Please help by answering unanswered questions!
Register and earn badges for helping!
RLS Gift Membership
Subscribe to me on YouTube
Follow us on Twitter!

Join our Steam group!

Recent Badges

Famous Question
- Caseyfam -
361,785 questions
29,773 answers
43,789 users
Ask YOUR question:

skyrim is it better to side with kematu or saadia?

–1 vote
doing the quest in my time of need

which is better

to help saadia

or to help kematu?
asked 11 years ago in Quests/MissionsQuests/Missions by anonymous  

Looking for more answers? SHARE this question:

i sided with kematu. escorted her to her capture quick and easy. got 500g reward. killed the bitch after kematu paralyzed her. looted her body for another 500g worth of stuff.
I helped Kematu. Saadia seemed insincere. She appeared sociopathic and was not in the least bit concerned about murdering for her. Kematu didn't want anyone murdered. That was a kicker right there.
Bottom line: She isn't trustworthy. Women keeping secrets rarely are.
If you side with Kematu does he give you a quest after it? Same for saadia
I think the title of the quest is debatable here.
I was going to kill Kematu and all but then when i stod infron of him I changed my mind and sided with him.
Got 500g and I didn't like Saadia anyways...
Well, id take Kematu's side BUT, when i talked to the prisoner he said if i knew Kematu's name i knew that to meet him means certain death. That seems like a challenge to me so now its not a quest anymore its a death match between me/Lydia and Kematu/ his men. Lets see whos really certain death to meet.
Everyone who plays skyrim is sexist and afraid of women. That is why they think she is lying. First of all, on EVERY forum, people say that she was JUST going to be captured, so she shouldn't want the alik'r killed, when in reality, she clearly stated that she was going to be executed. Secondly, people expect, because she is a woman, for her to be oh-so-thankful for a strong man rescuing her and that she should act like a little girl and subjugate herself before you if you help her. This mistrust of women is so typical of American society. Shame on you all. All of the arguments stating that there is evidence of her lying are bullshit sexist arguments, that don't even acknowledge the facts that 1. if she was lying and she was a traitor of the magnitude claimed by the alik'r, of course she would be executed. 2. If she is telling the truth, she has a right to be paranoid about these guys enough to want them dead.
1. "Everyone who plays skyrim is sexist and afraid of women."

Women play games too you sexist fool.

2. "That is why they think she is lying."

No, this is why; "Saadia seemed insincere. She appeared sociopathic and was not in the least bit concerned about murdering for her. Kematu didn't want anyone murdered. That was a kicker right there. "

3. "This mistrust of women is so typical of American society. Shame on you all. "

Who are you angry at this time? Your father?

4. "All of the arguments stating that there is evidence of her lying are bullshit sexist arguments"

Refuted by point 2.

ITT: woman logic.
Saadia showed me some cleavage and aroused me so I sided with her
actually if you side with kumatu hope i spelled it right lol
a thalmor agent will be after you for interfering with a thalmor agent which is directly linked to what kumatu said about her so im refuting your sexest statement your insecure lady :)  good day
So you sided with them because of a gut feeling, based on how she "seemed" to be lying. But really you have no reason. You simply don't trust women. BTW I'm a dude.
So you think that because kematu told the truth about being linked to the falmor, everything that he does and is connected to is automatically correct? That's like the christian fundementalists saying "well some places in the bible are real places therefore it must all be true."  You should not be allowed to vote
also you say that kematu doesn't want anyone "murdererd" yet they were going to execute her, according to them! So as long as  a so called government is ok with it then it's not murder huh?
Why would the thalmor hire redguards (who they hate) to kill one woman? Redguards and thalmor have been fighting ever since the great war, if the thalmor needed assassins they would find someone more reliable and someones who's on their side. Plus no renown redguard mercenary would dare work for the thalmor, they would be killed if they returned to hammerfell. So her story comes off as bullshit.
No, you will NOT have a Thalmor agent try to kill you if you choose one side or the other in this quest.  If you encountered a justicar with an execution order, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this quest.  That only triggers if you kill a Thalmor.
Where did you read that in any of that post..?
Cliche misogyny and melodramatic reaction to said misogyny aside, I sided with Saadia because of a few reasons:

1. The prisoner said that Kematu is dangerous and would kill anyone on sight.

2. When I found Kematu, he was hanging out in a cave with a bunch of bandits.

3. Said bandits tried to kill me.

4. Only when I slaughtered all the bandits did Kematu suddenly come up to me and say, "Gee, I don't want anyone to get killed!"  No doubt because the next person to die would be him.

5. Kematu's vocal inflections led me to think he was lying (though it could just be crappy voice acting lol).

6. Kematu offered zero evidence to support his allegations.  In fact, he wouldn't even describe what specifically she did to sell her city out.

7. Kematu acknowledged that it was the rival nobles who brought the charges against her.  They could just as easily have fabricated those charges as an excuse to execute her.

8. Saada just wanted to be left in peace.  Unlike Kematu, she wasn't hanging out with bandits who go around killing innocent travelers.

9. If Kematu had offered to leave Skyrim empty-handed, I would've allowed him to leave without killing him.  He's the one who forced the issue.

10. Saadia seemed trustworthy enough to me.  I'm guessing there's something about Skyrim that appeals to bitter ex-husbands, hence the "women can't be trusted!" nonsense.
"Where did you read that....?"

To answer your question:

