@UnrealDP: I really don't see the point you are trying to make? Bethesda worked hard with the entire game, sidequests and main quest alike, they aren't trying to just tell a story, they are giving us the tools too live in another world. And how can you define what is "out of character", for MY character? Maybe I want to play a psycho who only wants chaos, "like the joker or something", then I should be able to. And if I get the urge to play the Main questline or some sidequests I fucked up, I'll just make a new character who would actually consider doing them.

@atomic_dumpling: I'm pretty sure you could kill children in the original Fallout games. There was even a reputation title for it.

That is a terrible idea, that means you could lose certain quests.

@atomic_dumpling: I'm pretty sure you could kill children in the original Fallout games. There was even a reputation title for it.

I definitely wish you could kill everyone as I wouldn't want witnesses if I roll evil. But I'm pretty sure they said the ones that can't be killed will surrender, I like that better than them just being knocked out like oblivion.

@TobbRobb said:

@UnrealDP: I really don't see the point you are trying to make? Bethesda worked hard with the entire game, sidequests and main quest alike, they aren't trying to just tell a story, they are giving us the tools too live in another world. And how can you define what is "out of character", for MY character? Maybe I want to play a psycho who only wants chaos, "like the joker or something", then I should be able to. And if I get the urge to play the Main questline or some sidequests I fucked up, I'll just make a new character who would actually consider doing them.

What i'm trying to say is that Bethesda's main quests never intrude on the way you want to play your game, they always stay morally neutral, they always let you come at them in your own way be it archer/whatever and they always have a story to tell that never intrudes on any of your allignments be it assassin or champion, so when they need to keep an NPC alive for this story that tries it's best to stay on the sideline and out of your way then why is it so bad? Sure its a concession to make whenever you have to say "Then i went on a psychotic killing spree, but this guy didn't die cause.....", but at a point they want to have their own story and they try their best to keep these characters out of your way. Bethesda wants you to keep playing and to keep having fun and it's hard to do that when you randomly shut the doors on side quests and main quests that you never even knew about just because you decided to kill this innocent person, who never ever got in your way, for absoluetly no reason. They want you to have all the options in the world, but again that is hard when you're an unpredictable human being that unknowingly closes quests on a regular basis.

At a point Bethesda needs to make a fun game that at the base level most people can play and enjoy, so when you randomly close quests by killing harmless NPCs that let me say again never get in your way you just say "I'll just make a new character and do this quest in my 5th playthrough in another 50 hours" is that really fun? Is it really better to have to make a new charcter and put hundreds of hours into it simply because it would be against your character not to murder this random NPC. It's not fun to close off doors and options for players to play through, so why would you want to in the first place?

@UnrealDP: You bring out a lot of assumptions here. I don't kill NPCs without a reason, killing things isn't why I play the game. What I want is options, I want to be able to shut off quests I don't care about, I want to be able to kill those I want and take the consequences. And from the beginning of the thread we have said that killing essentials should be an options, not the default setting, someone won't unkowingly fuck up their game but someone who knows how should be able to. Also, do you really only play with one save in a bethesda game? Did something bad? Reload. And I don't want to do every quest, I wanna play a character so I don't actually care about the closed of quests.

Also, main characters aren't neutral, they are 90% good who wants to save the world, things my crackhead burglar might not take interest in.

@TobbRobb said:

Also, main characters aren't neutral, they are 90% good who wants to save the world, things my crackhead burglar might not take interest in.

Well first i didn't mean that main characters were all neutral i meant that the main quest was neutral and it never forced you to be good/evil, but thats my bad i think i should have phrased that better.

Why would you want to be able to shut off quests? There is litteraly no benefit to doing that, litteraly not a single one! "Oh, but just the idea of doing this quest makes me so mad that i just have to shut it off cause i don't want to accidentally do it or something." seriously why would you want to do that you talk about wanting the option to do things when in reality your just angry because you don't have the option to close an option i think? I honestly can't follow any kind of logic as to why you would want to shut yourself out of a quest that in no way gets in your way or is in no way inconveniencing you. Is it because you want to feel the consequences of killing this npc who by no means is causing any problems for you and being in every way passive towards you? If that is truely the case then i don't think i'll ever be able to understand this. You simply want the option to screw yourselve over with no benefit other than "I have the option!". This is a Cod situation of i'm just going to shoot my AI teamates and restart the checkpoint over and over simply becasue i have the option and i just don't understand.

The suggestion you made of a toggle of killing essential NPCs just seems like such a cop out, i mean, for example this is a "We were to lazy to figure out a proper answer to this problem so we just give you this slack janky option." kind of situation here. At a point its not okay for a developer to say "Hey we couldn't figure this out so instead of trying harder to get this down to something everyone will love we just threw in this half assed check box".

I really wish that people would stop going, "Oh, just wait for the mod", every time a potential problem or issue is brought up.

I'm beginning to think that the problem here, besides your inability to read other people's posts and reason accurately, is that you must only have one save and one character. Because not every character has to complete every quest; like TobbRobb said, there are quests his crackhead burglar character might not care about, like the main quest. 
 
 Even the skills you choose should have consequences -- characters with a strength of 10 and 50 intelligence should not be able to become master of the fighter's guild.  It's a free-form RPG -- I don't always have to play some variant of "the world saving" character type.
 
So if I did decide to roll an evil character and systematically go into people's houses, kill them while they sleep and take their stuff, I don't see why the utter and incomprehensible incompetence of other players should stop me. Why is toggling a cop out? Why is it janky? It seems like nothing of the sort to me, any more than toggling subtitles on and off. I'm really thinking that if there's a troll here, it's you. Frakking explain what you mean. 
 

A major character accidentally dies. You now have to restart to finish the main quest.

Nahh I'll take immortal NPCs