Well, may as well get all of our discussions on the topic of Essential Characters down here in one thread. What is your opinion on the use of Essential Characters, and their...large numbers?

I think essential characters, in the sense of quests not immortality, should only be able to die by the character's hand.

If you kill someone, its your own fault...

Shouldn't have to worry about some dragon flying in and toasting a whole town, those crazy mofo's should run inside thier houses like any normal person... and leave the dragon slaying to guards and the player.

I think some townspeople should be fully capable of defending themselves. Either through Magic or weaponry.

Oh, agreed, but I'm just saying they shouldn't die and prevent the player from completing future tasks through no fault of their own.

Well, no fault other than not slaying the dragon or anything else quickly enough.

They should just take a knee, and let the player finish the job.

I think it would be understandable if the scenario was laid out that YOU could influence the situation. Not everyone is going to survive that dragon attack, but damn if they are going to try. And What about if Bandits attack? (oh wait...never happens..)

In New Vegas, some characters were in danger, but definitely not all.

I'd like it if dragons were able to kill "essential" characters as well. It just adds to the realism, and a sense of urgency when dealing with dragons. There should be consequences, that's all. Losing an unnamed NPC isn't good enough, in my opinion. Events in the world should have a long-lasting impact that actually affects the player.

Eh, I don't just mean dragons. I mean anything in the game, though dragons are pretty much the only real threat.

They should not be like that I feel like Bethesda is watching over my shoulder and treating me like a kid.

"Oh don't kill him he has a quest related to him!"

"He's a Stormcloak, I'm destroying the Stormcloaks."

"Well to bad."

Some people should die, but for sheer mechanics of questing... I think the player should be able to complete any quest they attempt to.

Unless, of course, they stab the questor in the back.

Now, perhaps allowing a dragon or other enemy into the town IS the fault of the player... and they did allow the Quest giver to die, but just feels wrong to me.

I'm a completionist, and feel that when it comes to Quest Givers/Actors... they just shouldn't be able to die unless the player puts them down by thier own hand.

I don't see it so much as urgency as just making for realism. If these dragons are so difficult, I should just send a couple invincible townspeoplle into the countryside. They'll leave the wilderness armed to defend against armies.

I think its a step backwards from its use in Fallout: New Vegas, and only gives me the idea that these aren't really people I talk to, they're just soul-less questgivers with maybe a unique one-liner.

@stretzal: the issue at the end of the civil war and the camps is just infuriating.

Random dragon protection is good, but in my opinion every NPC should be kill-able by the player. If the player chooses to do so that's his decision and has to live with the consequences.

Those consequences by the way I wouldn't mind being highlighted in a message box like in Morrowind if I recall correctly (with the option to turn that off of course).

The only one I have lost so far is some archer in Rivenwood that wanted to be my companion after I did a short quest for him. When I got back later and a dragon attacked he was the brave soul blocking that incoming fire breath with his face. Not the wisest of moves but he shall be remembered.

Ironically, him dieing made the world feel much more alive.