"actually if you side with kumatu hope i spelled it right lol
a thalmor agent will be after you for interfering with a thalmor agent which is directly linked to what kumatu said about her so im refuting your sexest statement your insecure lady :)  good day"
Ah I see. And to address a few of your points:                                                 1. The prisoner assumed you were going to try and kill him, it wouldn't make much sense for him to kill everyone he sees                    2.     Its not like he was working with the bandits, one of the bandits even said he doesn't trust them    . And if you were a measly bandit hanging out in a cave would you try to tell a squad of hammerfell mercenaries that they cant hang out in the back?                                        4. I'm assuming he knows you came there for a reason, and waits to hear you out, you did just slaughter the bandits who owned the place he was crashing in just to see him    after all.                                        5. Saadia sounded like she was lying too, then again the voice acting leaves alot    to be desired.                                                                            6. His reasons make alot more sense in the context of the game and its lore than hers, and what evidence does she give?                        7. No he didn't? He was hired by one of cities of hammerfell to bring her back after she sold out another city to the elves. You're also confusing who her supposed enemies are, she claims the aldmeri dominion are after her, not some rival noble house.                    8. Of course she wanted peace! I would too if i was accused of treason                                                                                                                                9. He was hired to bring her back, he apparently is quite famous in hammerfell so of course he inst going to just go away empty handed.                                                                                                                                10. I'm not basing her guiltiness on anything but what common sense and in game lore backs up.
Sorry about the format, my phones acting up and i was tired of rearranging it lol.
One more thing concerning     9: She's the one who forced the issue if you think about it, she sent you to kill all of them. If she was honestly running for her live I think you could have asked you to try and smuggle her out of the city first..
Ok, I finally get that it seems odd to many that she would be punished for speaking out against the thalmor. However considering a major figure in skyrim is a sleeper agent for the thalmor, it wouldn't surprise me if this group of redguard could also be rogue. In fact, by their aggression I would expect it.
To me that's assuming quite alot just for an unimportant side quest that has no bearing on the game really, you'    re basically writing your own little back story at this point lol. Its cool  though it is a RPG, you're supposed to role play however suits you.
The way I see it, anyone who is as aggressive as the kematu were, must die. If they want to extradite a prisoner, they have to give a more specific reason, provide evidence, etc. Rule of law. Basically they just come into my country trying to capture a refugee with a vague explanation.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if people in cities like Markarth would be killed for speaking out against the thalmor. When Ulfric was in cahoots with the thalmor he murdered many citizens of markarth. Perhaps at their direction.
How would he lawfully do do it? He wasn't allowed in the city, and i doubt the jarl would take any interest in the matter. He really wasn't aggressive either, you're mistaking them for the bandits in the cave, the alikr never attack you unless you tell kematu that you're going to kill him. Also, ulfric never worked for the thalmor, in fact he liberated markarth from the forsworn at the request of the previous jarl of markarths son (his father was killed by the forsworn), who agreed to allow the worship worship of talos after the city was liberated. The thalmor had nothing to do with anything going on in markarth, and the only time ulfric has had any contact with them was when he was their prisoner, after that he was never "in cahoots" with them. Also the claim that he killed anyone in markarth other than the forsworn is thought to be imperial propaganda. Why would he kill innocent nords who he hopes to lead in a rebellion? That wouldn't give him much public support.
And in regards to ulfric being a thalmor sleeper agent, if that is who you mean, if you read his dossier its clear that the thalmor are in no way controlling or having any contact with him, its just that his rebellion is weakening the empire, which benefits the thalmor more than anything. Ulfric doesn't even realize he's doing exactly what they want.
To the person near the top who has nothing better to do than judge people for how they play a game: that makes you a hypacrite. Not only are you being sexist to men by not looking at both sides but also racist because kematu is black. The problem in society is not that peoople are sexist but that they try to find problems in everytimy little thing lik a silly video game that's just for fun
1. So everytime i dont like something that a black person does, im racist? That's profoundly stupid. Be careful or you might never recover from such a comprehensively stupid statement 2. I am not objecting to the possibility that kematu was in the right, I am objecting to the common arguments put forward on this and other forums stating that saadia "seemed" to be lying, or stating that she would not be killed if caught.  3.You came to a forum that is discussing one of those tiny problems. And you brought yourself to my level by calling me racist and sexist... On the slim chance that you understood any of the points I just made, feel free to respond. But please try to understand them first.
To the person who I've been going back and forth on about the legality of extradition, etc: I can see clearly that as an imperialist, I will not agree with you on this subject. However, I appreciate your perspective, and you almost convinced me. But not quite.
I'm not taking sides on the whole racist thing (that was out of nowhere) but here's how I see the sexist argument. One commenter doesn't trust one woman because he thinks she's insincere, which is a valid point. However instead of being civil about it you rant about how all skyrim players are sexist. First of all, if all skyrim players are sexist, and you play skyrim, what does that make you? Also, how exactly can you generalize an entire demographic over a few comments you've seen? That doesn't make any sense. There are multiples things in game that support that saadia IS lying, but instead of commenting or refuting any of those you decided that the better strategy was to go on a women's rights crusade. What I'm saying is, you probably could have handled the situation better.
That was an exaggeration, ill admit, however at the time of my original posting, the discussion was dominated by people saying that she was the aggressor, or saying that she "seemed" dishonest without any legit reason. If you can't handle a little embellishment, you should get off the internet for your own sanity's sake. I stand by my assertion that skyrim players are generally sexist. For example the elder scrolls wiki entry for saadia states that she first claimed not to know that the alikr were in the city, but then later admitted to knowing that one of them was recently arrested. In fact, she never claimed ignorance, and on the contrary was surprised that they knew her location.  Another example of distortion of her character is how everyone said that she told the player to kill everyone. As someone else pointed out below, she only told you to kill one person. Also, while she was holding a decent job, the prisoner arrested by the empire stated that kematu was a reckless and violent individual.
  I could have gone into more detail as i have above,  but I thought I would summarize by saying that the arguments against her were frequently bs, and seemed to be sexist. Humans aren't good at knowing when someone is lying. There is scientific research that supports this. However, people overwhelmingly decided that she was lying. Why? What is the hidden variable? Gender. If you can give me another reason why people generally sided with kematu, go ahead.
There are multiple reasons I've already mentioned, to you I believe. Refer back to, "why would the thalmor hire redguards..", "Ah I see. And to address a few of your points." And "They aren't using the dominion as an excuse, she is!.." These posts all refuted every one of your arguments while proving that you should side with kematu and that the sexism argument is a moot point. Apparently you've already forgotten all of them by now. Also you didn't even respond to my last point, but i'll still be happy to counter any arguments you can make for saadia another than the sexism thing.
Also, where exactly was the discussion being dominated by sexism? I see one post above your own rant that mentioned anything remotely sexist.
sorry I don't think you're capable of understanding, as I've already made it clear. Maybe take some reading comprehension classes?
an example of your poor comprehension: I never said they were "dominated by sexism". I said they were dominated by people saying she was the aggressor. After this initial error, you just copy and paste someone elses argument. I'm sorry that your brain is a quivering pile of shit, I don't know what to tell you... maybe you should forgo college and become a professional guinea pig, or a male prostitute for extremely poor woman with no self respect. it must be hard for someone with your lack of reading skills to imagine, but I already read that post, and in my opinion, those reasons are all circumstantial evidence that certainly don't give the kematu the right to a warrant-less extradition. So stop fucking wasting my time reiterating arguments that I've already addressed. You're so far removed from my level of sophistication that i feel like Muhammad ali fighting a baby. As I stated above, i'm not against the possibility of kematu being correct, rather i am surprised by how few people sided with saadia considering that both sides have legitimate claims. So there is no reason for us to be arguing if you can't distinguish between 1.) my asking for reasons that people sided with saadia, GIVEN that both sides had legit claims, and 2.) my asking for someone to PLEASE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENTS THAT SOMEONE ELSE ALREADY PUT AGAINST SAADIA because I can't scroll up, and maybe ill change my mind if I hear those arguments for the hundreth time. Moron.
'I never said they were "dominated by sexism". I said they were dominated by people saying she was the aggressor." So you never said this either?     "but I thought I would summarize by saying that the arguments against her were frequently bs, and seemed to be sexist." That's what I was talking about you sniveling little cunt, and those argument's that I "copied" were my own from earlier, I didn't feel like stating them all again after you insisted that "If you can give me another reason why people generally sided with kematu, go ahead." And explain how any of those arguments are circumstantial, but I doubt you can as all you can do is question my reading comprehension and cry that kematu doesn't have a warrant. Didn't the IMPERIAL SOLDIERS, you know, the ones working for THE EMPIRE, that makes ALL OF THE LAWS, almost chop your head off for no reason? Saadia's lying, kematu doesn't need any sort of warrant and you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know how to make a single valid argument.  Also p.s, you never "adressed" anything, you just made vague points about law and how kematu is just so mean he has to be evil!
Ah I forgot one thing to address. When you meet her in whiterun she absolutely does claim that she didn't know the alikr are in the city, and later tells you to go to the jail to talk to one that's been arrested. How exactly does she know he's there again?
No she doesn't i just watched a walkthrough. She says "So they know where I am?" or something like that. Something In the form of a question i.e. she doesn't know. Imperial soldiers don't make laws, they enforce  them. The emperor makes the laws of skyrim, and the jarls make local decisions. I was almost executed because I was crossing into skyrim at the same time as Ulfric. Imagine sneaking into the united states in the company of an al qaeda leader.

Why they are circumstantial: they fail to prove her guilt, only suggest it, whereas the alikr are definitely guilty of conducting an extradition without the permission of local government.

Idk if it was you who was talking about ulfric as a sleeper. I disagree with the analysis of the dossier that claims that he never was in thalmor control. He was in control up until a point, after which he was no longer in their direct control.

Anyway, what pissed me off, in case you're interested is that you said "These posts all refuted every one of your arguments while proving that you should side with kematu and that the sexism argument is a moot point." So basically you just say "no you're wrong, I win." without actually responding to my points at all.
How does she know he's there? Idk what you are suggesting... How would she know he was there even if she was lying? Is she telekinetically linked to her pursuers? She knows from words of mouth around the city. Same as everyone else.

