Edit:
Common issues so far:

• This poll is not biased. If you think otherwise, I recommend you familiarise yourself with the idea of hypothetical situations before responding. The last question is for comic relief. Please do not feel put off by it.
  
• I am not advocating forcing anything on anyone. I am trying to think of ways that the game world can be made more reactive and more complex for Skyrim. If you don’t agree that pure good characters should die at the end of the MQ then vote for the ‘long, optional questline’ option.
  
• A frequent disagreement in threads touching on this issue is on the importance of the MQ. Personally I want to see an MQ that is not pushed on the player at all, but once the player decides to focus on pursuing it, it grows in importance and nearly eclipses everything else in the game towards the end. I personally don’t consider this an unreasonable expectation of the main quest, but please feel free to tell me why you disagree.
  
• Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Please show the same respect for mine as I show for yours. If I am rude to you then please report me.

á la DA:O. Your character died by default but could do some shady magic to get out of it, the moral ramifications of which are yet to be explored. Obviously very few people would choose a death ending as that would be tantamount to your character committing suicide, but if your character’s sacrifice was apparently necessary to stop Alduin, would you think that the more final and climactic ending would be worth it?

Obviously if your character died then they wouldn’t be able to continue after the MQ which is something to be taken into account.

Of course I did say ‘variable’ in the ending: I think that character death should be the default ending but by no means the only ending. Apart from the influence your character has on the world through the decisions they made during the MQ, I would see a pivotal choice being whether or not to save your character.

In DA:O, for instance, we could accept Morrigan’s deal and reflect the corruption of the dragon onto her unborn child, saving our character. It’s arguable how moral this is though. In Skyrim I would see this being substituted with dark necromantic magic or a compromise with Alduin at the end of the game.

The necromantic magic would be a small questline that involves finding, befriending and then kidnapping a Dovahkiin child (extremely rare, hence the ‘finding’ bit). This is obviously just a brief outline of the questline and the real thing would be a lot more fleshed out, but it’s a start. Not sure to what extent it would get through the ESRB though.

The compromise with Alduin (or compromise in how you deal with Alduin) would be an alternative way of tackling the god without sacrificing yourself but with an extreme drawback. For instance, every imperial, nord, breton and redguard is wiped from the face of Tamriel (or just Skyrim) in exchange for your life – tying in with Akatosh’s hatred of mankind. Or you banish Alduin temporarily but do not sacrifice yourself to destroy him, putting the burden of his eventual destruction on the next generation and causing most in Skyrim to resent you, hampering quest progress to some extent (although bribes, speechcraft and charm magic can still get you through relatively easily).

The basic idea is that characters can survive fairly easily, but they have to do something rather grey to do so. That way an RPed totally pure character would die as seems fitting, but a conflicted or downright evil or even just a human character would survive. I would be in favour of the ‘necromantic magic’ option being the sole way to survive the fight with Alduin as it is the least detrimental to post MQ play in terms of functionality while still being morally reprehensible. And if you want to RP a 100% pure character who survives? Tough luck I guess :shrug: we are all human (except the races that aren’t).

So yes, in summary: is character death - with a clearly presented and fairly easy yet morally grey way around it - something that you feel would add to the authorial authenticity of Skyrim, and perhaps give us a TES game that doesn’t have a default lame ending?

No. The end.

If I am playing a generally "good" character, I don't want to have to resort to something that skirts the line just to stay alive. Why cant we just have an honest "I was better then you, so I win" and keep on at it?

Key phrase for me is "á la DA:O"
Why nick a unique ending from another game. Not much authorial authenticity in that, imo.

I wanna keep playing after the main quest regardless of the nature of my character.

Because that's the route every other TES has taken and the endings have been absolutely lame to accommodate post credits play that doesn't add anything to the game.

Not only that, you're perfectly free to select the 'long optional questline that allows characters to stick to their moral archetypes' option. More content! Isn't that what you infinite players love?


It's good to know that you responded to the first three words in the OP and not the rest of it...


You can do that. Just select the 'long optional questline' option...

