In My Time of Need: Kematu or Saadia? (possible spoilers)

[Squirrel_killer-]

Dagmar:

Since I agree with all your points thus far about uncertainty of the Alik'r claim, and I am simply too lazy to look for and quote one good example of the bulk of your points, I would like to just state a basic counter argument to what seems to be your main argument against the Alik'r, the fact we have no proof but his word to back the claim made Kematu claiming that Iman (Saadia if you want to use her assumed name) is a traitor to Hammerfell and an ally of the Aldmeri Dominion. I would like to state that Iman can only be trusted as far as her word and has little backing evidence. While Kematu and his men are clearly bounty hunters they may truly be after her for the crime of treason. We have no more supporting evidence to back Kematu than we do for Iman. I personally turned her over simply because I say better be safe than sorry, however I have killed the Alik'r in a few saves. I would rather loose a single member of the resistance against the Dominion who had ran fled than risk a traitor. However this is something that is quite open to debate and we could argue about this for a long time without budging. I simply wanted to point out both sides are backed by but their word and can't prove their case beyond such. Both sides should not be trusted and I would just as soon as kill both to be safe than I would help either.

 

[Janus3003]

I prefer to go err on the "innocent until proven guilty" side of things. Better to let 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail, that sort of thing.

 

[Dagmar]

I never assumed Saadia was any more trustworthy than Kematu. I simply considered the consequences of my actions. Sending a woman to her death at the hands of the Aldmeri Dominion is something my character is never prepared to do, and from a position of ignorance I can't deny that's a possibility, and it's an irreversible error. It's all the more unsavory because Kematu is willing to split the bounty with me to do it. If she pulled a fast one on me, which is a possibility, she can always be brought to justice another day. In the mean time if she was a noble she's already doing some form of penance by not being able to return to her homeland and living in hiding as a humble tavern maid.

Regardless of who is telling the truth (and they could actually both be lying) Kematu and his men are lowlifes. They recruit criminal bandits instead of legitimate mercs or Sellswords. They harass every Redguard woman just short of the point of kidnapping them and then give the women attitude afterwards without showing a scrap of contrition that one would attribute to decent human beings in the same position. On that conduct alone I'm not going to lose any sleep over killing any of them. They may be the agents of a just cause but they're motivated for selfish reasons and, as far as just causes go, one would be hard pressed to find pl***tier representatives for the cause.

One final note. The Aldmeri Dominion didn't just take the coastal region of Hammerfell in the first year of the Great War. From the decription provided in the book The Great War: A Concise Account of the Great War between the Empire and the Aldmeri Dominion the region was overrun by vastly superior numbers with unprepared, disorganized and overwhelmed defenders retreating across the desert. In that context it's a little hard to reconcile a claim that but for Saadia's actions the coastal town of Taneth wouldn't have fallen to the Aldmeri Dominion. At best that account by Kematu was delusionally optimisitic (if he's to be believed at all).

 

[Hinga_101]

If we admit that there's no definitive proof of who is saying the truth a good path if playing a good character role is completely ignoring this quest (even if Kematu offers the path with less bloodshed)
From the point of view of ingame repercussions it dosnt matter with who we side here in my new game playing a vampire im going to kill both get max reward and make them both my thralls if possible just for fun

The "i cant risk sending an innocent woman to her dead even if im not sure of her innocence" but " i have no problems killing some ugly guys from the Alikr desert" argument is just lovely XD and please dnt give me all that about Kematu hiring bandits and the Alikr warriors being rough with people

Is paying to stay at the cave (source BlackArrow) enuz to deserve dead? A matter of taste LOL
Is being a rough bastart from a far desert enuz to deserve dead? Well... a matter of morals perhaps...

This topic from wat i see is about of possible ingame repercussions and personal choices about this quest sorry Dagmar im going to ignore ur "dogma" in my new game and kill both XD

Many interesting opinions and choices here my curiosity about what other ppl think and did in this quest is filled bye bye

 

[Dagmar]

...and please dnt give me all that about Kematu hiring bandits and the Alikr warriors being rough with people...

I can give you all that because it's true regardless of whether you want to remain willfully blind to that fact or obstinately ignorant as to what it implies. Kematu and his mercenaries give patronage to bandits, who are criminals that prey on the people of Skyrim through robbery and murder. That makes them criminals by association and they bear partial responsibility in all the misery that those bandits bring in supporting them. It's no different than if one supplies money for guns and drugs to a local street gang to inflict it's particular brand of misery on the surrounding neighborhood. If the only way to stopping people like that from abducting a woman is to kill one of them (and you only have to kill one of them) my characters have no qualms about that.

BlackArrow is not a "source" and calling something "dogma" doesn't make it so. Both statements are weak conclusions that beg the question of any supporting observations or facts.