Why would you state the points you've already made instead of responding to my points. Illegal extradition, circumstantial evidence. The idea of innocent until proven guilty?
Here's how I see it, the alikr are guilty of unlawful extradition (which i doubt is even a thing in the elder scrolls universe) however saadia is without a doubt lying about the alikr working with the thalmor, that is obvious to anyone with any lore knowledge. Thus the alikr's position is more believable and it's actually reasonale compared to saadias. It seems that you grasp this and your only stance on the issue is that the alikr should lawfully extradite her, but as ive said before they aren't allowed into the city, so how is it that this should be done? And I have responded to every argument you've made about in game situations. I'd like to hear one of your arguments about why you believe saadia is the right choice that has in game facts to support it, nothing about our laws or real world situations.
My system of ethics is based on the real world, because that is where we all live the vast majority of the time, so I can't divorce myself completely from that.

Now to address once again the status of thalmor in skyrim and hammerfell. I realize that the thalmor were recently pushed out of both hammerfell and skyrim. Therefore it would seem strange for her to be in trouble for speaking out against the thalmor. However, I don't think it's impossible or even unlikely.

The problem with the logic you've presented is that it implies that no one will ever get in trouble, within the boarders of hammerfell, for speaking out against the thalmor. to me, that is too trusting of the stability and transparency of the hammerfell state. It is Akin to the notion that no one in afghanistan could possibly get in trouble for insulting the taliban, because officially, the taliban doesn't exist in afghanistan anymore, as they were ousted.

the thalmor were bested by hammerfell in open combat, it stands to reason that they might try a more cloak and dagger, clandestine approach to the war. A logical first step would be to infiltrate certain key power structures within hammerfell.

   Imagine if she was telling the truth: you just sold her out to the thalmor simply because you were too lazy to make sure their story story was true.
The flaw in your argument about the taliban is that they were a grass roots organization from within afghanistan that has support there. The thalmor were foreign invaders in hammerfell without any internal support and were absolutely hated. a more proper analogy would have been if someone living in early 1800's America spoke out against the British, who haven't even been there for years. Even if a few british spies tried to kill them the american wouldn't flee to canada, he would just go to the American authorities in a safer town.
I think there are better analogies. Britain was separated by an ocean... messages took months to send. Espionage was much more difficult to orchestrate for the British than it would be for the Thalmor... lol. I would say that the troubles in Irish history are a better anology. Families would betray one another to various warring groups and militias. likewise, I would say that the idea that the thalmor have no internal support among nord nations is not accurate. Anyway, the specific analogous situation isn't all that important. In any case, why would you go to another town where the spies could just find you. If I was being chased by spies I would to go an embassy. In a world where life is very cheap, like skyrim, it would make more sense to forego the embassy and just cross boarders.  Why attract attention to yourself? Make your pursuers attract the attention. Which saadia did.
Why leave the town at all? If the thalmor were truly after her i'm sure she could have yelled out "help, thalmor!" And every man in the town would come to her aid. Honestly like I've said before you    're assuming way too much, myself I would pick whichever side that has more cold hard facts to support it, which kematu does. There is no evidence in the game from any sources that the thalmor has any influence in hammerfell, i'm sure if we were to consider that at least one source would have been supplied.
Also, the summerset isles and hammerfell are seperated by an ocean. Lol.
kematu had zero facts. Circumstantial evidence does not equal fact. I can't believe you would use the phrase cold hard fact, when the only facts we have are that mercenaries are trying to sneak into a city. EVERYTHING else is information that the two parties supplied us and therefore biased.
 Every man in town would come to her aid? Not if they are like you and assume that the thalmor don't exist in hammerfell.

as long as we know that espionage exists in the game, its fair to assume that  it exists in a country where a war just ended. Theres no way that they can provide backstory to make every single decision either right or wrong anyway. So i don't think it would necessarily be mentioned. Especially considering that the game takes place outside of hammerfell.

Good point about the ocean. However I have a feeling the elves would have ways to communicate that the british did not. (magic exists in skyrim). And again, I don't think that analogy is accurate as the rule of law in the early United States was considerably better than in hammerfell (democracy)
You're telling me that, in a country that is full of people who are openly against the thalmor, one woman, just one, is targeted by the thalmor for speaking out against them? Why? Who exactly was she speaking out against them to that it would matter? She's surrounded by thousands of people who speak out against them as well without repercussion, are you telling me that the thalmor are going to take any interest in one woman who is against them who lives in a country they're at war at? I pretty sure the thalmor know that an overwhelming majority of the redguards are against them, in fact an overwhelming amount of redguards HATE the thalmor. I would be comfortable saying 99% of them despise the thalmor. So who would saadia sway into hating them more than they already do? The thalmor want to EXTERMINATE all humans on tamriel, and that isn't even a secret, so tell me, what could saadia have done to the thalmor make their reputation drop any lower and for the thalmor to hire a famous redguard mercenary to kill one woman in skyrim? When there are literally hundreds of thalmor judiciaries in skyrim who could easily kill her without any legal repercussions, they kill nords every day without the empire saying anything. Please try to justify any of that, i want you to. Of course that is all way more plausible than the idea that she sold out one city and the other cities hired one of their own bounty hunters to bring her back.
Justify any of that? you've only made two points. 1. that it just seems to incredibly unlikely to occur. It doesn't matter how much the general population dislikes them. If they gain the favor of a few rich individuals, they are probably safe. I, like you espouse yourself to be,  am more interested in facts than what is likely to be the back story which we probably will never find out anyway. It's not a fact that she is a spy, it's your opinion. It's a fact that kematu's crew was caught sneaking into a city to abduct saadia.
2.what damage could she do to the thalmor. Again, the backstory is unknown, so I don't understand why you keep trying to guess it. What matters are the facts. Anyway, if the thalmor are infiltrating noble families in hammerfell, one intransigent family member could spoil the whole thing... so there is a scenario that would answer that whole little cluster of incredulous questions. Who, why, what, etc.
But again, if we can stick to the facts, all we know is that saadia is hiding from mercenaries who are trying to sneak into a city against the rule of law. Again, innocent until proven guilty. My ethics, maybe not yours.
1. Technically she crossed in to skyrim illegally, remind me what they were executing you for? 2. If the thalmor were after her they would send a justiciary to kill her, no redguard mercenary to take her back to hammerfell where they have no control. 3. Why would the families want to switch over to the thalmors side when A. They're winning the war and B. The thalmor want to kill all humans? You know, when you have to invent an entire backstory for something to convince yourself you're right, you probably aren't. The logical and probably solution is that kematu is right, but you refuse to see it because of your "morals." Morals regarding laws that didn't exist in tamriel at the time. Do you think if you were a traitor in the middle ages in our world that they would hesitate to kill you? No. Basically all you've done is create one straw man argument after another without ever actually making a point that any in game lore backs up and i    'm done with you unless you can actually make a single in game argument that doesn't require a vivid imagination to be true.
You just made up an immigration law. I was almost executed because I crossed WITH the biggest terrorist in the country. And then you made up more backstory about a justicary to counter my backstory. I invented backstory because you asked for it with all your easy to answer questions... you are not only wrong, but you also lack the imagination to think creatively so I have to answer every single little question. ITS A FUCKING RPG ITS ALL ABOUT IMAGINATION MORRRRRRRON. Why didn't they do this, why didn't that... finally at least you admit that you have no sense of morality: morals don't come from laws: laws come from morals. Your need for an external locus of control is typical for a sad little american child. I bet your parents spanked you when you were little. Have fun with the aggression and increased likelihood for depression that causes.

