Sums up the community nicely.

Why do you need to kill everyone?

There are plenty of games where that is the purpose, like Shooters.

the nice thing about living in a free world is that people can have different opinions...

What about if they are killed by someone/something else while you are on the other side of Skyrim? Because people have already complained about this happening in Skyrim. Multiply that x100 once you get rid of all essential NPCs.

they can't die while you are in the other side of skyrim, things happens only in the cell you are in

As if I have a problem with that?

I have read posts from others coming across dead NPC's that have broken quests. If they were in the cell or not I do not know but they didn't kill them and didn't see them die but the quests were broken because of it. My are you out to split hairs today.

did I say you do?


no, I'm just telling you how the game works.
maybe they were near a city and a dragon attacked it, or maybe the player was in riften and a thief killed the NPC, I got madesi killed by a thief while I was in riften but didn't noticed until it was too late

It's relatively complicated. It's also how you design a non-linear RPG, and should have been expected.

Many of the NPCs could be handled through the Radiant Story system were it in place. Major players would require scripting and a plan, which was obviously lacking.

It's certainly well within the scope of the game had they spent any time at all making it a priority, but they would have needed to do so at the beginning, rather than making all game elements essentially islands, unconnected to any other. Surprise surprise, the biggest complaint about the game has been the lack of interactivity and depth.

the only solution is the one that good ol' gothic series (gothic 1,2 and 3) came up with: being able to resurrect NPCs.
trying to have "alternatives" after killing an NPC is improbable, just think about the pre-registered dialogues and cutscenes...

This shouldn't even have to be pointed out. A game where an action as important as killing someone doesn't matter at all can hardly claim to be all about freedom and choice and consequence. A soft essential, as proposed, where important/quest-giving characters can only be killed by the PC, would work fine, it would svck if, say, Maven Black-Briar, essential to several quests, would randomly get killed. Anyone else? Fair game for everybdy. Oh, but I will miss that random Radiant Quest then! Get over it, these are utterly worthless anyhow.

FNV's system it still better, but admitedly every important NPC mostly stayed in one place, preferable behind barricades and a small army of defenders. Not so in Skyrim, unfortunately. It's stange that I can just waltz in and say hello to Ulfric Stromcloak just like that, and the only thing keeping me from killing him and ending the Civil War here and now is that he's Essential. For a man wanted in at least half the province and hated by the most powerful political force on the continent, the guy is sure easy to access. But I digress.

Would people stop acting like Skyrim's inability to kill certain NPC's is some great crime. THE FACT IS its completely normal and in line with 99.999% of all other RPG games in the history of video games. In most RPG games your not even allowed to attack people at random let alone kill them. There are hundreds of people you can't kill in Dragon Age Origins simply because you can't use your combat abilities until someone becomes hostile against you. And hiding quest essential NPC's so they only appear in cutscenes or when they've outlived there usefulness like some video games isn't much of an option either.

Actually, I went to Riverwood once and there was Frost Troll in town. I was like WTF?

No. Simply no. It's already easy enough to engage in a quest killing bug, I don't want to make it easier.

I hate essential NPC's unless they are part of the main quest, but outside that they should just make everyone "fair game", it really bugs me how they added sooo many essentail characters which was obviously intended to help the brain dead noobs who can't grasp the concept of "dont swing your big metal stick in that guys face or you fail", I would much rather just fail a quest than see the guy kneeling on the floor "incapacitated".

Another annyoing thing is when you want something they have, such as a weapon, normally I would just go and introduce Mehrunes Razor to his stomach but most of the time they just fall on the floor unharmed and I just get arrested, solution? take away the freakin essential npcs!

Yeah, I'd like to be able to actually kill everyone in Solitude, not just half of them.

Also, what about the Children? If Bethesda make them killable then we'll have a real problem...

There needs to be a balance. For the main quest backpaths should be made. Essential NPCs to certain quests should only keel over from severe damage by your hands a few times before finally kicking the bucket, failing their related quest or forcing you to do a back path. Kill an important person for a guild quest you either get kicked out or simply can't progress.

Edit:
The option to kill children, and actively choosing to do so, reflects on the player as opposed to the company don't you think?

Bugs aren't a choice the player makes. Murdering npcs indiscriminately is the player's choice. Shouldn't that player be aware that some of these npcs just might have a quest related to them?? The essential npc nonsense encourages the player to become more of a zombie that just zones out with eyes glazed over and play on autopilot. You don't have to pause anymore to weigh potential consequences and decide whether or not the npc's death is worth the risk. Just swing away.

It really should be an option for some players to opt for, the ones who need a simple game can just leave essential characters.

But the ones who can manage their own quests etc can have no essential characters (apart from mq) and no quest items.

I'm relatively new to the whole Elder Scrolls thing, with Skyrim being my first game. I say this to apologise for not being great with remembering names and stuff.

I was on a quest where you have to make a sacrifice, preferably a "non-essential" follower. I wasn't sure who is essential and who isn't. I had J'zargo following me at the time and thought oh well, and gave him up. Reading this thread, I am guessing that because I was able to kill him he wasn't "essential" to another quest??? I pray he isn't, at level 43 I'm too far in to start again now!

I don't know if it is a bug or not, but I can't kill Louis Letrush? I did a quest with him involved and gained ownership of Frost. Before Frost died in an unfortunate accident (I am a bit wreckless with fire spells, lol) I noticed Letrush appeared next to Frost at the stables. I picked a fight with him several times and got his life bar to the last bit of red but he would never die.

Sorry if the above is a little "off topic". As far as the thread goes, I fall into the camp of wanting a role playing game to be just that. If you kill the wrong person or animal, tough, you pay the price. Obviously it can be painful at times if you miss out on the bounty from a quest but I like to play the game with a mind of "doing the right thing", albeit in a fantasy environment. I try to live my character with some of the traits I have personally and only enter fights when attacked. I may be missing out on something having lost Frost and J'zargo but I will have to live with the consequences of the decision I made.

All advlt NPC's should be killable absolutely, no questions asked end of story.

As an RPG, it should be the players responsibility - not the games who determines who lives and dies.

Essential NPC's is one of the many factors which keeps Skyrim good, when it could be great.

In F:NV, all but one NPC was killable, and the world was that much more convincing and immersive. Essential NPC's is quite frankly, patronising to the player.

Screw this damn hand holding that is plaguing this great RPG series.

Take some damn risks Bethesda!

This person is a hero. Agreed fully.

Then due to stupid NPCs rushing dragons, you would end up not having any quests left because they all died to dragons.

i think most people agree that there should be no essential npcs..i loved how it was in morrowind, it was so great and made you really think about who you killed..i don't see why they don't do it like that again. it might have something to do with radiant ai, i mean people can get killed easily because they make their own decisions...