from Hammerfell hunting her for speaking against the enemies of Hammerfell... Yeah right.)
      3. Kematu is able to guess Iman's fake name, showing knowledge of her manipulative methods.
      4. The Thalmor don't outsource any of their *other* manhunts, neither do they need to be secretive about them.
      5. The Thalmor also don't help their non-altmer agents after said agents have outlived their usefulness. Gissur is useful too and still gets no respect.
      (6. Everything in the game is there for a reason, as part of the devs' plan. If we had cause to doubt the validity of "The Great War" there would've been a conflicting account included somewhere in the game world. Or it would've been written as obvious propaganda.)

      And if that does not sway you, consider this: Would you rather indirectly kill a single potentially innocent person who already lied to you, or directly kill a whole group of potentially innocent people who *may* have lied to you? If walking away or killing both sides aren't options for you, I'd say siding with Kematu is the more logical and moral one.

      Aaaaaaalso... some other points.
      "Saadia pulls a dagger on you!"
      Panic and/or unwillingness to go down without a fight. Doing so is no proof of guilt, just proof of her fear.


      "Kematu left one of his own behind!"
      Their sense of honor is different from yours. The prisoner seems to agree that he "wasn't good enough". Also this has nothing to do with him lying or Saadia telling the truth.


      "Kematu's men harass random women!"
      The Imperial Legion is an honorable organization too. Doesn't mean every legionnaire is a super polite saint. He and his men could also very well be scoundrels, and STILL be right in THIS matter.


      "Kematu hides with bandits!"
      He and his men aren't allowed within Whiterun, and Thalmor (their enemies) have almost free roam in Skyrim. And again, he and his men could also very well be scoundrels, and STILL be right in THIS matter.


      "Saadia is too young to have been involved!"
      Most likely an inconsistency on Bethesda's part, like the ones I mentioned above. Unfortunately this is a work of fiction and therefore potentially has many mistakes made in it.


      "Saadia's ashes end up in Whiterun's catacombs!"
      And? Saadia and Kematu BOTH state that she will likely be executed anyway *after* being dragged away alive. ...In which case her ashes being there makes no sense anyway and is certainly an oversight.

      And in the end: "Don't allow yourself to be fooled by a pretty face. You're better than that." sounds like "the developers talking" to me. But that's admittedly just me.

      Yes. None of this 100% confirms or unconfirms either side telling the truth, and there isn't a "super definite clear side".
      My conclusion is that in the absence of an ideal 100% certain outcome, we take the next best thing and believe the more likely side. Kematu's side.
      Or... you know, Saadia's side, if dat chocolate bod and your hatred of curved swords is enough to convince you (or if you're roleplaying: your character). It's a perfectly VALID choice. Just nowhere near as likely to be the righteous one.

      Again. Ulfric has three sets of genitals and all of Nirn exists in the left nostril of a giant skooma cat. "Well it could be" conspiracy statements are pointless. Believe the evidence there IS (like the Great War book's account on Hammerfell's opposition to Thalmor) rather than the evidence that there ISN'T (like the nonexisting book or line of dialogue that would make you question the validity of the Great War book's claims, or the similarly nonexisting proof of the Alik'r warriors being race traitor Thalmor agents).

      And please don't insult each other. Stubbornness isn't stupidity, and all of you (except Spirit Slasher, it looks like) are perfectly capable of logical thought.

        Loading editor
    • ^I agree with the vast majority of your points. I just have one addendum to make before moving on.

      2001:999:1:2D0A:30A4:83BB:F936:9F51 wrote:
      "Saadia pulls a dagger on you!"
       Panic and/or unwillingness to go down without a fight. Doing so is no proof of guilt, just proof of her fear.

      While I understand the intent of this, the point is that it's not proof of her "innocence", nor is it necessarily ordinary if you're supposedly innocent. A couple opponents didn't understand that pulling a weapon on a total stranger (whom Saadia supposedly knew wasn't one of her pursuers) is absolutely unwise. An ordinary individual is not going to think of you as innocent if you pull that kind of stunt.

      2001:999:1:2D0A:30A4:83BB:F936:9F51 wrote:
      Believe the evidence there IS (like the Great War book's account on Hammerfell's opposition to Thalmor) rather than the evidence that there ISN'T (like the nonexisting book or line of dialogue that would make you question the validity of the Great War book's claims, or the similarly nonexisting proof of the Alik'r warriors being race traitor Thalmor agents).

      Precisely.

      Which is why I so stubbornly remain 100% convinced of the outcome I chose every time.  The counter-arguments provided by a couple others have been ineffective and unreliant on existing evidence.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message