Anyway this is your argument: "you're such a stupid idiot. gamelore. redguard hate thalmor. Jerk. Strawman. Gamelore. Backstory. Spies don't exist. Thalmor. I hate women. Gamelore."

Face it, you are done anyway. Have fun with your drab little world of skyrim where everything is always black and white, except for morals which don't exist. Speaking of strawmen, what was that about middle ages? Who is "they" in that sentence. I'm pretty sure even in the middle ages you couldn't just go up and kill a random woman.

Well I for one really enjoyed this conversation, but I guess since this quest actually has ambiguity, your lack of imagination makes it impossible for you to think intelligently about it and you won't be responding unless I make an "in-game argument". Which I'm assuming would go like this: Oh golly jee, I never realized that since its not explicitly stated that thalmor DO have spies (which would erase any of that scary ambiguity that is doggin' you) It means that they DONT. ...Derrrrrrrp" But that argument is stupid so fuck off.
Wow someone's a little butthurt aren'    t they? You say you care about the facts but now you    're all about imagination, really? Justiciars are the thalmors enforcers in skyrim, it's a fact. "At the beginning of the game, the Dragonborn is a prisoner, captured while attempting to illegally cross the border into Skyrim"     -From the official skyrim page. It's sad how pathetic you are, you can't even make a single intelligent argument can you? I should'nt keep this up with you because honestly i'm starting to feel bad for you. All you've proven is that you're an idiotic douche who can't even formulate cohesive sentence. And we get it, you're definitely the only one in the world who cares for women's rights at all. Good luck translating that into finding any woman in the world who would care about a self involved hypocrite ******* like you.
How do you know she crossed illegally? now wipe the tears off your keyboard and keep responding even though you said you were done. But remember you're only doing it to get revenge on your mom for spanking you.
self involved? what a generic insult. Also, is the elder scrolls wiki the "official" page that you copied that from? Doesn't sound official to me. Noob.
Wow you're a shitty psychologist if you think this has anything to do with me hating women or my mom spanking me, she did maybe once or twice when I was so small to remember. You're just someone who just can't accept that he's wrong so he resorts to name calling and joking to make people not notice how big of a fuck up he is. I'm sure you've been doing that since you were a kid, maybe your mother should have spanked you? Or perhaps your father beat you or he just wasn't there. Either way something caused you to be a serious misandrist. I suggest going to a psychologist.
Also, at the very beginning of the game the other prisoner mentions that they caught you coming in to skyrim illegally. Noob? Nice generic insult.
too small, or too traumatic to remember? look up locus of control, this has everything to do with your lack of morality. You need an external source of morality, i.e. laws, in the context of this discussion. When laws are not present, the morality is also nullified.  Probably because your parents never discussed rules with you and instead told you how it was or spanked you. The problem is, once the enforcer of the rules is no longer present, you have no internal compass of what's right and wrong.  you naturally latch onto any external rules because the idea of right and wrong coming from within is something that was spanked out of you and is frightening.

I name call, yes, and so do you. What is your point... no ones perfect.
So anyway, that is why you: can't. accept. ambiguity.
You were the one basing your morality off of laws, laws that did not exist in skyrim. Your ethics revolve around not killing her unjustly, however if she did commit treason in the laws of tamriel she's going to die (In most of our laws as well). The alikr are taking her to face judgement for her crime and she sends you to kill them, who's morally justifiable in that situation? And I dont hate ambiguity, i like that we never know what happened to the dwemer, i like the fact that both the empire and the stormcloak are morally grey, which is one of my favorite parts of bethesda games. However i don't like how you come on here and insult everyone that plays the entire game and you're just so sure about kematu being wrong that you refuse any sort of arguments. You also insult those who take it up as a challenge to prove you wrong that there is a way to prove saadias guiltiness without basing it on gender, which is exactly what I did.
as ive said many times before, im not sure about him being wrong. I am sure that he is using the wrong avenues to get at saadia.

Also in response to your prisoner quote, another prisoner said right after that "you and i shouldn't be here. its these stormcloaks the empire wants"

and the only things you proved are that you got (or will get) a low verbal sat score and you have the emotional intelligence of a whipped dog.

If you think you proved saadia's guilt then, well, good for you. Intelligence is overrated anyway.
How did the dragonborn get mixed in with the stormcloaks in the first place? He accidentally crossed the border illegally while they were. Also I said "If she." For someone who likes to point out others reading comprehension you need to buff up on it yourself. I don't remember my SAT score but I know for a fact I scored a 30 on the ACT reading section.
"You also insult those who take it up as a challenge to prove you wrong that there is a way to prove saadias guiltiness without basing it on gender, which is exactly what I did."

There's no if in that sentence. Only an assertion that you proved her guilt by stating that that she would be guilty if she committed the crime, which is like, super obvious to anyone.
but its actually a good summary of your argument: she is guilty if she committed the crime, therefore she committed the crime. That's called circular reasoning. Curse my functional brain...
No, I've made plenty of arguments that are backed up with in game material, which you substitute with imagination and posting Derrrrrp instead of any logical points as to why she is innocent. Here is every post you made, conspiracy/thalmor/mean bandits/laws from modern times/spies/imagination/hypothetical situations/she's a woman so she can't be lying!/plugging your ears and yelling derrp over and over again. Why can't you make a single actual point concerning why she's innocent? I've made tons that show how kematu is probably telling the truth.
because I am not trying to say that either one is clearly innocent or guilty. I am trying to say that it's not clear. Benefit of the doubt goes not to the aggressor, but to the woman who is trying to be left alone.
 Ive said that literally like 5 times.
The posts ive made have defended the possibility of her being innocent.
All I've been trying to say is that more in game material backs up kematu's claim. That's it. And yes it is my personal opinion that she is lying, because of said material. It is in no way gender based.
All I am saying is I disagree.
Then just say that, don't call everyone who disagrees with you a sexist idiot. I was just making a point.
well in my opinion, there are a lot of sexist idiots of these forums. not everyone is, but a lot are, sexist idiots.
I sided with Kematu and when I took Saadia to the stable I killed them both. After I had gotten my reward from Kematu ofc.
Hammerfell repelled the Dominion.  She's a liar.  Kill them both for XP.  End of story.
There are plenty of reasons to believe the mercenaries and distrust Saadia. Like her story is actually contradicting itself. First she claims she didn't know the mercenaries were looking for her then she tells you that one of them was catched by the guards.
Hammerfell was successfull in fighting of the Aldmeri Dominion and they're still in a full scale war against them. Thus her having to flee the country because she spoke up against the Dominion does not make sense, it however makes sense if she sided with the wrong side.
Also the great houses of Hammerfell all united against the Dominion.
She said she spoke out against someone in high power just to let you know i dont want to be dragged into the arguement i was just letting you know
i think she was really scared, so i sided with her.
when she takes the knife and treat us , she is clearly scared.
thats why i helped her
I got the sex mod then fucked the shit out of her then turned her into the alik'r. >:D
Well, I sided with Saadia instead of Kematu. When I spoke to Saadia, I found that she lacked proof of her claims so I decided to listen to what Kematu had to say before making up my mind. I found that he was too arrogant and that enough was reason to kill him (for me that is). I still don't believe Saadia but since there's a chance she might be telling the truth, I let her live and if ever, I find out later that she was lying (which I know won't happen don't worry), I'll kill her. Simple as that.

Besides, I think it's better to have the girl's grattitude rather than some mercenary's pouch of gold. Don't think I really need to say why. (I also know that this won't happen in the game. lol)
Actually, all the places mentioned in the Bible are real places. They just have different names today. And we don't base our evidence on places, we base our evidence on faith and realizing that life has a purpose other than being born, spending 50-80 years (or however long you and I might live) trying to get as much awesome stuff and have as much fun in this world as possible (which won't last)... We see that there is something more than wasting your life partying and getting stoned and drunk and probably dying before you hit 50 because you party all the time. We see that God has made us for a purpose. Good luck with your life. This will all pass quickly.
Actually WRONGO... the factual definition of religious Faith means you hold a belief despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary. This kind of faith is also seen in movies where a robot is like "But sir, the odds are..." *Hero cuts him off and says* "Don't tell me the odds dammit we will succeed!"