If there is no 'last second reward,' one of those things you get just before ending the game and never get a chance to use, I'm all for it.

Perhaps an end game+ quest like in Oblivion that involves picking up your reward that characters who die will never receive?

That is your opinion. I personally found the other games to end just fine.

There was more than one way to survive in DA. You could let someone else kill the dragon. It wasn't too bad, but the way the bargain with Morrigan was handled annoyed me tbh. It should have an option to kill her where she stands the moment she proposed the bargain. :gun: They probably needed her for the sequels though. I bet taking the bargain ends in a pretty epic storyline in the end (in sequels, not the first game)..

While I find the approach pretty well thought out, with a few solutions, what I don't like in the approach of Dragon Age is that the NPC's get too much spotlight for my tastes. You have to raise their disposition etc.. it kind of becomes burdensome at some point. I can still enjoy the game though, so no biggie.

... and you're opposed to even the possibility of an ending that involves character death, even when that ending is avoidable while sticking to a moral archetype?

Have you no heart?

Well the last question was a bit biased haha! I think that, while death should/could be an option, I don't think it will be the "default" ending. Even though you state it should be clearly outlined that there are other ways of finishing, people will ignore that and then be pissed off that they died. It's just the way it is - you could have a big text box pop up that tells you what you are about to embark on (similar to NV), and people will still ignore it and then complain. I think Beth knows this so would probably have character death as an option, but by no means the default one. I like the idea personally (especially about it being complicated/morally grey if you want to survive), but I don't see it happening imo :shrug:

I like the idea. If you're a pure honest to god hero, then you have to be consistent. And if you're not consistent, well, how pure are you ? And maybe some more shady characters would do the good guy thing.

What I'm trying to say is that realistically, sticking to high morals isn't easy - more props to those who can. The rest of us, wellll, we wheedle and flee away from consequences. That this should be reflected in the game would totally captivate me. Besides, that would detract indeed from the usual ending, and help the devs deal with the usual "oh crap, we have an overpowered hero now, how do we make him go away in lore". Nerevarine went to Akavir, CoC prolly became Sheo... They're running out of varied excuses.

I don't think I would like end-game options : you mean, like a menu ? :unsure: I would rather have just plain multiple endings ; so I guess "long and difficult side-quest" it is, leading up to a different "I'm alive, hello birds, hello trees" ending.

Ending-s ? I like the idea of varied ways suggested to avoid deaths : each one has its penalty, which makes it interesting.

No that's what I don't want, some item, specifically a unique one, that you are given just before you die. Unless it can only be used in the context of the death ending. Basically I don't want, for example, the only daedric crescent to be available only in the final dungeon, or whatever area. I hate when they pull that crap. Barring that particular issue I wouldn't mind a main quest with potential player death.

However, the other side is that if the main quest is written with any kind of urgency then going off and doing everything else before bothering with it feels wrong. It creates a situation where the player is encouraged to rush through the main story and tackle the lesser problems of guilds and such later. I'm not sure how many players actually do that, but it feels strange from a story and RP perspective.

In Dragon Age you could still play after the main quest ended, even if your character had died. That's because the devs figured out the obvious. You shouldn't stop your players from enjoying DLC's ($$) mods etc, only because their character is of a certain moral conviction. I'd expect Elder scrolls to either do the same, or have a way for characters of every moral conviction to survive.

Absolutely not, no way.

That is not elder scrolls.

Well you wouldn't know about the item until after the MQ, so characters that die wouldn't really miss out on anything.

As for the urgency of the MQ I absolutely agree. Morrowind handled this perfectly. Oblivion... not so much. I can't speak for Arena and Daggerfall but from what I gather Daggerfall was better in that regard.


... Whiiiiiiiiiich is exactly one of the poll options

Thanks to the people offering their support. It's nice to not just see the topic filled with people responding 'no lol'.


So you feel that the series is absolutely defined by not having the possibility of character death? Okay!

