Or just remove the children? Because apparently kids = immersion. :shrug:

Like many others, I would rather children weren't in the game at all. I've always felt that people who are that fond of children should put the game down and go play with some and leave them out of the game. But, since it appears they're going to be in the game anyway, I think OP's idea is the best way to deal with them, or at least the best way available to Beth. At the first sign of trouble, they scatter and disappear, and only slowly emerge. If the snot-nosed brats have to be in the game, then, with Beth's need to not run afoul of the guardians of morality, that's about the best we can hope for.

What is all this talk about children? I never saw a child in oblivion.

No children would be unrealistically perfect.

Because there aren't any.

Children are already going to disappear. I bet, before game's end, we'll have had to save over a dozen kids because they disappeared and their parents just can't find them! :biggrin:

Having children flee from a fight isn't a bad idea; a script to make someone flee to say, their sleep marker (where they sleep at night) would have been do-able in Oblivion. It's either that or they stand around and cower like in FO3. None of my characters would have any desire to harm a child, but I will be adding a mod disabling their protections because nyah, Bethesda, you can't stop me! :yucky: A fleeing mechanism will make them easier to protect, I agree.

Now that's just being too anol about it. Yes they're kids and we must potect their "innocence," but there's just no reason at all in taking these drastic measures.. As long as they're unkillable, then it's fine in my book. So what if you hit them? As long as the child doesn't respond to the strike, then it's not controversial. I do not see the big issue here as to what many people are making it seem to be.

On a similar note, I think the OP's idea should be applied to all civilians, with a few exceptions (Nord equivalent of crazy uncle sitting on his porch with a shotgun). Turns out if you mercilessly slaughter a civilian in the middle of a town, his brittle old dad and rich neighbor aren't gonna come up to you and start trying to punch you to death. Chances are they're gonna run.
So, IMO, all civilians, upon the start of a riot, should run into their houses and hide. And also guards will show up. If you really wanna go from house to house and hack them to pieces as they beg for mercy, go for it.

Children, of course, would just run into the house door and disappear until you're gone. Or forever, if you kill everyone in town -- some people like to kill everyone, I guess.

Skyrim will most likely only have 5 children or 10 so low that in this big world they will be rare. i like that they in but i just wont hurt them.

I'd really prefer not being able to swing at them then swinging and having no effect.

This game is 17+ for a reason, if I start hearing parents complaining about the kids, I will slap every single one of them while face-palming myself and doubting American society all at once.

I highly doubt a kid would be just be standing there while you fight a bandit.

I don't really like that children will be in game, I really hate any characters in game that are invincible.

I also wonder how dragons attacking cities will work, if the dragon breathes down a stream of fire and a child happens to be in the way of the fire and doesn't get harmed it makes it seem like there isn't a sense of urgency when slaying the dragon, since the child is invincible any way, or if in a quest a child is lost in a cave or some similar scenario you wouldn't be as motivated to save them (well save them quickly) because they can't be hurt in the first place.

Oh well I guess if they are confirmed they are confirmed.

Yeah how did any society proclaimed "taboos" even start? If someone has a problem with something they should just stay away from it.

That's where your imagination comes in, and you save the child for that fact that he is a child. Seriously, all these immersionists (not saying you're one) want everything handed to them on a silver platter when it comes to realism when they can't even use their own minds.

In my opinion, this is by far the best solution to children. There is no doubt in my mind that Bethesda has (and should) included children. In fallout 3/NV, the chilren just screamed and ran around while covering their heads. I like your idea better.
:foodndrink:

Yeah but some people like a thing called attention and love to lap it up like a cat laps up milk. It's like the previous example of parents who
go out and buy 18+ games for their 7 year old kids and then complain it's too violent. It's they that is too ignorant in reality.

I'm all for not having everything 100% realistic, but having a dragon attack a city and melting people all over the place with fire, but the kids would just be unfazed would be ridiculous. Have it set to where dragons cannot spawn if children are with 200 feet at the most.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: No children at all is far better for "teh immershunz lol!!!one!!1!" than invincible children whose lack of injury has to be explained away every time a dragon attacks a town.

But we have to have them in, for "teh immershunz lol!!!one!!1!" :rolleyes:

I'll just step in to throw in my two cents and say, I approve. I'm not a fan of children being in the game in general because of things like that, so if they run for cover and then vanish, that's great in my book, and I'd very much like to see that happen.

Well in oblivion, when I was saving some random civilian/friendly npc from some type of enemy, I felt like I had to kill the enemy fast, even at the expense of my own health because the civilian would be killed and once they're killed they're gone (unless I reload a save but that's something I've tried to stop doing), but with children since they can't actually die, I'll be taking my time "saving" them it's just something I kind of dislike, but it certainly isn't even remotely close to ruining Skyrim for me.

The best situation is very simple.

If you kill their parent and they have a relative that's in the game then they live with the relative and if there isn't a relative then they leave the game or head to some child oasis similar to Little Lamplight from FO3.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

Even though you know the child can't be harmed, you'd want to save them anyway. I think it's something called suspension of disbelief.

LMAO

I imagine those quotes as well when people want immersion, and I agree.

However, having children isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I'm sure Bethesda has all the nooks and crannies figured out when it comes to children and their immediate surroundings. At least most.

I stil don't know why people have such a huge problem over invincible kids. "Its not teh reelism!!11!! I wan meh life
simulatorz!!1! It hurts meh immershun LULZ!!11!"