UESP Forums

Okey guys, so in the quest In My Time of Need, who is telling the truth? Saadia or kematu? Start debate!

Both and niether.


For what it's worth, Saadia gets an urn in the Whiterun Halls of the Dead if she's handed over.

I always hand her over. Kematu is just more convincing.

Umm, I find that Saadia is slightly mathematically more convincing.

If I remember correctly, she claims to have 'spoken out against the Thalmor' and was as such hunted by mercenaries in their service. This could have happened separately from the war, or even in very recent years.

Conversely, Kematu claims that she betrayed Taneth during the war with the Dominion, causing the local resistance to give out.

This could have happened at any time between 4E171 (30 years before Skyrim) to 4E180, 19 years before Skyrim. I think it likely happened during the mid-stages of the war, unless the Tanethi resistance gave out during the last years, when the Dominion was the one being relentlessly worn down. But, let's assume, absolute best case scenario, let's say it happened in 4E180.

How old must one be to sell out a rebellion, and then warrant having a contingent of warriors sent after her? If she was under 20, I don't think it seems too likely. So, we can say, it is highly unlikely that this would place Saadia at anything younger than 39-40. She just seems a bit younger to me. I dunno.

You shouldn't let yourself be one over by a pretty face and a sob story, Eltee. One her story doesn't even make any sense since she goes to Imperial Whiterun. She could have at least gone to Riften. Two, the Dominion didn't even take over all of Hammerfell, ever. Three, speaking out against the Dominion is not punishable by death anywhere, the Thalmor aren't that zealous.

I don't necessarily believe Saadia but handing her over to guys so sketchy they're expelled from the city and decide to hold up with bandits seems wrong to me.

Taneth is in the southern portion of the country, which was firmly under Aldmeri control.

I don't know what the circumstances were surrounding what she said when she 'spoke out,' but the Thalmor certainly seems content with murdering strangers on the road because they vaguely think that they are a Talos worshipper. If she were a leading critic of the Dominion in Hammerfell, which is pretty damned anti-Dominion, then I can see probable cause to send folk after her.

And, Whiterun is the only neutral city in Skyrim. I wouldn't trust anyone in Riften not to sell me as soon as look at me when the people are the ones with the gold.

It's still an Imperial controlled City. It may not take a side in the war, but it still belongs to the Empire. Hence the speeches about loyalty. Thalmor can walk the streets of Whiterun anytime they want. And Riften is anti Thalmor, no matter what the Thieves' Guild wants.

That last sentence confuses me, saying a country is anti-Thalmor and then they would send agents after her is kind of weird.

To the first point, she could have just gone up to northern Hammerfell, that was my point.

What is the relevance of whether she could have gone there? I don't understand. The Alik'r claim she betrayed the Tanethi resistance during the war. She says that she spoke out against them, doesn't say when she did, and doesn't specify where she did in the country.

She claims that they are mercenaries. Their country of origin isn't really relevant.

Let's agree to disagree. I would definitely stay the heck away from Riften, and while one of the more rural towns would be my first option, I can see Whiterun working well enough.

In any case... I still don't think she's old enough for the Alik'r argument to mathematically work.

If she were an enemy of the Thalmor, why flee to an Imperial province which will be under their defacto rule? If she was genuinely an enemy to them she'd have stayed in the northern part of Hammerfell where she'd be much safer than in Skyrim, even in Whiterun.

My money is on her fleeing to an Imperial (and thus Thalmor) controlled province in the hope that vengeful redguards wouldn't dare follow her.

It should be mentioned Thalmor actually aren't allowed in Whiterun under Balgruuf, despite the Imperial ties.

She didn't either. And it kind of does matter. Also they are mercenaries. I won't deny that.

Thalmor are everywhere. Thalmor are even outside Windhelm, truth be told.

Well yes, but they won't blow their cover for some woman over a no evidence dispute...

They specified that it was during the war (4E171-4E180) in Taneth.

Ok, almost no evidence then.

I think the quest is just poorly written. The holes in each side's story are things that anybody should know doesn't add up, especially the people telling the stories. I can't remember where I read this, but I'm pretty convinced by the argument that the quest was written as if it took place just after the Great War, and nobody took a second look at it when the overall setting was placed thirty years later.

In any case, I don't see what further harm Saadia could do living as a servant in an inn, or what good handing her over to a bunch of mercenaries would do, regardless of the question of her innocence. I tend to favor and trust those who live in fear even as they participate in peaceful society over those who brandish weapons and associate with bandits to get their way.

(Sorry, CBR, ninja'd. I was responding to br3ad. I agree that it is essentially a no-evidence situation.)

What does everyone else think? Assuming that Saadia was at least 20 when she committed the treason claimed by the Alik'r, she would have to be an absolute minimum of 39 years old.

How old do you think she is?

And, I think that the incomplete, shoddy stories are very much deliberate on Bethesda's part. They like making us make these morally grey decisions. Remember Anora in Oblivion?

Well despite this discussion, I kill them both. That way no one gets away.

Muahahaha, get all the awards. Devious.

The woman in question, from wiki.

I agree that they were trying to set up a no-evidence situation. I just think they didn't do a very good job of it. Neither of the stories are remotely believable because they run counter to basic facts about the timeline of the Great War. Like, I think anyone actually living in that world would listen to either story and immediately wonder what the hell these people are smoking, because the numbers just don't add up in really blatant ways.

The situation as a whole is unbelievable to me, basically. Not one side or the other. I don't buy that either of them would use such poorly constructed stories to fool me.

It's worth noting that I would react the same way if they had done a good job of a morally ambiguous situation: Favor the peacefully hiding individual over the band of mercenaries shacked up with bandits. To me the question of whether she's innocent is no longer relevant.

That's the reason behind the whole quest. How is it not relevant. Plus they are hiding out because they are not allowed in cities.

I don't believe in vengeance as justice. Even if she's guilty, I see no real reason to pursue her or turn her in.

Neither are the Khajiit Caravans, but they don't hide out with bandits.

That brings up an old memory.

When I hit the bandit lair, I had no idea the Alikir were in the back end. When I felled the last bandit and crept towards that underground waterfall, I nocked another arrow and took aim at a figure I could see silhouetted against the spray.

Then I stopped. Something just clicked in my head: don't shoot. I removed the arrow and snuck forward. I get a greeting instead of a sword-swing. Weird, as I had no foreknowledge that I stumbled upon the secret Alikir camp.