The only problem is this isn't Holly Wood and no magic Sky Daddy is coming to your rescue.

Also Nazareth is not a real place, regardless of names if you look at the geology, and other such information from the bible and historical texts.... the location Nazareth absolutely must be in according to the bible, is in fact not there. The only hint of a place being there was some objects dated to times that don't match up with the bible.

FYI Nazareth is where Jesus was born according to the bible, if it doesn't exist then what does that say about everything else the bible says about Jesus?

All in all this is about Skyrim not your BS Religion.
Before this discussion gets any more stupid or disrespectful than it needs to be, I'd like to ask everyone else wishing to comment after this to not turn this into a "religion" thing. This is about SKYRIM people!!! Not the place for religious argumentations.
Also, even if you do not agree with someone's views, refrain from using foul language. It leads nowhere!
Just got on this forum to figure out if I should side with Kematu or Saadia. I didn't get on here to listen to some petty argument over a video game. Frankly, you're all making this little problem into a big one. And, yes, I realize that I probably offended some people with this coment, but seriously I stopped caring after I was called sexist for playing Skyrim, my religion was insulted, and I filtered through these arguments before I could find the information I was looking for.  And yes, I do realize that I may have greatly misinterpreted your meaning and would encourage you to tell me what you meant by all of those offensive comments.Thank you, and have a nice day.
FYI. The Bible says jesus was born in Bethlehem, as in "the star of bethlehem". He's Jesus of Nazareth because it's the home of his ancestry and family and where he was raised. Ever heard anything about "no more rooms at the inn, so they stayed with the animals", like in those nativity scenes that are all over the world come christmas time? It's 'cause they were visiting a distant place from their home when he was born.
Alright just going to toss my two sense in here, you keep saying the reason you were about to be executed was because you were caught sneaking in with "the biggest terrorist in the country" yet Ulfric was not only already in Skyrim but was also arrested for murdering the high king not sneaking illegally into Skyrim so in other words you WERE arrested for sneaking in and were about to be executed for it... just puttin that out there.
Your “Theory of Religion” argument loses its validity with your historical and intellectual dishonesty. I write this more for the benefit of anyone reading your comment than I do as a correction to you. First of all, it is apparent that you aren’t even familiar with the biblical narrative that you are arguing against: Nazareth is NOT given as the birthplace of Jesus Christ. Secondly, those skeptics which you support admit that there is a town named Nazareth (with name variations in Greek and Aramaic) that coincidentally “came into existence” around the 2nd century B.C., just exactly in the vicinity of the biblical narrative – a bizarre and illogical conclusion in itself. Of course, they are refuting both non-Christian historical and archaeological evidence that proves that this small city was in existence in the 1st century: a roman bath house, a Jewish dwelling, etc., of that same time period.  It is neither good nor honest scholarship to claim that this city did not exist in the 1st half of the 1st century, but a biased desire to undermine belief in Christianity. It is also evident, even from the scriptures themselves, that people from Nazareth were held in low regard (“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”), and, consequently, would not have a prominence even in Jewish literature of that time. You would be better served in spending time finding validity to your Theory of Evolution than in trying to discredit a historical writing that has proven itself – to the astonishment of the medical, scientific and archaeological world – repeatedly trustworthy.
someone here is a lesbiaaaaan..someone here is a lesbiiiiaaan
I sided with Saadia for one simple reason: I took sympathy on her awful predicament due to the fact that I could relate to her after being wrongfully accused and very close to execution at the beginning of the game.
I remember reading in one of the books, think it was called 'the great war' they mention the Alik'r warriors being the only ones left in Hammerfell waging war against the Thalmor, so I'm pretty sure Saadia is the one lying, but it also said that the Alik'r mercenaries and their loyalty can be unreliable.
Actually, the facts ARE on Kematu's side:  The lore of the game in the books clearly states that Hammerfell separated from the Empire because the Empire gave up on Hammerfell, which turned out to be stupid for the Imperials because while the AD invaded far into Hammerfell, the Redguards ended up punting their asses back out.  Famous mercenaries (which the prisoner states "if you know..") who want to ever get a job again, if not outright get killed by their own people (because as stated the Redguards HATE the Thalmor) are not going to work for the Thalmor.  Further, a noblewoman who was trying to hedge her bets because she thought the Thalmor were going to win the war against Hammerfell decides to try to get in good with them and betray her own people,...well, it all came out in the wash.  Many people have given a ton of arguments for and against, but the very clear winner to me is Kematu.  Saadia bet on the wrong horse and left to hide from her rightfully vengeful House.  

Oh, and of the many characters I have that have ran the quest, I almost always help Saadia if my character is male, but absolutely do not help her with my female characters.  All my characters (about 20) loath the Thalmor.
"Everyone who plays Skyrim is sexist and afraid of women."
First of all, I am a woman.
Second of all, stop being so ignorant.
Be sides kamatu aint allowed in the city but saadia is so it aint because of there race then why are thay banned
You have to ask yourself why are the Alikir looking for her? They aren't assassins they are similar to the Companions in Hammerfell. That's why I sided with them.

30 Answers

+1 vote
Best answer
Which is better? Are you looking for the moral compass or monetary benefit? I see someone has already answered the monetary benefit, so I'll add my take on moral decision.

It appears in the situation its the word of one against the other, since no additional information or evidence can be found. I sided with Kematu for the following (very debatable) reasons:

1. Saadia came off as crass.  I didn't get the feeling an innocent women running for her life from assassins would act the way she did. Understandable she is scared and desperate, but I still didn't feel I was dealing with a wrongly accussed person. She was very bitter after my discussion with Kematu. No thank you, or anything for trying to help her, just a stinker. I felt used. Unlike Kematu who was humble and gracious after the capture.

2. After Saadia's capture, Kematu shares a (unknown before then) reward with you that he was supposedly receiving when he got back. I don't believe he promised you any reward, just asked for your help, so didn't feel an assassin wouldn't offer that up after the fact and also tell you "Don't allow yourself to be fooled by a pretty face again, you're better than that." At least I wouldn't.

3. Kematu wanted to capture her in a public place (Stables). Then he paralyzed her, to take her back. I would think an assassin would prefer to capture her in private with the opportunity to set a trap for the one bringing her back to tie up any "loose ends." since they wouldn't want the misdeed to go public.

4. And speaking of public, the Alik'r were having a heated discussion with the CIty Guard about the woman and one of their members that had been jailed. Don't think assassins would be publicly meeting with the City Guard to talk about all that at the main entrance. They would have left him behind, disavoying any knowledge of their involvement, and keeping well away from the city guard thereafter and keeping their mission secret and not asking random people on the street to help them and explaining everything that was going on.

Again, I understand these are very debatable answers and flimsy at best. But this was all I had to try to slide off the fence one way or the other.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
Meh... i dont think it matters either way... 500 gold no matter whom and both seem very thankful. I killed the Alik'r, didn't liek the attitude much. i dont think it will have any effect on gameplay.
I know the OP of best answer said these reasons were debatable, and I am in no way saying he/she is wrong. They are in fact very good points. But here's my perspective:

I think the best answer is riding on the stereotypical idea of what an assassin is. People who act charismatic and open are not always morally upright. There are silver-tongued and intelligent people who can be sent to capture someone. They may not technically be assassins, but there is also no evidence to suggest that these men are not hoping to capture and bring this woman to a death that is meant to ensure their own personal gain.

