I think in the end it's for the best that there are non-killable characters. If you just went out and killed a whole bunch of people, you would probably put an end to several to-be quests. Sometimes characters become killable after they are no longer necessary, like Baurus in oblivion. Perhaps they could just do this with more NPCs?

Edit: I know most of you probably already said this, but I didn't really want to read through the whole thread. I'm really tired and I should probably be asleep. lol.

But questing, through the new Radiant AI, shouldn't be a problem.
Killed a crucial quest NPC? No worries, his friend/mother/father is now there to give you the quest also. At least that's how Todd has hyped it up to be.

Bethesda has AFAIK tries to keep every possibility as canon.Some people killed Vivec in MW some did not.This led to the rumor in OB that he was taken by the Daedra.The Vivec is dead group considers that more propaganda from the Ministry of Truth.The Vivec is alive group believes he was taken by the Daedra.Both groups can be correct.

The MoT crashed ,IMO, partially to explain why people like Divayeth Fyr ,King Helseth ,and Barenziah are not around.Vague rumors concerning these and others similar to the Vivec ones will possibly be in game.

From a lore perspective having Unkillable NPCs is preferable.Perhaps it can be better implemented than it is currently.Mages that are important may teleport away as soon as attacked,Others may have a Sheogorath type defense on themselves you get teleported as soon as you attack.

Granted not every NPC with a quest to give should have magic of this nature at their disposal but certainly the lore important ones should have some degree of protection.

Depends on your mental capacity to handle death; think of the soldiers that killed hundreds in WW2 yet came back and became succesful businessmen that led the US into a golden age, built the interstate, landed on the moon, ect and so on.

Some have problems with it others dont.

The conditionalizing of quests is a function of designer choice and Radiant Story, not a function of Radiant AI. A dead shopkeeper's wife taking over the business and offering the same, or a similar, quest is reported in Game Informer as an example of how Radiant Story is used in one specific case. It is not meant to be representative of all quests.

I think I can handle not being able to kill kids, since that's not even what this is about and you guys know it. Killing kids is obviously not something I want, that's weird.
Killing everything else though, I should be permitted the option.

LOL I do that all the time. Seriously I agree with you, you should be able to kill everyone in the game. Maybe they could mark important NPCs with the essential crown but still make them killable. Maybe when you kill them it displays a message on the screen like when you are informed that the Dark Brotherhood is watching you in Oblivion. As fun and realistic killing all NPCs sounds it will make problems for the main questlines, so those crucial NPCs should remain essential until their respective quest is over.

I definitely want to be able to kill essential characters again, but with radiant AI, it causes a few problems. If we have Mr. Main-Quest-Giver decide to go hunting one day, and then a few wolves find him, he could easily die through actions not related to my own. While this does create some very interesting role-playing situations... it does lock me out of the main quest if I want my character to complete it. On the other hand, if essential characters are unkillable, then like people have said, it highlights their invulnerability. I think back to a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU7JFrnFiGQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=50s I saw, that comments on NPCs running off on their own. We could pretty easily abuse this, and lure our invulnerable companions into an area we're having problems with, let them handle the entire thing, and if they died, well, then they'd get up after a while, and would continue to wear down the enemies.

So then the problem becomes what can we do about it?

- If we allow them to be killed, then they could die for simple reasons (dragon attack, hunting, stuck in the middle of a fight, large fall, etc.), that would break the main quest, which would be a big problem if we actually wanted to finish it. Sure, I could always reload, but just how often would I need to save in order to make sure that I have a viable save to go back to? Hell, what if all the saves I have are after the point when "Bob" four towns over decides to go head into the mountains?

- If we do not allow them to be killed, or only allow them to be killed by us, then they could easily become an exploit for the player, and their sole existance can break immersion. If "Bob" is standing in the middle of town during a dragon attack, and "Bob" is essential, then he could stand there all day, picking his nose and scratching his ass while a dragon attempts and fails to kill him, after destroying the rest of his town. I'd like to assume that NPCs will flee from dragon attacks, but what if he's a guard? If the guards try and kill dragons,
then we have an NPC that will constantly try to kill a dragon, fail, get up, and try again, ad infinitum.

Yeah but dont respawn guards, please!

Well, respawning guards makes sense. In the real world (hypothetically) if you killed all of the policeman in a city, they wouldn't just be without policeman for ever. There would be replacements.

I agree, Obsidian did a great job with this, I rarely (well never really!) had a quest giving NPC killed. Its possible to make a game with this mechanic.


Just have one mainplot character have a lore wise way of staying alive or unable to visit for a good amount of the mainquest until it is nessecary/optional to kill them.

I think the player should be able to eliminate every npc BUT only the player. Not other npc's, not dragons, and not other creatures.

Once again I have removed posts about child killing which is not allowed for discussion here. This is the last chance for this thread to continue without discussing the killing of children. Leave that out of it and the thread survives. Bring it up even once more and the thread is dead.

I hope that this is some sort of sarcasm or something.
What's wrong with killing a kid when it's OK to kill an advlt?
Death doesn't look at your ID when it comes knocking at your door.

Congratulations. You did not heed the moderator direction just above your post and the thread is now locked.