Wow, people are so sensitive that video game actions upset them in real life?

What a world we live in.

This would be an acceptable alternative ending to the quest (Except the high-fiving, a fist-pump would be more preferable lol). Albeit, losing the mace as a reward but gaining a follower? Or possibly the priest giving you a weapon/spell as his reward?

Well, maybe you shouldn't have done the quest. After you leave the house, you never have to progress in the quest any further. Did you really expect there to be another option? Honestly, people want a good option when dealing with Molag Bal, The King of [censored]? Hilarity.

I'm Christian, and I'll admit, I bloody enjoyed that quest. I'm not so svcked into the game that I act on my own morals. My fellow Christians can be very, very haughty at times, I know. Just ignore them. That's what I do.

I didn't think it was all that bad really.

It's a game. It's totally separate from reality, so many use games as an escape from the restrictions of life. I killed that guy without thinking, because it's a game. Like I murdered the Talos priest in Whiterun. Stop bringing religion into a game - why impose limits on yourself in fantasy as well as reality?

that happens when u pick up games rated M or 18, u wanted to play my little pony...

I think it's a problem in this game that there often isn't much choice concerning quests - either you do what they want or you ignore it, without much leeway or other types of quest closure (like you said, being able to tell the guy what was going on, so that maybe he runs away and the quest gets completed that way, but without any material reward would have been great).

On the one hand, with that quest I always thought it was obvious that he was going to be killed, seeing as Molag Bal wanted his soul. But, like you said, it's not completely out of the question to imagine that as you proceeded through the quest there would be some option to forfeit your reward and end the quest some other way.

Yes, someone could just walk away, but imo, that doesn't fix the problem. Then you've just got linear quests that are left unfinished. Not ideal.

The beating is irrelevant to me really as there are plenty of other quests that suffer from this tunnel vision take-it-or-ignore-it mindset. Hopefully the next game will improve on this a bit, seeing as it was one of the few things that frustrated me a little.

Just because it's an escape from real life doesn't mean that it has to be completely different from real life. It depends on what you enjoy and how you play the game of course, but in terms of role playing it's usually a lot easier to feel immersed in a character which you can relate to one way or the other. At least for me. And even if the character you play doesn't resemble you at all, it may still have a personality you'll have to stick to, and what's fitting or not compared to it's persona is based on your real life views in the end.

I want to walk on a moonlit beach and stab unicorns to death with a croche needle, but if there was an option to do everything possible in life in skyrim then there would be 50 disks and the game would cost ￡3000 each.

I doubt even the biggest gaming companies like Blizzard-activision and Beth can and ever will be able to make a huge game that lets you do whatever you truely want. This is one of those times.

This is the real point, I think. Everybody gets all "Dur! Daedra are evil! Hello Kitty is that way!" because it's mostly people who want good-guy choices complaining, but honestly, there are a lot of quests where you really have no choice in what is going on, or what minor choice you do have doesn't matter. The game itself might not be on rails, but most of the quests are.

But if unicorns, moonlit beaches and crochet needles as weaponry were already in the game, I guarantee you a lot of people would be pissed off if every unicorn was immortal. That's the point. Choice. Would it have been that hard to have put in a tiny bit of wiggle room for role players in a quest which was already in the game?


Exactly.

Looks like you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

There are 410 quests out there. This game has been in production for 5 years. To edit all the ending of the quests so there is one side for the "good guy" and one side for the "bad guy" would of probably meant another 2-2.5 years added on, not to mention it would cost beth heaps more money (voice acting, they have to pay people to write up and programme quests too, funnily enough!) and, in all honesty? They won't make as much money from it as what they spent.

Or are you going to take surprise that comapanies often work for Profit?

I'm not sure that's fair, but maybe it is. Did New Vegas have that many linear quests, where you simply had to do one thing or abandon the quest? I'm not talking about adding masses of content here - like in this quest in question, it could have been as little as telling the priest you've been sent by Molag, and him saying he will try to flee Skyrim before disappearing from the game. Then all you'd need is a tiny bit more dialogue from Molag saying that the PC has failed him and that being a God he'll find him wherever he flees anyway. It doesn't have to be a massive battle or branching epic quest or anything.

Yes, I have no problem with that, but there's more voice acting, quest writing e.c.t that needs to be done, and then there is a quest over there that is linear, so that would require a different outcome, and there's one over there too, and there....

So either they have to change all of the quests, or somebody else will come out with the exact arguement here about, say, the boethiah quest, complaining about how the Molag Bal quest atleast had an option, but the boethiah one doesn't. You give a dog a bone and he'll bury it and expect to get another to bury along with it.

You can tell the priest you were sent by Molag. He runs back to the shrine to desecrate it again, and gets trapped. Makes no difference in the end. Your choices are still do it or don't. If you do it, it's still your choice.

It's just about hoping they improve on an already great game the next time round. Quest linearity is definitely a problem for role players. Like I said, we're talking about maybe 4 sentences extra for two voice actors who were already paid to be in the studio, written by a writer who was already writing that quest. Yes. I would like less linear, quantity-over-quality quests. I believe it would greatly improve a game which is meant to be about playing a role.


That's actually better that I thought, but are you still left with an unfinished quest if you don't kill him? Maybe it would have been nice if when you leave the house that second time, the quest completes itself as saying you declined the prize of Molag Bal. If that already happens, then that's great, and not just leaving it up to the player to imagine an ending because a whole sentence of dialogue would have been too much financial and creative strain.

You did it because the scary voice said so.

Wow, that's so awesome I don't mind spoiling it for myself.


Daedra quests are awesome. I love ethic problems.
P.S. I am an Atheist but I am still capable of recognizing the moral issues in these... Being a Christian has nothing to do with your problem.

not sure if anyone has already said this but were you honestly comfortable with killing the guy that attacked you through no fault of his own, with no shred of remorse?
what happened to turning the other cheek?