 

[sticky runes]

I've done this quest twice and chose to kill Kematu and his henchmen both times. Why? Because he suggested that Saadia may have resorted to some "base" means to convince me to help her. Both my characters are happily married to men, and anyone who accuses my characters of cheating on their husbands for a bit of fanny must die.

But I did strip off all the Alik'r men's Hammerfell gear so that my Redguard has some souvenirs from his homeland.

 

[Raijin]

I always side with Saadia on my game Why? Because after I fight a group of Aliks I can collect their swords and hand them out to the Whiterun guards. They seem to be thrilled over their swords as they always comment about how curved they are.

Also I tend to believe what Saadia says.

A revised post

 

[Belle]

Last time I kind of screwed the quest up. I went with Kematu, waited till he paid me, killed him, let Saadia go, then she tried to kill me so I killed her...

I thought it would work differently.

 

[Dagmar]

Last time I kind of screwed the quest up. I went with Kematu, waited till he paid me, killed him, let Saadia go, then she tried to kill me so I killed her...

I thought it would work differently.

You can't let Kematu paralyze Saadia if you want to collect her reward. You can bring her down to the stables but you have to kill Kematu before he attacks Saadia or she will aggro on you the same as an NPC would if you sent your follower to attack someone.

 

[LeConquistador]

In this quest, I've found that I trust the Kematu a lot more than Saadia.

First off, she claims she's hunted because she spoke out against the Dominion. This is a major reason for anyone with knowledge of Tamrielic politics to distrust her. When the Great War ended with the White Gold Concordat, what did Hammerfell do? They refused to accept it, broke off from the Empire and fought the Dominion down to the point where they made the Dominion concede their claims on the southern Hammerfell shore for peace. That someone in Hammerfell then would be hunted down for having spoken out against the Dominion... No, just no.

I read that some here claim that she look in her early 30's, or 20's, which means that she couldn't possibly been old enough to have done anything during The Fall of Taneth... Well, I dunno, but she don't look that young to me. Far from it, actually. I'd put her in her 40's. Regardless, that's pretty circumstancial.

Also, about the claims of Kematu's dialogue... It's simple to explain. He uses the wording "resistance against the Dominion" for the obvious reason that the Dominion is the largest political power in Tamriel, an aggressively expansionist power at that, which basically controls the Empire as well, but the resistance against the Dominion in Hammerfell is "alive and well". I don't see this as contradictory against the state of affairs; a territory need not be occupied for it to have a resistance against something, when you look at a more global or continental scale.

Some claim the Alik'r shouldn't be trusted because they consort with bandits and one is even thrown into jail, and because they're not welcome in the Skyrim cities. This have valid points, but at the same time, it's fully understandable. The Alik'r warriors openly tell the guards they're looking for someone. With Skyrim on the verge of civil war, it's quite understandable that the Jarls of Skyrim isn't just going to let Hammerfell warriors go taking random people to bring back to Hammerfell, right? With the Thalmor having quite the presence in Skyrim, it's quite understandable if most is not too eager to consort with the Alik'r warriors, especially not someone like Balgruuf who is trying to stay neutral. He most certainly don't want his power undermined by allowing foreign mercenaries to go and arrest/kidnap someone in his city. That they consort with bandits isn't too odd; they're not welcome in the Skyrim cities, and they have gold to hire those bandits' lair as a base of operations. Simple business, no? They have gold, bandits want gold.

Also, Saadia claims the Alik'r is assassins... But why then do they capture her? That don't ring very true. Lets also consider the following: IF Saadia were telling the truth, would the Thalmor send Redguard mercenaries after her? When they have their own agents operating practically unhindered throughout Skyrim? And why would the Thalmor ever want her brought back to Hammerfell, especially alive? If she spoke out against them, she'd be long dead already. Because consider the following: The Blades were the most elite agents and warriors of the Empire, and they were hunted down and almost to the last man eradicated from existence by Thalmor agents. Would those then have any problem tracking down some Redguard noblewoman in a province where their agents already move freely, and then permanently shut her up, which seem to be their solution to a lot of things?

Frankly, while there's some weak points in Kematu's story (mainly why he's consorting with bandits and why exactly he and his guys isn't allowed in the Skyrim cities) the inconsistencies in Saadia's story is just outweighing them by... A lot. On a scale 1 to 10 where 1 is most unlikely and 10 is most likely, I'd rate Kematu's story an 8 and Saadia's a 1.

Edit: Also, regarding the Alik'r being "rough": it's no secret Skyrim is thrown into a civil war. If you got to find a traitor in a land which is controlled by someone (the Empire) who basically bent over backwards for your mortal enemy (the Dominion) while it's in a full-blown civil war (Empire vs Stormcloaks), do you send diplomats or do you send able fighters? Naturally, they send the toughest fighters they can find, men who will be able to survive in a chaotic Skyrim.

