In My Time of Need (Katnys)

Regular readers will remember that In My Time of Need was the quest that initially prompted me to begin this blog.  The question at its center -- whom should you believe? -- is what transformed an entertaining video game into a moral sandbox for me.  As I pointed out earlier, I created Katnys as a moral agent who would choose differently from her predecessor, and this is one of the quests that I had in mind when I started thinking about alternate moral choices.  In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit to "stacking the deck" for this quest in order to ensure that choosing Kematu over Saadia made sense for this new PC.  The Alik'r feature prominently in Katnys's backstory in part because I wanted to give this moral agent who values relationships over principles a reason to not only side with Kematu, but also to care about the dilemma at hand.

When Katnys returned to Whiterun after the revelations at Kynesgrove and High Hrothgar, she sought out the Alik'r warriors whom she had seen arguing with the town guard.  Earlier, she had avoided them because she was too focused on the task at hand, but now she felt the need to reconnect with something familiar.  Although she did not know these particular Alik'r, she had heard the warriors with whom she and Prym lived talk of Kematu with pronounced respect.  She was therefore more than happy to help them track down their target.

Once she found Saadia, Katnys listened to her side of the story, which actually cemented her original decision.  Saadia, who has no idea who Katnys is in relation to the Alik'r, refers to them as cowardly assassins, which is a gross mischaracterization -- something only one who had spent time with them would know.  There were some other points to consider:

• Even beyond the "assassins" reference, Saadia's side of the story didn't ring true to Katnys's ears.  She knew first hand that Hammerfell resisted the Dominion on its own well after the Empire abandoned the province and acquiesced to the Thalmor.  Although there was no way she could know the details of the Second Treaty of Stros M'Kai, it was clear that the Dominion had sought terms while the Redguards were ready to fight to the bitter end.  It was therefore highly unlikely that a Redguard noblewoman would be pursued by her kinsmen for speaking out against the Dominion.
• Furthermore, the treaty stipulated the removal of all of the Dominion's forces from Hammerfell.  Who, therefore, would care if a Redguard noblewoman was speaking out against them?  It's not as though the Thalmor were roaming free as they were in Skyrim.
• The Alik'r wanted Katnys to help them capture Saadia, whereas Saadia wanted Katnys to kill Kematu.  The former is the request of men doing their job, whereas the latter is the request of someone who is comfortable betraying her own countrymen -- which is exactly what Saadia was accused of.
• Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Katnys knew the Alik'r (if not these Alik'r), but she had no idea who Saadia was.  There was little chance she was going to trust a stranger over people she knew.

Still, Katnys wanted a little more insight into the situation; after all, when the Aldmeri Dominion is involved, there is always the possibility of deception and political intrigue.  She therefore followed up with the Alik'r prisoner in Dragonsreach, whose story confirmed her earlier suspicions.  Far from being a "hired gun," this warrior was a man of honor and loyalty, which seriously undermined the validity of Saadia's claims.  Katnys and Jenassa set out for Swindler's Den.

That Kematu had used bandits as cover neither surprised nor offended Katnys.  He had a job to do for his people, and the bandits provided necessary protection and camouflage.   As they meant nothing to him or to Hammerfell, they were expendable.  Furthermore, Kematu had no way of knowing who Katnys was and what her intentions were.  Had he really wished to kill her, he would not have stayed the hands of his men.  After her parley with Kematu, Katnys promised to deliver the traitor outside the Whiterun stables.  Kematu, true to his word, captured Saadia without violence; Katnys, for her part, was glad to have helped pay the Alik'r back, at least in some small way.

Anniversary Update

I started playing Skyrim about a year ago, and, given the fact that my posts have fallen far behind my actual playing, I thought it might be worthwhile to write an anniversary post with some content that never quite fit into any of my previous posts.


One of the most significant developments for me came about six months ago when I started to let my eleven year-old son play.  Even though the game comes with an M rating, by June I felt that I had a sufficient handle on the game's content to permit my son to play under my supervision.  While I wasn't going to force him to copy my playstyle, I have occasionally required him to explain and/or justify his actions, which has led to some fascinating debates.  What follows are some of the more valuable aspects of his playthrough.