Followers of Boethia are not very nice people either so

That's how I justified it in the end - he wasn't a good guy and although I felt pretty uncomfortable about it, I went through with it because I'd gone too far to stop at that point. Didn't give me a nice warm and fuzzy though.

Thing is, it's easy to get into the quest thinking it'd be something along the lines of the haunted house in Anvil in Oblivion. Skyrim does seem to be a lot darker. For example, the Oblivion Thieves Guild quest line is pretty mild - you ultimately help do something good by restoring the Grey Fox's identity and reuniting him with his wife. In Skyrim, I started the quest line but then reverted to an earlier save when it appeared I was just terrorising poor locals and helping a corrupt family. Didn't want that on this particular character.

THat's a valid complaint with a number of quests in Skyrim, but IMO, not this one.

First, as has been covered, you don't have to attack the Vigilant. He will attack you, but that's his choice. You then do nothing but defend yourself.

Second, the person you're being sent to trap is himself a priest of Boethiah - another blatantly evil daedric Prince. There is no doubt that this man is hmself evil. He's the one who desecrated the alter of Molag Bal in the first place by performing sacrifices to a different Daedra. It's not like he desecrated that alter by covering it with flowers and singing love songs.

To say you should join forces with this evil man so you can defeat Molag Bal is misguided - what do you think this man will do when you're done? Yup - more evil acts of human sacrifice and torture.

Third, although I was unaware of this - because I didn't follow the quest through - apparently you can warn the priest - and he then runs back to desecrate the alter with more evil acts. This is the man you insist on saving?

While you don't know that you're dealing with Daedra - and specifically Molag Bal - until you get in the house, you find out then. You, and a Vigilant of Stendarr - a person dedicated to destroying Daedra and their worship - have been trapped by this creature. You are stuck with no option but for one of you to kill the other. Why do people think that coming back with another Daedra's evil priest should somehow lead to a better result?

Yes, some quests should have different endings, or alternate paths. But for me, having a happy-happy-joy-joy ending possible for every single quest is dumb. Sometimes, you simply can't avoid having something bad happen. That makes a game better, IMO.

This is an evil quest for an evil creature. To me, it's fine that it has only an ending which some people find evil. It makes perfect sense.

It is a role-playing game. A role-playing game. Role-playing. You play a role, and it can be different from the one you "play" in real life.

No, not everyone plays games to kill things. No, not everyone plays games to dance around with butterflies. We all play games differently, and Bethesda's goal when creating games is to allow for that. If people wish to role-play as a good character, they are NOT going to turn down banishing some Daedra; they are NOT going to turn down helping a person in need; they are NOT going to simply allow him to venture off to his death. Why you think your playstyle should be the de facto way of playing Skyrim is beyond me.

And just because the guy is a priest of Boethiah doesn't mean he's evil. The Dunmer originally worshiped Boethiah -- are all of them evil?

I'm going to tackle this form the beginning.

You consider yourself a good guy?

You meet a random stranger in Markarth who identifies himself as a Vigilant of Stendarr. You never met before, have no reason to doubt him, so you believe him. This Vigilant of Stendarr is investigating a house that he does not own or have legal authority to investigate. The local authorities and other citizens of Markarth refuse to assist him. The Vigilant claims that he believes there are worshippers of another religion practicing within, and he would like to persecute them. The language implies he may also have a desire to wipe-out or kill the inhabitants of this house which neither of you have any legal, or moral reason to search or investigate. You agree to his request to join him in persecuting and/or killing whoever lives in this house, despite there being no evidence that any of them have harmed or done any evil to anyone or that they even exist. There's a 'hunch' that another religion is practicing in there, and you agree to persecute them based on their beliefs. You still consider yourself a good guy?

You enter the house with your tresspassing, religious persecuting friend in search of people to persecute. Upon entry the door behind you is locked and a mytserious voice tells you that one of you must die before you can leave. The voice displays great power in shaking the house. The Vigilant of Stendarr, being the stand-up guy that he is, interrupts his plans to persecute people for their religion in order to try and murder you so that he can escape. Great guy, that Vigilant of Stendarr. The vigilant tries to murder you, and you choose to defend yourself and kill him. Easiest choice you made all day, and no-where near as evil as your decision to break into this house in search of people to persecute for their religion. The voice orders you to the basemant, but the door unlocks and you can leave. You choose to obey the mysterious voice that just locked you in a house and forced you to kill a man in self-defense. Still think you're a good guy?

You approch the voices' altar. It's Molag Bal, the Daedric Lord of everything-evil-and-violent. You choose to stick around and talk to this Daedric prince personally since you found no worshippers of his to persecute or murder. Let's call this plan B. "Good Guy." You speak to Molag Bal and agree to bring him a Priest of Boetheia for a reward. Because that's what Jesus did, right? At the beckoning of mysterious murderous voices he tried to find his enemies and bring them to latares for tea-time, right? So, you, being the good guy that you are, find this Priest of Boetheia, the Daedric Lord of deceit and allow him to return to the shrine of Molag Bal, who is very angry with him. You decide to follow him and see what happens and of course, you can't forget to get your reward! You know how those "good guys" are when it comes to their rewards! Still think you're a good guy?

Molag Bal traps the priest of Boethia in a cage, thanks to you and your repeated choice to persecute people for their religions and for obeying the evil mysterious' voice every command. The mytserious voice then orders you to kill the priest with a rusty mace because you're such a great guy. And just like a good guy is expected, you do it, and then complain that he made you do something evil? You chose to be evil long before the priest of Boethia was trapped in the cage. Killing the priest of Boethia was perhaps the second least evil choice you made that day.