I think this quest was simply meant to be decided based on how you personally felt in one direction or another. There is no way to know which side is "better" or otherwise, and just because they don't sneak around like ninjas and were gracious and rewarding didn't mean anything morally to me. It just meant they paid me for getting them what they wanted and tried to sweet talk me into doing it.

Still, I sided with Kematu purely because I WAS aware beforehand that the outcome didn't matter either way, and that  I simply enjoyed Kematu's demeaner moreso than Saadia's I-don't-give-a-hoot attitude towards me helping her.
Actually Kematu said he wasn't an assassin, that is just what Saadia said to get you to help her.
I agree with most points, except number 2. He does offer a reward before you agree to help him, his words are, "If you help me I'll share some of the bounty with you".
Anybody noticed that the dungeon where Kematu is located is called "Swindler's Den"? :)
I agree with the best answer, also she wants you to KILL all of them -- murder Kematu and his men. He just wants to capture 1 person. This is what made me side with him instead of her, she sounds like the assassin / evil one here.
Normally I would have sided with Kematu. I finally decided to kill him and his mens, just to do the opposite of my usual way. I realised by doing this that my character was deeply allergic to people trying to control others. That's what I like about this game, you make your own story. I still feel quite guilty, cause I know some people will be really mad back in Hammerfell, and that maybe I just caused a diplomatic disaster. :)
I sided with Kematu on this one. He just felt like a better character compared to Saadia. Plus, if you do manage to kill Saadia while bringing her to Kematu, he gets angry at you for messing everything up. No way an assassin would just get pissed and walk away after his mark just got killed. Just shows that his intent was to capture and not to kill, and on the other hand Saadia's goal was plainly just to kill. Now tell me who's the cop, and who's the fugitive?

Another clue that they're not really assassins is the random encounter where you meet two Alik'r soldiers "harassing" a Redguard woman. They soon realize their mistake (that the woman was not Saadia) and let the woman free. Assassins would have just killed the woman anyway, just to be sure.

I think the reason they were hiding in the bandit cave was because a) they were keeping a relatively low profile, or b) the racists of Skyrim wouldn't let them stay in their towns anyway. They looked shady because they were foreigners.

If you want items and equips though, just kill Kematu and his men. If you just want gold, let Kematu capture Saadia and after he gives you the bounty just kill him. Talk to Saadia, get her reward, then kill her and loot her stuff. I was pretty rich at this point and had full Daedric smithed gear, so I only cared about doing the relatively morally right thing.
Went with the girl after reading the postings. If it has no affect on game play I would rather have another female around my favorite home town with a nice rack. Also I had just finished a set of enchanted armor and wanted a good fight. Easy fight if you decide to kill.
@anon, it is possible to exterminate Kematu only, just lure him to the stables, he will come alone, backstab + poisoned blade does the job. Saadia tells this gambit was quite risky. Also, Saadia only contract player to exterminate Kematu, not the operatives. Actually, Kematu's team are many and well fortified in the cave (i guess thats why they succeed at becoming famous women solicitors only) Also, Kematu is obviously holding a reward, player did actual job.

MORALFAG MODE ON: Actually, i'd reject this contract if only Saadia gave me a chance and remained on true neutral position in this controversy. However, it is black-and-white Betheda with its primitive alingment system, so player have to choose: to betray Kematu or to betray Saadia (yes, @the other anon, since Kematu didnt prove what she lied, player betrays contractor)
I killed Kematu and his men. Then returned to Saddia, killed her and took her hoarker loaf. Best ending in my opinion
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say she did say they were bringing her back to Hammerfell for a public execution and Kematu did promise half of the bounty for her capture and would have had to pay that before returning to Hammerfell. Also, she didn't ask for the player to kill all of them, she said if Kematu was killed the others would scatter (which arguably doesn't had since two warriors hangout near the gates of Whiterun at any given time and I still see them harassing Redguard women on the roads. In the end, both sides are pretty shady and one of them has to be lying so the "moral" decision is tough and that was the goal Bethesda was trying to achieve.
Well, I ended up helping Kematu and the Alik'r capture Saadia at the stables, simply because I felt that there was a higher possibility that she did sell out the city. But I am working on clearing out all the caves and bandit camps, ETC. that I can, so I'm wondering if I kill Kematu and his warriors, will Swindler's Den be cleared on the map?
Wow, if I'm ever accused of a crime I didn't commit, I sure hope none of you wind up sitting on my jury lol.  Kematu didn't provide any evidence.  Neither did Saadia.  

Therefore, given a lack of evidence, my reaction would be to let them both live.  Saadia was ok with this so long as she could live in peace.  Kematu, on the other hand, made it clear he would not leave Skyrim without her.  Therefore, he forced me to kill him in order to stop an unlawful kidnapping.

Also, the fact that he was hanging out in a cave with a bunch of bandits who tried to kill me certainly doesn't help his credibility.
0 votes

according to this in my time of need walkthrough

you need to side with Kematu

answered 11 years ago by Diablolic King (37,682 points)   8 19 26
... need WHY?
And why should we consider that obscure walkthrough that nobody's ever seen before?

If you want an authoritative source, go to UESP.  There, you'll find that, in fact, you do NOT need to side with Kematu or Saadia to complete the quest; either one is acceptable.

Therefore, that walkthrough you linked to is inaccurate and thus completely worthless.
0 votes
I helped Kematu and got a lot of gold, I think it was 500, I doubt Saadia can pay that much.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
hahahah 500 gold is alot to you your a fail i have every house and 56000 left over you have no real life at all don´t you? you feel awesome with your "success" on a videogame, nice one dude...mommy should be sooo proud of you!!!
Win. Nicely put!
Oooh a pissing contest!  My turn, my turn!

1. Saadia pays 500 gold as well.

2. I don't think anyone posting here can claim the high ground when it comes to having a life.

3. I've got every house and 150,000 gold left over.  My horse is also faster than yours.  So there.
0 votes
hi, ive tried both and its better to kill kematu. however the question is whether u can take him out and his several guards. killing kematu is better because the chest contains a number of rare enchanted items. one of these provide 30% shock resist if i remember correctly. also i think killing him saves u more time
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
I just sided with Kematu and was able to open the chest w/o fighting anyone. There was 66 gold and several enchanted items.
0 votes
I tried both methods, and in the end chose to kill kematu.


The end reward for both is the same: 500 gold.


There is no clear indication who is telling the truth, and there doesn't seem to be any long term consequence in choosing either.


The only good drop you'll get from Kematu and his men is potentially their swords. They aren't worth much but are one handed with 18 attack, which was better than my sword at the time.


The reason why I chose to keep my save where I killed Kematu and his men was because of the attribute points I got during the battle. If you have trouble with the battle though, it isn't worth reloading a bunch of times, just side with Kematu.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
You can loot the chest either way. Kematu pays more and seems more honest. The choice does not seen relevant after the quest is complete.
I decided to take out Saadi, as I am working for the legion against stormcloaks in the civil war, as the Aldmeri/Thalmor are the main conspirators behind the return of the dragons (reviving them via necromancy in dragon burial mounds). These gentlemen from Hammerfell, the parallell to North Africa were on a police mission to take out Saadi.
Kematu told that Saadi was a spy/traitor working for the Aldmeri, leading them to lose the Hammerfell capital. So, for political reasons and for taking out a potential dark elf spy, I decided to take out Saadi.
I talked to Kematu. Then I spoke to Saadi to lure her out. Once I was in front of Kematu, I realized that Saadi was back in town again. So I killed Kematu (he stands alone out there) and got 250 gold from him and 500 gold from Saadi :D
"I decided to take out saadi..." 99.999% of that was completely wrong
0 votes
I killed Kematu. it was sort of hard but if you have food that restores health and some potions that do the same you are good. Also, once you kill him you get 150 gold by checking him and i have heard that you get 500 gold from saadia.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
gold loot on Kematu seems to be levelled, i've got 250 (or it might be because of Imperial racial bonus)
+1 vote
I ended up getting both rewards by first going to kill kematu but after I killed most of his henchman he offered to give me reward to lure saadia to the stables so I said ok looted the cave then went back to whiterun. After he captured saadia and gave me my reward I killed and looted him then used the voice of the emperor (imperial race power) to calm a hostile saadia who then gave me a reward. So I got both rewards but when I go to bannered mare now saadia is hostile.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
I killed both. I forgot I could calm her thinking
I got confused and wound up killing the Jarl.
0 votes
i killed everyone because i can
but as your adventures goes on you will hear more rumors about the hammerfall settlement that got razed by the thalmors i choose to side with the legion and heard this from the altmer legate in the camp close to the greybeards. saadia never said anything happend to he city as oppsed to krematu so i think he is the "right choice" canon wise
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
Dont you think hiding in a bandit cave is a little suspicious?

