Mass Hostility
ElectricMonk
Member Posts: 599
As it stands now, when you attack an NPC that isn't hostile, every NPC on the screen turns hostile, potentially ruining quest possibilities and driving your reputation straight into the floor unless you can manage to run away before your party slaughters a few innocent commoners (and even then you've permanently ruined your chance to talk to any of those NPCs). I understand the logic in that attacking an "innocent" NPC would be disliked by those around you, but I can hardly see a lone beggar or a group of commoners actually throwing themselves on the blades of an extremely well-equipped party of adventurers that just proved themselves capable of cold-blooded murder (I know that they don't actually attack, but they do turn "hostile"). I think it would be ideal for them to not turn hostile, but still run away (and return to the area after a specified period of time so that there isn't just some empty tavern for the rest of existence due to one guy getting killed there). I say leave the hostility to the Flaming Fist. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement this but it would be nice.
Additionally, there are parts of the game where it makes especially little sense, such as when an NPC starts attacking Viconia when she is in your party, but then when you defend yourselves and kill said NPC, every man, woman, and child as far as the eye can see turns hostile, this seems a bit unrealistic as the NPC instigated the incident in the first place, and these people weren't hostile to your party prior to your defending yourselves.
I'm putting this in feature requests instead of bug fixes as I'm not sure how far off the current behavior really is from the original devs intended behavior... but a moderator can feel free to correct me and move it if needed.
Additionally, there are parts of the game where it makes especially little sense, such as when an NPC starts attacking Viconia when she is in your party, but then when you defend yourselves and kill said NPC, every man, woman, and child as far as the eye can see turns hostile, this seems a bit unrealistic as the NPC instigated the incident in the first place, and these people weren't hostile to your party prior to your defending yourselves.
I'm putting this in feature requests instead of bug fixes as I'm not sure how far off the current behavior really is from the original devs intended behavior... but a moderator can feel free to correct me and move it if needed.
12
Comments
In fact for another reason i agree with @jaysl659. I have to add some other requests also to put my point here.
When we kill an innocent person and have rep 18+ we normally lose 9-10 points in reputation. Excelent for me, that ok. But at rep 12-10 or lower, the killing of innocents should at maximun take 1 point of reputation or even don't drop the reputation.
I love evil parties, and i think a reputation 1 party as a reward to get, not a penality (by the way, Edwin, Viconia and Korgan agree with me XD). At each gameplay that i do in evil patch, i try to only lose reputation points in quests done in evil ways. To have rep 1 you must be the most villainous person of the realm, and get this killing 4 or 5 persons is too lame.
If BG:EE gonna turn evil in a way of play the game and not a penality anymore, make the low reputation a reward that tevil players must work his ass to death if they want it.
PS: just don't make ppl innocent cos they alignment is good or evil, into a society that's not what matter or i would be able to kill all the politicians of my country with no repercussion
Now an extra request, not directly linked to this topic, but complete the idea above:
Give more free will to NPCs in the same way that was done in the Valen mod of Weimer.
What if reputation was tied somewhat to alignment?
Like your rep would gravitate to the end of the spectrum that your alignment points to.
Example:
Your char is Chaotic Good then your rep will tend towards the upper end of the spectrum; so if your Rep is say 5 and you do a good act like giving a beggar money or something then you will get say 5 rep points for that. But if your rep was say 15, and you performed the same goodly act then you might only get one Rep point.
The same would be true of an evil character. Evil character with a low rep of 5 does something evil like killing someone would only "lose" one point, but if he/she has a high rep of say 12 and murders then he/she would lose 5 points of rep.
It seem like a punishment I know but the way i see it is in that way rep would usually be in a range that sits with your alignment.
Good: Rep of 13 to 18/19
Neutral: Rep of 7 to 12
Evil: Rep of 1 to 6
Also take away the delibilitating punishments for being evil.
NPCs would not turn hostile the moment you enter the area if you are a baddie. Rumour does not equate to proof, and lets be honest that's what reputation is. "Rumours" of your accomplishments. So NPCs would react warily of you, merchants would be fearful, guards would be hostile in disposition when you talk to them.
Perhaps you would acquire a guard tail to watch you for wrong doing.
Also I think it's stupid and annoying that Imoen gets all pissy about an Evil CHARNAME. She is a damn thief who regularily breaks the law and does "evil" things herself. She is neutral aligned.
Neutral aligned characters should be "not pleased" with an evil character being evil, and would perhaps grumble about it; and recommend at least not being so overtly evil but would not get all pissy and leave.
Only good characters should get pissy about Evil characters.
In fact the core point you raised is: Make alignment rule the values of actions performed by the main char. That's ok, it's a way to make the game consistent with the alignment chose by the player. The game already do this in an rep value fashion, if i have a high rep and kill someone i lose a lot, otherwise i don't lose.
But my entire point is to make hard to lose reputation, even more in fact, hard to change your alignment points. High or low, it's a patch the player chose to follow and i would like the game to turn difficult reach each extreme of the reputation possibles (so give money to a beggar should not make any change in rep in fact).
