» Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:26 am
I sided with neither of them. They're both damn sketchy, regardless of which story is more coherent.
Kematu's story may sound more coherent because he's been given an "official" story to tell when questioned. No guarantee it's the truth.
Saadia's story is less coherent, but also sounds more rushed. While I don't believe she's being hunted for speaking against the Thalmor, I also don't believe the truth to be the exact opposite.
I get the vibe that they're both lying and feeding different stories for persuasion purposes. Think about it. They're in Skyrim. Most hate the Thalmor in Skyrim. Saadia says she's hunted for speaking againts the Thalmor, and she earns the respect of most nords, and the player (if you choose to kill the Alik'r warriors). Come across the Alik'r? They say she spoke out in support of the Thalmor. The player is persuaded he's been tricked by someone who likes his enemies. Agrees to trap her.
Both seem conveniently political given the region.
Also, they seem to know her features... intimately. As in the tattoo/scar/whatever it is they say when interrogating a redguard woman on the roads of skyrim, though not to say such markings are hidden. This may suggest significant study of a captive prior to their mission, or it suggests a personal relationship and vendetta.
furthermore, she probably could have ran anywhere to hide, including Dominion provinces, or Cyrodill. Instead she chose Skyrim, a veritable, anti-Thalmor backwater, in the middle of a civil war. That just doesn't seem to add up to me. Neither does her story, of course. But that's exactly why I think the Thalmor story both parties give is crap.
I simply think both are lying, and the Thalmor stories are useful political tools given the situation. I refuse to help either of them.