The Character

Before I let him play, my son had already formed some strong preferences.  In contrast to my "ranger" playstyle (predominately Warrior, with enough Rogue to specialize in Archery and Sneaking), my son expressed an interest in running a "battlemage" character (primarily Mage, with enough Warrior to survive without magic).  Accordingly, he chose an Altmer character in order to take advantage of the High Elf racial benefits (extra starting Magicka and enchanced Magicka recovery).  I helped him choose an appropriate Altmer name ("Erefor"), then assigned him his first narrative task.

Because every PC, regardless of race, gender, or playstyle, begins the game as a prisoner of the Empire, facing execution for sneaking across Skyrim's closed southern border, the role-player has to create a believable backstory in order to explain his predicament.  My backstory was easy to compose; a Nord returning to Skyrim needs little explanation.  My son, on the other hand, faced a more complex project.  Why would a non-Thalmor Altmer travel alone to Skyrim in violation of the Imperial order?  I was impressed with the depth and inventiveness of my son's answer.

Erefor, having grown up under the Aldmeri Dominion, became a member of the Thalmor in order to serve his homeland with honor.  Over time, he grew disillusioned with the goals of the Dominion -- in particular, their obsession with the eradication of Talos worship seemed pointless and wasteful.  When Erefor voiced his objections to his superiors, the Thalmor rewarded him by stripping him of his position and gear, beating him senseless, and dumping him just inside the Skyrim border, where he was discovered by the Legion.  This backstory not only explains Erefor's presence in the game, but also demonstrates a nuanced understanding of character motivation and a clear moral standpoint -- particularly for an eleven year-old player.

The Civil War

Although I was not shocked that my son and I ended up on opposite sides of the Civil War (the contrarian apple doesn't fall far from the tree), his rationale surprised me a bit.  When Erefor joined the Stormcloaks, I challenged my son to provide one good reason for an Altmer to join an army of Nords who hate his kind and wish to drive them out of Skyrim; he gave me three:

1. The Empire tried to execute him for something that wasn't his fault.
2. The Empire had acquiesced to the Thalmor, who had betrayed him.
3. Freedom of religion is an absolute.  The Empire relinquished its right to rule when it forgot that.

The first two are personal, Stage Two moral reasoning, but the third demonstrates Stage Four abstract fundamentalism.  Erefor sided with Ulfric in order to protect the religious freedom of people who harbor a distinct prejudice against him, and who practice a religion that he not only does not practice, but that he actively disputes.  As a left-leaning Catholic, I have to admit to a certain pride in my son's rather progressive rationale...but I stand by my original decision to side with the Empire.

Followers

Another area of difference between my playstyle and son’s concerns the role of the follower.  For me, followers are like colleagues: we partner for a specific purpose to achieve a specific goal, and once the quest is complete, we go our separate ways.  

I have a number of reasons for using this model – some pragmatic, other more role-playing oriented.  On the practical side, unless I am heading into a large battle against multiple opponents (Civil War, Dawnguard) or situations in which I am likely to be ambushed and outnumbered (Blackreach, In My Time Of Need), followers often get in the way more than they help.  Some of them don’t sneak well, and my Ranger/Rambo style of play suffers when a follower starts tripping booby traps.  From a role-playing perspective, I get nervous unless my follower is clearly prepared for a dangerous quest.  My first follower, Sven, was a nice guy, but I wasn’t sure that a small-town bard was really prepared to go dungeon-delving, so I didn’t employ him until after I cleared Bleak Falls Barrow, and then only to help me loot the bandits and draugr I had already killed.  My housecarls, on the other hand, are trained bodyguards, so I have outfitted each with specialized equipment to help me with certain types of quests – Argis the Bulwark, for example, is my Dwemer ruins partner, and therefore I have given him Dwarven equipment enchanted with fire damage and shock-resistant magic (especially useful against Dwarven automatons). Furthermore, if I'm being honest, I have to admit that I like the "lone hero" narrative for my character.