Reputation is how ppl see you, so control the amount gain or lost based on reputation is not realistic, but it's a way, one of the few in fact, to make a Dungeon Master control on the char's action, in an attempt to punish the character if he runs from the interpretation of his alignment.
A shocking event in the story might may the hero question himself and his motivation. Or a companion might have a good or bad influence affecting the protagonist decisions and actions, and progressively alter his alignment. And that's just two examples.
I think a "punishment" is in order if the player blatantly performs action that are not respecting its current alignment in a way that does not make sense roleplaying wise.
But otherwise, the alignment should be able to naturally evolve without special difficulty.
As for the original post, I agree with @jaysl659.
That would work in a game like Planescape Torment, where your alignment changes with your actions, but in the BG games your alignment is fixed, so that role-playing aspect isn't part of the game (but of course you can always ignore that alignment).
I have nothing agains a main char in Baldur's Gate to have his alignment changed based in his acts however, as even in the prime things change, so if this system comes to be implemented, ok with me. But if not, if the alignments are locked, ppl should be adviced and even punished if they're not true to their alignments, if not we risk to turn the alignment thing an obsolete status, only used to determine the ability of use of some items.
PS: In BG2 there's a moment in the game where the alignment of the main char CAN CHANGE BASED IN HIS ACTS, that's happen in the main char pocket plane, before the final battle with Irenicus, however the main char pocket plane IS IN THE ABYSS, therefore, inside the multiverse (inside one of the multiverse outer planes of evil).
At the risk of taking this thread even more off topic than it already is, I'm going to engage you on this one.
The difference between the multiverse and the Prime is not that people change more easily in the multiverse, but that the multiverse can be more easily changed by people there.
Any normal human can change alignment with sufficient changes in his or her life. Sarevok and Viconia can both be redeemed, inspired by the player character. Anomen can fall, his life of abuse and misery getting the better of him. It shouldn't be strange that the alignment of the player character can also change, while on the prime. She faces death and destruction every day, is attacked at every turn, her destiny is that of a god made for murdering. That her tests take place on another plane make no difference in her possible alignment shift; the results would be the same no matter what world she was in, it was her life that changed her from her (hypothetical) Good alignment to her fall to evil. Her personality did not suddenly change there, the label was adjusted to more accurately label the character if she fails the tests.
When she gives into her pride, selfishness, greed, anger and refuses any personal sacrifice, she doesn't suddenly realise she's evil; the game does. That's why the alignment of the player character changes there. Unfortunately, this is the only such check in the game, which is why paladins can murder and extort, as long as they keep their reputation above 6 and you can remain Good all the time while doing the vilest of acts. As long as you perform well on your test, you're safe.
On the planes, it works the other way around. If the demons of Hell suddenly turn good, Hell turns good, the sulfur and brimstone dissappear and it will turn into a better place. The planes are what the inhabitants want it to be. This is exemplified in Torment, where the fallen angel Trias tries to send Carseri to hell by turning its inhabitats evil. Only by helping the people out and motivating them to do good can you prevent the plane from shifting into hell. Another example is Mourns-for-Trees, in Sigil. He believes trees can grow in the grey and bleak city of Sigil and when you believe this along with him, later in the game, a tree will grow there. This is impossible on the prime; beliefs mean nothing, but actions do. You need to do more than believe in a tree, you need to plant one.
In short; On the prime, the world shapes its people. Events in their lives change people and their belief system.
On the planes, the people shape their world. Devils are always Lawful Evil, Elementals always True Neutral, Eladrin always Chaotic Good, but their influence on the planes shapes the world they live in. If the hells ever overrun the heavens, their mere presence would cause it to be a foul and horrid place. The people don't shift alignment, the world does.
IRT the thread topic:
Giving the peasants yellow circles and making them flee sounds like a proper response, while City Guard might attack and/or summon reinforcements. Something does need to change. /agree
That being said, this discussion has been pretty much completely derailed. Just for the sake of keeping this forum somewhat organized, if people want to discuss the alignment system of BG at length, it would be best to do so on a thread labeled as such. Although we've already heard from a developer on this topic, so we know it's at least being worked on, it's probably best to stay on topic and just share ideas regarding the original post, agreeing with it, disagreeing with it, etc.
As @Elys sayd, in a previous post, a shocking event in main char life can change him on Baldur's Gate, but everything you do in PS:T change the nameless one, The own PS:T clarifies that the prime feed the multiverse with beliefs.
To finsh this point, as i put i truly have nothing against an system of change on the alignment based on main char acts, but if that's not done i just want the game to answer in kind to a player that don't follow the role of his main char (be him good, neutral or of evil alignment).
In topic: I also agree with the fear check for ordinary npcs, the game also should check time from time to see if the NPCs are on theyr scripted locations, if not they should be teleported/walk to their original positions.
If you start a fight with a non-innocent person around town folks, they normally scatter from the place, even leaving the area sometimes, so a check to see if every NPC is in the AR designed for him would be good too.
The change i proposed would make it easier to reach the reputation your alignment tends towards but harder to move away from and stay away from that reputation level.
The other idea is to break up Reputation into two parts.
Reputation and Virtue.
