Yeah i have one problem with radiant story. in the example we have heard so many times they say like you kill the shop keeper and the daughter gives you the quest instead.... but i mean.... does that mean thare are no consequences to realy killing people anymore beside going to prison. i dont want to kill someone and automatically have his quests transfered to another NPC . what do you guys think?

Kill the daughter too, problem solved.

For one thing, I don't think this will always happen. If it does happen once, then Bethesda has kept their promise. Not all NPCs will transfer their quests around.

For another thing, there can't be an endless chain of NPCs to transfer to. What if you kill the owner and his sister too? Well, now you've really messed it up. EDIT: Beat. :ninja:

I think this mechanic is intended more to protect you from accidentally messing something up than to ensure that you always have access to every quest.

i thought this too hope there will be more consequences

And if it was, I would decimate the entire Skyrim population and have M'aiq give me all the quests.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was actually a different quest giving you a reason to kill the shopkeeper... I doubt Bethesda has something like this in place for every shop owning or quest giving NPC that player might kill randomly.

Not only is jail confirmed, but Todd mentioned in a German TV interview that there will be two different kinds of jails - hmm... wonder what that means?

I think that only applies to randomly generated quests, but maybe it is in the condition of some of the handwritten quests, then I am all for it. it would mean npc's that were unkillable because they were involved in a quest don't have to be invincible. if you kill every one related to the quest giver at that point I think its okay to have that quest be unobtainable as of consequence.

Not only that, but it also brings in more role-play potential. You can follow through when compelled to murder a belligerent shop-keeper and not worry about getting locked out of potentially important quests, while still getting consequences... the shop-keeper is permanently dead and the sister may not like you as a result, but begrudgingly gives the quest to you anyway, though with less information since she doesn't like you, and later on may seek revenge. Much more impressive and fun than "knock belligerent shop-keeper unconscious, lower disposition" or "kill belligerent shop-keeper, lose quest"

this
it would be awesome if there was some evil quests generated based on infamy level.

The ownership of the inn falls on the sister and she won't like you for killing her brother.

Sounds like a consequence to me...

An NPC is important for me if I love the character. Their quest repertoire is irrelevant. It would make me upset if one NPC I like dies, that's a consequence.

I don't think that you will end up seeing aunts twice removed and crap like that.. This is just added in to help the player from at least completely screwing over their quests by killing one person.

I was kinda worried about the same thing... I mean, it's a neat concept, but it more or less eliminates consequences.

I mean, you kill someone who has a quest, that quest should disappear, not transfered to the family member. I don't think anyone is going to be bothered by killing an entire family just to get rid of a quest that should have been gone after killing the original quest giver. Thats ridiculous.