My son, however, has yet to dismiss his first follower, Faendal.  He sided with Faendal during A Lovely Letter because, as a Bosmer, Faendal might well have the same antipathy toward the Thalmor as Erefor.  My son has really enjoyed having a follower NPC, so his playthough has become a "buddy adventure" starring Erefor and Faendal.  On a practical level, Erefore is essentially a Battlemage archetype, so his desire to create a small army makes sense, as doing so maximizes power and minimizes risk.  During dungeon crawls, for example, he continually casts Conjuration spells (mostly Flame Atronachs) so that he has at least two allies backing him up at all times.  While I would find that kind of playstyle chaotic and difficult to follow, he finds it rewarding and reassuring; each successful quest is a kind of team victory.

Crime

I have noticed an inconsistency in the moral aspect of my son’s playstyle, specifically around the issue of crime.  Generally, he plays a Chaotic Good character: benevolent and compassionate, but with little patience for the rule of law.  If he needs to increase his Pickpocketing skill, for example, he sees nothing wrong with lifting a few gold coins or a sweet roll from the town guard [in fact, I tortured him during my Thieves Guild quests by stealing the required item in order to fulfill the objective, then replacing it with an item of equal or greater value], but he criticizes his friends who arbitrarily kill shopkeepers and other non-hostile NPCs.  The inconsistency arises when he does something that violates the (admittedly unarticulated) moral code of his character. 

An instance of this contradiction occurred during our separate playthroughs of Scoundrel's Folly.  The stage in which the Dragonborn follows Gulum-Ei into the East Empire Company warehouse in Solitude was very challenging for me as a moral agent.  The warehouse guards, all mercenaries (as opposed to Solitude town guards), were immediately hostile to my presence, but I could not justify killing them; they weren’t doing anything wrong, and, my good intentions notwithstanding, I was in fact trespassing.  Through a combination of high Sneak skills, Invisibility potions, and a well-timed Battle Cry, I managed to navigate the warehouse without a single drop of blood spilled.   My son’s character, however, lacked the skills to avoid detection, and found himself in a battle fairly quickly.  When I pointed out that he had just killed a bunch of guards who hadn’t done anything wrong, he reminded me that playing with moral agency is my project, not his.

What interests me about his answer is that he didn’t even attempt to justify his character’s actions, which, while difficult, was not impossible.  Instead, he distanced himself from the moral aspect of the game and razzed me for taking it too seriously.  I suppose, given his age, I should have expected his reaction; a child’s first forays into moral abstraction (Stages Three and Four) are frequently marked by rigid absolutism, which makes moral dilemmas very hard to negotiate.  Faced with mutually exclusive choices – murder the guards and fulfill the objective, or spare the guards and fail the objective – he opted out of the exercise; killing the guards no longer mattered because it was “just a game.”  By excusing himself from the moral task, he inadvertently highlighted the power of the game as a moral laboratory.

Reflection

Despite its M rating, Skyrim has been a useful and rewarding point of connection for my son and me.  It has allowed us to have conversations about religious tolerance (the Thalmor), drug addiction (skooma), racism (the Grey Quarter), and many other topics that can be utterly daunting in the real world.  In the low-stakes setting of a video game, moral issues can be considered and debated without the emotional weight of personal history and anxieties.  I hope to continue the conversation for a long time.

In My Time of Need

In My Time of Need was the quest that originally inspired me to write this blog.  Because of the intricate set-up, high moral stakes, and lack of conclusive information, it presents a very difficult moral dilemma that not only defies easy answers, but also approximates moral dilemmas in the real world (albeit on a grander scale).