They might be advanced assassins that mastered the art of speech and not looking suspicious and becoming likable in public.

He might just be using his eloquence to get what he wants.

But either of them can be lieing.

And if they were going to capture her alive and not execute her, then her over-reaction to knowing him is unjustified.

Idk, i thought how they associated with bandits got me. B/c if they are people of justice and are noble, then they would never associate with those type of people. They probably just knew they were gonna die if he didn't use his tongue+brain to save him.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
Normally I would have sided with Kematu. I finally decided to kill him and his mens, just to do the opposite of my usual way. I realised by doing this that my character was deeply allergic to people trying to control others. That's what I like about this game, you make your own story. I still feel quite guilty, cause I know some people will be really mad back in Hammerfell, and that maybe I just caused a diplomatic disaster. :)
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
I sided with Saadia.

She is a woman. She can bear children. And "sell" woman to someone is low to me. That's pretty the main reason for me.

She met main character alone and pretty defenseless against Kematu and his goons in foreign land.

While Kematu is a man. Man can rape women and force them do other things. And "another nail in his coffin" was: alright I came to Swindler's Den and ready to talk, but instead I'm ambushed by bandits. Bad companions for righteous course of "justice".
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
I went with Kematu. Prior to the talk with him that Bandit Marauder gave me so much trouble. His shots took out a third of my health -.- So I reasoned, if this Marauder is so OP, wtf will Kematu and his 3-4 men in the same room be like? LOL that AND the fact that Kematu sounded more convincing.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
answered 11 years ago by lokik Grandmaster (14,471 points)   12 34 57
0 votes
If for monetary gain, a friend of mine actually played out a very benefiting result: Side with Kematu first and cheat Saadia until she's captured at the stable and we get 500g from Kematu. Then kill Kematu. When he dies the paralyze spell he casted on Saadia will worn off, but Saadia will view you as enemy. Don't worry, cast a Calm spell on her and start conversation, she will give you another 500g.

But I'd rather stand with truth than money (I don't really need the 500g that bad... plenty of money later on). For the following reasons I choose to side with Kematu:

1. The reason offered by Saadia for her exile was that she was speaking against Aldemeri Dominion. But Hammerfell (homeland of the redguards) has been in war with the Dominion for years. If she was against the Dominion then she could just run to any unfellen redguard city. There's no reason she comes to Skyrim instead. She must be escaping someone else most likely.

2. Also if her reason was true, it should be the thalmors instead of redguards that want her life. Actually, I think most redguards would praise her if she was truly speaking against the Dominion.

3. If you kill Kematu and loot the body (or steal if your pickpocket is high), you'd find that those redguards were indeed wearing Hammerfell official uniforms. It seems that they are legit investigators while Saadia has nothing to verify her identity.

4. At the stable before Kematu captures Saadia, he said to her "Not everyone can be seduced by you" (something close), indicating that Saadia had tried her charm on others before me.

5. Someone asks why Kematu resides in a bandit's cave. Well, if you sneak into the cave and eardrop on the bandits' conversation, you'd hear that Kematu was paying to rent the cave, since Whiterun doesn't allow them into the city.

Also reasons offered in the Best Answer are considerable. I agree with reason 3 and 4 in that post.

Of course these reasons are debatable. But combined with these above I'd say that Saadia is far more likely to be the liar here.

Hope this helps.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
+1 vote

Do you side with Saadia or with Kematu?

It is quite modern these days to let players make decisions in video games - and like so often before, the decision doesn't seem to matter at all, except economically (like in GTA IV).

Second modern thing: switching sides. I mean - isn't it funny: at first you meet two Alik'r warriors in the city - they tell you, they were looking for a Redguard woman. Though they feel somehow strange, you think - why not try to find her for them. Then you find Saadia by chance - and she tells you, she's being molested, so you switch sides and go hunt Kematu and his men. In "Swindler's Den", the gang immediately tries to kill you, and I had a hard time getting through to the boss. You talk to him - of course, he puts it his way, and soon you switch sides again - I believed his story, and followed his orders, and finally I found myself back in the city lying to a woman that I'd do everything to protect her, only to lure her out of the save walls and hand her over to a gang, that tried very hard to kill me just before.

The motives are simple: Kematu tries everything to reach his goal: at first you as a stranger are recruited on the streets by his men; in the cave they try to kill you when you come for them; when that fails, you are suddenly again trustworthy enough to be told something, to make you a tool of his wishes, to lie to and cheat on a defenseless woman, who trusts your judgement blindly and follows you to her doom. No explanation whatsoever is given, why his men tried to kill you in the first place, if their motives were so pure; and sadly you cannot ask about that.

I gave him the blade. The bastard won't be missed in MY Skryim!




answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
actually there 'is' a minor difference, if you side with sadia [or whatever her name is] you have to fight your way thru a dungeon to finish things, if you side with the alik'r you can go to rorickstead, tell the mercs where she is, no fighting involved, then lead her to the ambush, getting your pay without lifting a weapon.
Except the people who attack you in the beginning arent Alik'r men, just the other bandit gang who inhabited the den. proof in that they are not titled Alik'r, just Bandit maurader etc, and (if you snuck in) the two bandits speaking, when you enter the cavern, about being uncomfortable with the Alik'r sharing their space.
+1 vote
I went with Saadia because she was alone and I had to wade through ten or so kematu lackies that were trying to kill me before I got to talk to the "friendly guy". Also note the sneaky guy in the jail whose fine I paid was talking to Kematu, not going off to be a farmer or whatever. Maybe they're both bad but Saadia didn't engage in hostilities with my character.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
–1 vote

well i first sold out the girl took the reward , killed the girl my self and then killed kematu ^^ a happy ending for all of us xp did,t change a thing, but  make sure u get teh reward first  ^^

answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
Also, just a thought. If you click on  any of the sleep sacks on the ground it allows you to sleep. However, if there are enemeis of any kind near by, (Even crabs) it will say you cannot sleep when enemies are near.

I too, sided with Kematu.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
At first i sided with Saadia then i thought maybe not then i sided with Kematu then i found out she was a noble so she might be telling the truth in the end i lured her to the stables let him paralyze her took 500 from Kematu then she woke up so i killed her also and looted her body in the end i feel i made the right choice lol
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
I sided with neither. When Saadia drew her dagger at the beginning of the quest, I thought she was picking a fight and I killed her. Then because I felt guilty I killed the people in the cave.