Reputation would simply be how famous you are in the region; governing NPC recognising you, how they react to you, getting discounts etc.
Virtue would govern the other side of repuation, the side that causes NPC to react with hostility or fear.
Just a thought.
Trent Oster even mentionned it and how he liked the idea on his tweeter account around the time BGEE was announced.
First, the most obvious problem is that alignment doesn't actually do anything for the protagonist. It's a label on your character sheet, nothing else.
Suggestion: make alignment meaningful in some way.
Instead, reputation is what determines whether you're good or evil. The check to give you either evil or good dreams/bhaalspawn abilities is (reputation < 10). That's retarded: it's highly undiscoverable (i.e. it's entirely unclear to the player why he gets these or those abilities - actually on a first playthrough he might be unaware that there are different dreams/abilities altogether); it doesn't make sense from a role-playing perspective (i.e. if I'm evil, why do I get the good-aligned stuff). Suggestion: make alignment determine whether you're good or evil. Keep reputation for reaction checks.
Reputation changes are implemented naively. It's trivial to be considered a hero and get 50% prices reductions anywhere, yet it's also trivial to lose all that with a single misclick.
Suggestion: I think reputation should be implemented with small static modifiers, starting at 10 (similar to the diplomacy system in Civ4). Are you good aligned? +1. lawful? +1. Killed any guards? -1. Stolen anything? -1. Rescued a lady in distress? +1. Lied? -1. So then it doesn't matter if you kill 1 times or 10 times, you get the same penalty. Which avoid snowballing issues like having to kill 3 guards in a row in the current system. Or there could be another static modifier for mass murderers (i.e. went on a rampage on innocent citizens? -3).
Your reputation also changes for events that nobody should be able to know about, like murdering a lone slave 4 levels down in a cave somewhere. Suggestion: for reputation to be affected, make sure some other NPCs are in sight, and they're still alive when you leave the area (giving you time to kill witnessess and avoid a reputation loss that way).
Also donating to temple is overpowered to the point of making the entire reputation system meaningless. After a few hours of play, you have well enough money to buy yourself almost heroic reputation at any point. Also the UI is very bad for temple donations because it's impossible to know how much money to give to get a reputation point. Suggestion: make it so you only gain 1 or 2 reputation points a day when visiting a temple. Alternatively, in line with the static modifier system suggested above, make temple donations a static modifier (donated money to a temple recently? +1) so it can't be abused in any way. Improve the UI so it's very obvious how much money to give - or even better, just make it a "give X gold" button so you don't even have to input the required amount.
Also reaction checks based on reputation only make sense for good characters. Why should Edwin refuse to join the party because our reputation is too low, but once he's in the party, he does the reverse, complaining when reputation is high and praising us when reputation is low? Suggestion: make NPC's reaction checks consistent with their reputation checks while inside the party.
Also the system is skewed towards good: neutral NPCs will only get slightly annoyed by heroic reputation, but will leave if your reputation drops too low. Yes, neutral can be interpreted as both indifference towards good and evil, or an active strive for balance, but that system doesn't make sense in both cases. Suggestion: either make neutral NPCs completely indifferent to reputation (I don't like the idea because we'll lose some voice-acted lines), or at make their happiness table symmetric in regards to good and evil. Yes that won't make sense for Jaheira - but Jaheira behaves as a neutral good character for all intents and purposes so the problem there is her specified alignment, not the proposed solution).
Also the price discounts in stores shouldn't be simply based on reputation. Admitedly, a higher reputation should lead to lower prices, but charisma should play a role as well. An interesting formula would be ([charisma modifier] + abs([reputation adjustment])) * [some constant] = [discount percentage]: you get the biggest discount with a high charisma and reputation, but a low reputation character with high charisma can still intimidate to get a discount, albeit a lower one. Obviously a low reputation character with low charisma gets very high prices.
Everyone can have his conviction for any reason the person want, be his belief correct or not, but if you want to spread your conviction to others, as i did, you need to justify it. So we're ok with this, that both of us defend a point of view, no? Let's go to the argue part then.
I said the virtue mod sucks cos it try to fix a mistake by creating another. As @Zeckul already told "...reputation/alignment system is a joke in Baldur's Gate" (and is good to see i'm not the only one that think it). That mod was a good conceived try, made with "virtuous" intent, but a failure in my view.
Virtue try to fix a poor performance of the infinite engine, that consist in evaluation of good/evil and relationship with NPCs on the game, by creating a 2 variant value.
From a perspective, we can partially fix some of the inconsistencies of the game, but the result of virtue mod is to make "be loved by the people" right and "be hated by the people" wrong, and then we go back to the entire question agin: Shoud not evil parties has the right of being hated by others or neutral parties follow a no fame patch?
When i roleplay an evil party i want to be feared, not praised. I could even say that when i play a neutral party i like to be reticent, but that would be hard to do in play terms.
I don't argue out of experience here bro, cos i played an entire gameplay to the end (SoA and ToB) with this mod, and i have to say i didn't like the outcome. During a playthrough with it i say, many of the NPCs using the good salute to greet my evil party, treating them as heroes and all, and that's inconsistent with the behavior of all the evil party members.