For me, the quest began in Whiterun when two Redguards, identifying themselves as Alik'r mercenaries from Hammerfell, requested my help in locating a Redguard woman who was thought to be hiding out somewhere in Whiterun.  The Alik'r themselves could not investigate inside Whiterun for two reasons: first, as per the White-Gold Concordat, Hammerfell is no longer part of the Empire; second, and more directly relevant, one of their number was thrown in jail for trying to sneak into the city.  I agreed to help them find the woman, then went about my business.

While in the Bannered Mare on unrelated business, I noticed Saadia, the Redguard cook.  When I asked her about the Alik'r, she asked to speak to me in private, at which point she pulled a dagger on me.  After calming her down, I listened to her story; she claimed to be Iman, a noblewoman of House Suda and a target of a Thalmor assassination attempt:

Part of Saadia's story.

I didn't know much about politics in Hammerfell, but I did know that the Thalmor were not above fostering in-fighting within another nation, so I was inclined to believe her.  She advised me to speak to the jailed Alik'r to find his leader's whereabouts, which I did.  After I paid his fine (apparently he had been abandoned by his leader, Kematu, for being clumsy enough to get caught), he agreed to help me out.  He told me to look in Swindler's Den, but...

Are the Alik'r noble warriors or ruthless thugs?

Lydia and I made our way to Swindler's Den, and when we arrived, we found a common bandit guarding the entrance.  Once inside, we were met by many more bandits, some of whom proved to be rather difficult to kill.  We also discovered a few bear traps guarding a key passage; so far, Kematu and his merry band were living up to their reputation.

As we were about to pass through the underside of a small waterfall, we heard a conversation in the larger chamber ahead.  I decided that, given the difficulty of our previous encounters in the caves, a sneak attack was in order.  Once we launched the first volley, the Alik'r were all over us, and we couldn't advance past the waterfall, so the battle was fairly chaotic.  Finally, though, I had Kematu on the ropes; when I delivered the final blow, he gasped, "Don't let yourself be fooled by a pretty face again. You're better than that."  I completed the quest by reporting to Saadia that Kematu was dead; she thanked me and rewarded me as promised, and that was the end of this side quest. Some questions, however, remained.

I had been feeling pretty good about my choice to help Saadia until Kematu uttered his last words.  Why would a mercenary or assassin bother saying something like that with his dying breath? Had I, in fact, been manipulated by a damsel in distress? Or was Kematu himself an unwitting pawn of the Thalmor? Now that the quest was complete and my choices set in stone, I could do some research.  After reading a few dozen articles and posts, most of which reflected pre-moral thinking (I betrayed both sides to get both rewards; I sided with Saadia because I wanted to get those Alik'r scimitars; I sided with the Alik'r because I didn't want to bother fighting them; and so on), I found some information that profoundly complicated my views on this mission.

It turns out that the conversation I overheard while hiding behind the waterfall was directed at me; Kematu was directing his Alik'r to hold, and the warrior he was addressing was Yours Truly:

I thought he was talking to one of his own men.

Had I listened to him, Kematu would have told me that "Saadia" was actually a traitor; she apparently sold out her city to the Thalmor during the war, and the royal houses hired Kematu and his men to bring her back  to Hammerfell alive to face her fate.  He then would have asked me to lure her outside the city; had I done so, he would have used a Paralysis spell on her in order to take her back without further incident.  It is therefore possible that I killed several honorable men in order to help a treasonous woman escape justice.

The element that make this quest so challenging to parse from a moral perspective is the lack of information.  Even if I had talked to Kematu, I would still have had the same problem; how could I tell if Kematu was telling the truth?  I had to make a decision without all of the necessary information, and even in retrospect, I still don't have all of the facts that I need to say conclusively whether my actions were morally justified.

For this part of the analysis, it is useful to look at the factors in favor of each side of the dilemma:

Factors in favor of Kematu and the Alik'r:

• At every stage, these men acted with honor when dealing with me.  They are not immediately hostile, and they do not try to force me to help them.
• Kematu's story is clear and detailed, while Saadia's is not.
• Kematu keeps his word about taking Saadia alive.
• Given that Hammerfell is not friendly with the Thalmor, Saadia's story of being persecuted for speaking out against them seems unlikely.
• After completing the quest, Saadia seemed a bit, for lack of a better word, cold-hearted.
• Long after completing this quest, I had a random encounter with two Alik'r questioning a Redguard woman.  They treated her sternly, but once one of them realized that she was not the one they were looking for (i.e. Saadia), they let her go without further incident.  Their behavior suggests men who are sticking to rules and protocols, rather than a band of assassins.