I kinda didn't find the correct poll options for myself. I like the idea of one possible end being the characters death, but I do not think the survival should be only a moral choice. In my opinion, the characters death should be the result of two things. Of the characters will to do good, and the characters inability to avoid bad from happening without his/her death. Therefore, if the character is intelligent enough to plan ahead, s/he should be able to avoid a situation of the "die or let others die for you" kind. If the character however always takes the straight forward path, not looking for ways to avoid the bad things from happening in the first place, but simply going forward slaying the bad guys, then this situation should be the outcome.

(Example: The character can just go and kill dragons, or try to find a better solution, do research, even try to communicate with the enemy. Of course, the player quite likely will still kill dragons (or have them killed) to defend his world and life, but at the end, might be able to understand Alduin and have a 'diplomatic' outcome. If the character however just kills dragons, a fight against Alduin can not be avoided, and perhaps, Alduins final defeat can only come at the expense of the players life; a temporary solution that will result in trouble for others is the alternative. <- All that's just ONE example as I don't know the story or the likely end of it. If there's logical flaws not related to the general concept, ignore them, this could as well have been about killing Daleks or maneating plants instead of dragons.)

Its funny, how much different voting options can change a thread.

I like the long questline to keep my morals. Gives you the option, makes things interesting, and adds some scope to the mq without taking away from the game itself.

THIS.

This still punishes a certain morality though. (or even worse... punishes a warrior's approach in favor of a mages one) The general idea could also be a bit like how they did it in Mass effect 2. If you hadn't prepared adequately, people in your party (or even your character) would die. It was pretty basic in that game, but I find the general idea pretty good.

Indeed. Hence my jumping on the opportunity to create this thread before someone made part 2 of the other one.

Elder Scrolls is an RPG. A classic style RPG. It is not an adventure. It is not a hack n slash.
The main quest is only a tiny part of the whole game. Often I like to get it out of the way early so I can bask in the glory and explore the rest of the game in relative peace. Other times I never start it at all.

Your suggestion ads linearity to a game that doesnt need it. Games with a simple beginning and end that guide you from a to b to z are thirteen a dozen. The elder scrolls is unique.

Do not petition to turn the elder scrolls into yet another generic hack n slash. If you like em so much, go play them.

edit: also, your vote is bias and undemocratic, one cannot simply vote 'no' due to the other questions. add an option there that simply says 'no because i said no at #1′

Nice.
Surviving is key to TES gameplay because it would force you to do every quest before otherwise. Although I am inclined to think that another major disaster added to the lore has merit. And a lot of consequences make what you've done feel even more epic. You're making me doubt here. The evident seems not so evident. But then again, living in a world where everyone hates you doesn't allow to do much questing or good guy RPing afterwards, does it?
However, being the Hero of Kvatch and Champion of Cyrodiil with the Fighter's Guild or Mage's Guild still treating doesn't make much sense either. To not even touch quests that go like "OMGZ you're the perfect guy, because you could go in and no one would recognize you, hallelujah! Despite your fame level being 128."

Well, if our character HAS to die in one ending, I say let them die. I would much rather have a sensible ending where my character gets killed instead of a cheap "Hey, we managed to get you out of there somehow!" like Broken Steel did.

It all has to do with choices. Some will lead to the character dying, others won't.

That ending where your character dies, that's it. No playing onward. Reload save game and don't fight the last battle (if possible). Since you already know how it ended, you wouldn't have to go fight the final battle.

If you want your character to survive, then start a new game and pick the right choices this time.

Did you read the parts where I said that the MQ should be totally unobtrusive? I agree - the main quest should not be the focus of a TES game. But once you decide to focus on it, shouldn't it become fairly important? Those who don't want to do it don't do it. Those who want to do it while sandboxing can find a way around character death. Those who want to play a Dovahkiin can have a decent MQ. When did I ever say that I wanted to linearise the game to the point of being a hack and slash? On the contrary, I love the sandbox elements of TES. I just feel that the main quest should be the main aspect of a player's game if they focus on it.

And to your edit, look at the phrasing of the questions. "If this were implemented definitely". I purposefully did that to open peoples' minds a little, yet you can't see past your own narrow minded approach to the franchise.