And Dagmar: While "criminals by association" is technically true, it don't make what they say any less true, though. They're there to find and capture a traitor, and in a chaotic land like Skyrim, I don't think they care two cents about what those bandits do; they need a base of operations, and the bandits give them one for gold. Why would they, as mercenaries and warriors, care about the regular people of Skyrim? Especially if you consider the fact that when Emperor Titus signed the White Gold Concordat, what did Skyrim do? Did they side with Hammerfell and continue fighting, or did they bend over for the Dominion even though the worship of Talos was outlawed? Yep, they bent over. The Alik'r Warriors does indeed appear tough and careless, even ruthless, but that's for a reason if you consider where they are, and why they are there.

 

[Dagmar]

I read that some here claim that she look in her early 30's, or 20's, which means that she couldn't possibly been old enough to have done anything during The Fall of Taneth... Well, I dunno, but she don't look that young to me. Far from it, actually. I'd put her in her 40's. Regardless, that's pretty circumstancial.

Putting aside your extemely questionable perception of her age, so what? Everything used to draw conclusions about the two is circumstantial. If you're going to draw the conclusion that the developers didn't screw up on the lore with this quest then even if she's 40 she's still 10 at the time of the fall of Taneth (it's 4E 201 and Taneth fell to the Aldmeri Dominion circa 4E 171). That still makes Kematu's claim laughably ridiculous.

Also, Saadia claims the Alik'r is assassins... But why then do they capture her? That don't ring very true.

If you listened carefully to her dialogues, in that very same one she calls them assassins but clearly states their intent to bring her back to Hammerfell for execution by the Aldmeri Dominion. There's nothing deceptive or untrue about what she says regardless of how she labels the mercenaries.

You haven't pointed to any inconsistencies with Saadia's statements that aren't far more rationally explained by assuming the developers made a mistake regarding the lore, especially when taking into account that Kematu's claim is simply incredulous without drawing that conclusion. Otherwise it's ridiculous to believe anything he says when he's accusing a pre-adolescent (a toddler actually by more conservative perspectives) played a crucial role in the fall of Taneth, which as an aside, faced completely overwhelming odds to begin with.

 

[LeConquistador]

Putting aside your extemely questionable perception of her age, so what? Everything used to draw conclusions about the two is circumstantial. If you're going to draw the conclusion that the developers didn't screw up on the lore with this quest then even if she's 40 she's still 10 at the time of the fall of Taneth (it's 4E 201 and Taneth fell to the Aldmeri Dominion circa 4E 171). That still makes Kematu's claim laughably ridiculous.

If you listened carefully to her dialogues, in that very same one she calls them assassins but clearly states their intent to bring her back to Hammerfell for execution by the Aldmeri Dominion. There's nothing deceptive or untrue about what she says regardless of how she labels the mercenaries.

Alright, that age thing might be screwed up then.

However, point two... brought back to HAMMERFELL for execution by the ALDMERI DOMINION? That in itself says she's lying, doesn't it? Because the Dominion isn't welcome in Hammerfall and after the Second Treaty fo Stros M'kai they have no foothold there either. So how is that not "deceptive" or "untrue"?

 

[Janus3003]

I think Dagmar's main point throughout this thread has been that neither story is perfect, though Saadia's holds up more than the mercenaries'.

Better a guilty person go free than imprison an innocent, I think.

 

[Dagmar]

...However, point two... brought back to HAMMERFELL for execution by the ALDMERI DOMINION? That in itself says she's lying, doesn't it? Because the Dominion isn't welcome in Hammerfall and after the Second Treaty fo Stros M'kai they have no foothold there either. So how is that not "deceptive" or "untrue"?

No it doesn't. If you believe the quest is lore consistent the only thing that's proof of is that she's batpl*** crazy because no sane person would ever say that they were being brought back to independent unoccupied Hammerfell for execution by the Aldmeri Dominion (which is why I italicized that portion for emphasis). It's the counterpart to Kematu's crazy statement that the resistance is alive and well in Hammerfell notwithstanding your attempt to rationalize it to mean something that on its face it doesn't.

The whole quest makes no sense unless you suspend your knowledge of lore and pretend that the Hammerfell in the game is the Hammerfell that existed after the White-Gold Concordat but prior to the Second Treaty of Stros M'kai. It all makes sense and comes together if you do this, and it otherwise comes off as awkward and incredulous if you don't.

Given that the relevant lore for Hammerfell was created simultaneously with ES V, it's understandable how a mistake like this might have happened. The quest could have been developed before a decision had been made as to what Hammerfell's status would be at the time of the game and/or where a preliminary decision had been made that the conflict in Hammerfell would be ongoing. It would be nice if they patched this quest to make it lore consistent but given how far out we are from the release date I don't think it's going to happen. It will simply remain an oddity of the game.