Factors in favor of Saadia:

• After the Empire abandoned Hammerfell, the Redguards continued to fight the Aldmeri Dominion to a standstill.  They eventually signed the Second Treaty of Stros M'Kai, the conditions of which seem to be unknown outside of Hammerfell.  Given the way the Thalmor have used the White-Gold Concordat to sow discord in Skyrim, it is not unreasonable to assume that they are doing the same in Hammerfell, which has an even more fractured political system.  Therefore, Saadia may be in the same position as a Talos worshipper in Skyrim.
• While it is true that the Alik'r are not welcome in Whiterun, the fact that they chose to camp in an active bandit hideout runs counter to Kematu's claims of honorable behavior.  He seemed perfectly content to let the bandits kills us, choosing only to speak to me after I had run his gauntlet.
• Saadia chose to hide out in relatively neutral Whiterun, as opposed to a more Imperial Hold like The Reach, Falkreath, or Haafingar.  These three Holds are closer to Hammerfell geographically, and some of the towns actually have Thalmor representatives.  If Kematu's story were accurate, it would make more sense for Saadia to seek assistance from the Thalmor than to run to a more neutral Hold like Whiterun.
• If Saadia had indeed sold out the city of Taneth to the Thalmor, it would be reasonable to expect that she would have been rewarded for her betrayal, yet this noblewoman is living as a cook in a mid-range inn.  While it is possible that the Thalmor let her twist in the wind, it would also have made sense for them to reward her and use her as a poster child for allying with the Aldmeri Dominion.
• Given the craftiness of the Thalmor, it is entirely possible that Kematu's intentions were perfectly honorable, and yet disastrous for Saadia.  Kematu may have led Saadia back to face a fair trial, only to have her summarily executed at the border by Thalmor Justicars or a rival royal house.

Other contributing factors:

• While I completely misunderstood Kematu's dialogue, and probably should have asked questions  before trying a sneak attack, I had come to expect a vicious attack around every corner of Swindler's Den -- a situation Kematu had set up himself.
• The captured Alik'r paints a portrait of Kematu and his men as a band of killers, which confirmed Saadia's assessment of them.
• The two original Alik'r who initiated the quest are still hanging out at Whiterun's front gate.  This is most likely a glitch, but the fact that they are still there and still polite paints a picture of the Alik'r as honorable men.  I feel a pang of guilt every time I pass them and they ask, "Need something?"

While these factors are all valid considerations, I also have to take into account my personal, less-than-rational leanings:

• A group of well-armed, well-trained, government-hired mercenaries are sent to track down one woman -- a woman who, despite threatening me with a dagger, poses no significant physical danger.  She claims to be running because she spoke up against a powerful group that I already dislike.  Even if I had listened to Kematu, I would probably still have sided with the "dissident" rather than trying to capture the "traitor."
• If I'm being completely honest, I tend to fall for the "damsel in distress" routine all too often, both in gaming and in the real world.  In this particular case, I think I considered allowing a "defenseless" woman to be victimized less tolerable than killing a group of warriors who might turn out to be honorable after all.

Ultimately, it seems that there is no way to know which of the two main paths of this quest is the more justifiable one.  Because of this uncertainty, In My Time of Need mimics several real-world scenarios in which useful intelligence is lacking.  For example, what are we to do with an asylum-seeker who claims to be a political refugee, but whose government claims is a dangerous criminal, when we can't get sufficient information from the government in question?  While others might find this kind of quest frustratingly abstruse, I appreciate its lack of clarity as an in-game picture of problems that are all-too-real outside the game.