Neutrality ftw!
answered 11 years ago by clumsykid Newbie (125 points)  
Yeah I kinda did the same thing.  Except after I  killed everyone in the cave, I still felt guilty, so then I went back to Whiterun and slaughtered the entire population.  The kids wouldn't die so I just conjured up a couple of Dremora lords to scare the shit out of them until they're old enough to be killed.
0 votes
I went to the Cave, killed everyone up to the boss.  Agreed to talk Sadia out of the city.  Pickpocketed everything she owned (including her clothes) as she left the city.  Gave her over to Kematu and then snuck around the building and killed them both and took all of his stuff.  Not sure who was right or wrong but in the end, I think that justice was served all around.

And the reason I would lean more to her side of the story is that if they really were captuing a fugitive, why would the Jarl not turn her over with valid paperwork, and if she had tons of money, why would she be hiding in an Inn working as a serving girl.
answered 11 years ago by anonymous  
"why would the Jarl not turn her over", there is a reason but it is not explained, when you walk into Whiterun and find the Alik'r, the guard says to them, "after what you did you're lucky I don't have you both executed", there is also a third in the prison.
0 votes
Am I the only one who read the ingame book about the Great War? It's stated there that the Alik'r helped fight against the Aldmeri Dominion. So tell me, why would they assassinate someone for their enemies? Siding with Kematu is the only way, unless you're a supporter of the Thalmor.
answered 10 years ago by anonymous  
No, other people read it as well.  We're just not as narrow-minded as you apparently are.

Here's the problem with your lazy logic:  Kematu acknowledged that the treason charges were brought about by the rival noble factions.  Therefore, their motive for having her killed was to eliminate a political rival.  They simply used the Thalmor as an excuse.
They aren't using the dominion as an excuse, she is! She said the aldmeri dominion was after her, they never once said anything that even hints to that. And of course she would say that, she's a pretty woman in skyrim who needs to have some people killed, why not say they're working for the dominion? The nords would kill them for free
0 votes
doesn't matter. No difference whatsoever. Either way, you get a reward, new quest etc. I personally went with Saadia but you can choose.
answered 10 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
I choose to sided with saadia for simple reason, slaughter a group of assassin is more challenging than just escorting a woman to the stable :D
answered 10 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
With who you side is up to everyone.

Fact is though that Saadia is the traitor.

She said she had to run because she "spoke out against the Dominion publicly". As we know from the history of the Redguard/Thalmor conflict the Thalmore first conquered half of Hammerfell then the Empire ratted them out and then the Redguards reconquered Hammerfell. So basically every Redguard(noble) speaks out against Thalmor publicly because everyone hates them. And probably they don't like the Empire either.

Tells us that her story can't be true because either every single noble or non-noble would be hunted by Thalmor because they all are enemies ... or that she was a traitor who is now hunted by Redguards (and not Thalmor).
answered 10 years ago by anonymous  
she deserves to get captured
0 votes
Well think of it this way.

If she is guity and the other nobles found out she would have gone striaght to the Thalmor or Thalmor controlled provence where she would be perfectly safe, well reasonably safe from the nobles, be it a pet to the Thalmor.

The only reason to go to Skyrim would be because she is innocent, speaking out againest the Thalmor, the Nords are known for not taking shit, dislike foreginers and hate the Thalmor with avengence far more than the others because of the Talos ban. If it was misdirection to go to Skyrim its pretty stupid as it is far too close for comfort to Hammerfall, Skyrim is her only option left if she is innocent and the furthest away she could get from the Thalmor.
answered 10 years ago by anonymous  
0 votes
Kematu, no doubt. Sadia is a liar and a traitor. Read the book 'The Great War", the Alik'r fought against the Dominion, proving Sadia a liar.
answered 10 years ago by anonymous  
the alik'r are sellswords who would do everything for money... and hammerfells nobles had to agree the white gold concordat and saadia hated the thalmor... she spoke in puplic and the thalmor paid to get her killed. I sided with Saadia. F*** the thalmor :P
0 votes

*Contains Spoilers*

Alrighty people, did some digging around (a few hours through TES lore cause I'm a nerd like that) and I feel I've discovered the more logical answer. There is no definate answer for this quest specifically but underlying lore tends to make one side seem more believable:

  • History -- Hammerfell was a nationally weak country comprised of many city-state type governments/confederacies with conflicting ideals and politics. Hence when Taneth was attacked by Cameran Usurper in 3E253 (TES: Arena), the nearby city of Elinhir did not come to Taneth's aid.
  • 4E171 -- The Great War starts with the Aldmeri Dominion invading lower Cyrodiil (via A.D. protectorate states of Valenwood & Elsweyr) and Hammerfell (via coastal invasion of Taneth through the Abecean Sea, bypassing ground forces of Cyroiilic strongholds Anvil and Kvatch).
  • 4E175 -- White-Gold Concordat states that the empire cede a large portion of southern Hammerfell to the Aldmeri Dominion. Empire agrees, Hammerfell sees this as a betrayal and breaks off from the Empire.
  • 4E180 -- Dominion, weakened by fighting a war on two fronts and effectively fought to a standstill by the Redguards, sign The Second Treaty of Stros M'kai, forcing them to completly withdraw from Hammerfell.
  • Hammerfell emerges as a nationally strong country, with petty differences abrogated in the face of a common enemy.

  Knowing that, the Alik'r would NEVER bend knee to Thalmor. They have nearly as much distain for them as the Nords do. Other things to keep in mind:

  • Saadia say's that the Alik'r are assassins, sent to kill her for speaking out against the Dominion. Which is absolute nonsense, understanding privious events.
  • The Alik'r claim Saadia betrayed her family (specifically House Suda) and sold out Taneth to the Aldmeri Dominion. According to them, if it were not for her the city could have held its ground during the Great War. Now they are charged by the Great Houses of Hammerfell to bring her back to stand trial for treason.
  • When entering Swindler's Den, you come accross two bandits. The bandits are emploied by the Alik'r to protect and/or conceal their location. If the Alik'r were working with the Aldmeri Dominion, there would be no reason to hide.
  • Also, if Saadia (aka Iman) was speaking out against the A.D. chances are they would have already sent their own goons to pick her up. They don't seem to have a problem snatching up Talos worshipping nords in the middle of the night.

So after all that, my humble opinion is... Saadia is full of sh*t. Of course I don't feel great about sending her off to most likely face execution, but most things are unpleasent on the personal level. Sorry about the misspelling and typos :P Hope this helps everyone out cause I was just as hung up on this quest as well. -- MrWarSpoon

answered 10 years ago by anonymous  
edited 10 years ago by anonymous
Wel. I guess I'm mutual because I side with Kematu only to bring Saadia outside and paralyzed. Then I kill her and take her gold. Then I kill Kematu and take whatever he has left. I guess you can say I'm sexist to both genders.
mean hahaha
0 votes

First of all if your man enough you will kill them all I really had fun in killing them all with my newfound shout that helpt giving me time by shouting them off the high ground into the river. Secondly if you are a man you will always choose the side of a woman in need! Thirdly last but not least, isn't Skyrim much more awsome if your choice is something thats most heroic, like you tell Avulstein in Missing in Action that he should stay home and that you alone will take care of it all! 

Best thing in Skyrim is definitely being HEROIC and HEROIC people should never kill a woman in need even if your a woman yourself! So suck it up and KILL Kematu because you will definitely be the MORAL WINNER even if you get played by Saadia!cool

answered 9 years ago by anonymous  
edited 9 years ago by chronodev
best speech ever girl or dude!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 votes
i joined saadia and kamatu i tryed the boy bad choise i tryed girl much better until i got werewolf and killed all exept the unkillable ones
answered 9 years ago by anonymous  

Related questions

0 votes
0 answers
asked 10 years ago in GeneralGeneral by anonymous  
0 votes
1 answer
0 votes
1 answer
asked 11 years ago in GeneralGeneral by anonymous  
0 votes
0 answers
asked 10 years ago in GeneralGeneral by anonymous