 

[LeConquistador]

Well, that's true. It'd make more sense if it was prior to the Second Treaty of Stros M'kai. But as it stands, I think it's a lot easier to rationalize Kematu's odd dialogue than it is to rationalize Saadia's odd dialogue.

 

[bruce142]

Interesting discussion, dagmar clearly seems to defend Saadia. I did turned Saadia in almost every save (I went to the Bannered Mare, found Saadia, listen to her and went to the stables of Whiterun immediately. If you're lucky they are still on the road nearby and you can catch up with them). Easy money, but I wanted to hear Saadia's side of the story as well (did the quest completely) and I was disappointed that you don't know how the liar is. But there is something that gives Saadia away which isn't discussed in this thread.
(P is player, S is Saadia, DT is name of dialogue topic so you can check it yourself)

P:Why haven't you gone to the guards for help?
S: You think I'd be in hiding if this was something I trusted town guards to handle? These men are ruthless. Cunning, deceitful... they'll pay off whoever they can. I can't trust anyone here in Whiterun. Guards and Jarls can be bought. And the Alik'r are close; I'm running out of time, so I'm choosing to trust you. (DT = MS08_MS08SaadiaS25AlikrQue_000562E6)

P:I was unable to defeat them all, and they're coming for you. (Lie)
S:What? How? I thought they weren't allowed within the city! (DT = MS08_MS08SaadiaST125Topic_00022E79)

How did Saadia know that the Alik'r weren't allowed in the city as she claimes that they can bribe of anyone (even jarls). This is a bit of a contradiction : she could ask the town guards to help her as they are not bribed, but instead she uses you to wipe out a entire cave. The bethesda developers have even stressed the sarcasm of Saadia's claim (stage 175) :

The leader of the so-called "assassins" I've been asked to eliminate claims that Saadia betrayed her people to the Dominion and they are here to bring her to justice. I've agreed to lead her into an ambush at the Whiterun stables.

Why would the bethesda developers make dialogue lines for the bandits in Swindler's Den to justify the presence of the Alik'r, if they are scumbags?

Her voicetype is FemaleSultry, therefore making her intentions to seduce/manipulate you more plausible. Kematu's voicetype is MaleEvenToned, nothing wrong with this.

Considering the things formulated in this thread, I must give Kematu the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Arym]

Saadia (or Iman) is indeed the one who errs in this situation. there are many evident proofs for that. However, everyone who does error, even a very big one, deserves to be given a chance to repent, something that those hunters will not likely do. So I choose to side with Saadia.

 

[Shelby]

Im not sure why ya'll think Saadia is the one in the wrong here. Lets add up the facts;

1. The Aldmeri Dominion is currently in power in Hammerfell.
2. Saadia has supposedly sided with the Aldmeri Dominion yet she's the one on the run.
3. If your side wins a war you don't go into hiding
4. The Alik'r are hiding in a damn bandit cave
5. If the Alik'r are part of the resistance, then how do they have the resources to send a retinue of their finest men after one woman and also fight to win their city back. Wouldn't they have to be the ones in hiding?

Its clear that SHE was telling the truth. These are assassins hired by the Aldmeri dominion. They may be well spoken but an assassin's tongue must be as sharp as his blade.

 

[KC95]

I think this quest has glitched on me. In my last three playthroughs the Redguards never show up in Whiterun. And I only ever see them harassing women on the road. I get an automated "we're looking for a Redguard woman" but the quest is never activated.

 

[Dagmar]

1. The Aldmeri Dominion is currently in power in Hammerfell.
2. Saadia has supposedly sided with the Aldmeri Dominion yet she's the one on the run.
3. If your side wins a war you don't go into hiding

The Aldmeri Dominion was not in power in Hammerfell. The province was a war front with some areas held by the resistance and some held by the Dominion. Towards the end the Aldmeri Dominion had been pushed back to the southern area of Hammerfell. While we don't have details of the day to day outcomes of the war between the resistance and the Dominion, it's not unreasonable to assume that the lines of occupation were dynamic and subject to change from day to day and week to week. It's not unreasonable to believe that Saadia might not feel safe from the resistance under those circumstances.

5. If the Alik'r are part of the resistance, then how do they have the resources to send a retinue of their finest men after one woman and also fight to win their city back. Wouldn't they have to be the ones in hiding?

Kemaatu and his men are not part of the resistance. They're mercenaries. They've either been hired by the resistance or the Aldmeri Dominion.

The quest is meant to be morally ambiguous so you won't find any smoking guns definitively pointing to the veracity of either Saadia or Kematu's version of events.