Remove/change high reputation level causing evil party members to leave
DivergentZen
Member Posts: 7
This has probably been said before, but it's annoying when Viconia leaves, despite gaining a ton olf gold/magic items/success, because you saved some farmer's cow from some xvarts. Like, what's she thinking, omg, that's the last straw CHARNAME. You saved that cow and I will stand no more, fool!
And it's not like Jaheria, a druid, and Kivan, a ranger, get bent out of shape if I go about systematically slaughtering every squirrel, cow, and horse in the game for the lulz. And yet, Viconia cares about saving a cow?!
I get a low reputation level causing good party members to leave. They have consciences and morals niggling at them. Evil party members don't and should be selfish enough not to care what CHARNAME is up to so long as it benefits them, because they're selfish by nature. I mean, don't the evil characters enjoy being able to buy items from shopkeepers at a discount?
If anything, please institute a bribe system. Have the evil character demand gold or something to remain with the party. If you don't want to pay or can't afford the bribe, the evil character leaves. That should be simple to implement, right?
If you think this cheapens the roleplay experience or the spirit of the game, then impose an experience penalty on the bribed evil character or something. I mean, evil characters get to bribe churches to magically keep their reputations up without having to do legitimate "good" acts, so why should my paladin be force to quietly murder townsfolk so Viconia doesn't walk off because I saved a friggin cow? Or why should I need to make poor Imoen intentionally botch a pickpocket attempt so I can stick my tongue out at some guards and run away?
Seriously, the reputation system in general is pretty nonsensical and one of the weakest systems in both games. You get the same bonus for saving a cow as you do for saving the livelyhoods of an entire town. You cap out at 20, even though you go on to do greater and greater things. Like, once you save a few cows and recover a few corpses for people, you're reputation is as good as it ever will be, despite some of the epic things you do over the course of the two games. It's just aggravating.
And it's not like Jaheria, a druid, and Kivan, a ranger, get bent out of shape if I go about systematically slaughtering every squirrel, cow, and horse in the game for the lulz. And yet, Viconia cares about saving a cow?!
I get a low reputation level causing good party members to leave. They have consciences and morals niggling at them. Evil party members don't and should be selfish enough not to care what CHARNAME is up to so long as it benefits them, because they're selfish by nature. I mean, don't the evil characters enjoy being able to buy items from shopkeepers at a discount?
If anything, please institute a bribe system. Have the evil character demand gold or something to remain with the party. If you don't want to pay or can't afford the bribe, the evil character leaves. That should be simple to implement, right?
If you think this cheapens the roleplay experience or the spirit of the game, then impose an experience penalty on the bribed evil character or something. I mean, evil characters get to bribe churches to magically keep their reputations up without having to do legitimate "good" acts, so why should my paladin be force to quietly murder townsfolk so Viconia doesn't walk off because I saved a friggin cow? Or why should I need to make poor Imoen intentionally botch a pickpocket attempt so I can stick my tongue out at some guards and run away?
Seriously, the reputation system in general is pretty nonsensical and one of the weakest systems in both games. You get the same bonus for saving a cow as you do for saving the livelyhoods of an entire town. You cap out at 20, even though you go on to do greater and greater things. Like, once you save a few cows and recover a few corpses for people, you're reputation is as good as it ever will be, despite some of the epic things you do over the course of the two games. It's just aggravating.
9
Comments
You make a good point about evil party members, too. I recently had Kagain in my party, an evil mercenary motivated entirely by greed and lust for money. Returning a bounty for several thousand gold should appease him, but it raised my reputation, so he quit. It makes no sense, and is extremely aggravating.
I understand, they would whine about it, but leaving?
The closest change I would think may be acceptable is to remove breaking at 19 or 20 reputation for Evil and change that to angry. That said, why would a Lawful Good character allow a Chaotic Evil character in the party?
I do think that the reputation system as a whole is poor though. Since when is reputation automatically defined as good? You could be vile and still be very reputable.
As far as evil characters being upset over a good character doing good things, it really depends on the motivation of the individual party member. A character motivated by greed isn't going to care so long as the gold keeps coming in. Edwin craves power, so as long as he keeps gaining power he shouldn't care if you turn in an insane evil clerics holy symbol.
And considering that your collecting a fat bounty by killing someone, why is it considered a "good" action. I get that it would add to your characters fame, but it shouldn't be something that would tick Dorn off. He got to murder someone for gold and got thanked for it.
Also, chaotic evil characters are problematic. By all rights, half the time you camp with one in your party you should get an automatic game over for when your PC's throat gets cut in the middle of the night. They do bad things randomly and without reason.
So maybe reputation should be treated as fame and the more you have the better? So even evil actions can gain fame, with the exception of openly stealing from a murdering townsfolk.
It's moronic and glaringly ignorent of irl!
Also, what do you think the Iron Throne is? They're a legitimate trade corporation, that also has it's hands in under the table dealings with bandits to cause the iron shortage so they can profit off their slave labor mines that produce the only usable iron in the entire sword coast, and to maintain that monopoly by having bandits seize caravans attempting to import iron from other regions.
I also agree that reputation ≠ alignment in a bad way. For instance, a LG fighter can do evil and have low rep, but this has no impact on alignment. It's a limitation of the game that they made a little (they being BioWare) better in NwN. I sort of see this as a game limitation and deal with it.
Not to mention that the work-around (removing Vic from your party before getting the rep. increase) is really cheesy/annoying, too.
Having said that i never expected that the enhanced edition would overhaul the mechanics to that extent, nor do i expect any such changes in any BG2:EE. Our best bet would be for a completely revamped system if BG3 ever makes it off the ground. Personally i would much prefer the greater freedom of a Planescape:Torment or Arcanum when it comes to alignment. By this i mean an actual balanced world in which there are cities or strongholds where reviled characters would be held in high esteem and heroes attacked on sight, where a shady reputation opens some quests, many alignment-specific items, training that actually has to be sought after in the real world, the ability to change alignment based on cumulative actions rather than an arbitrary decision at games beginning (for better and worse depending on class/companions etc), and a greater emphasis on alternate outcomes and paths, especially non-violent (or non-traditional combat) solutions to situations based on certain stats thereby increasing their importance depending on how you would prefer to roleplay. i.e the nameless one using dexterity to break someones neck before they sound an alarm, intelligence unlocking more preferred conversation options, and charisma allowing you to increase you party or sweet-talk your own way.
Im not asking for a different game or feel, in my opinion the entire bhaalspawn saga already allows for a perfect opportunity to explore the many shades the struggle between good and evil and the freedom to roleplay in different ways ideologically as well as from a mechanical viewpoint would even further increase the re-playability of the game. It would take nothing away from those who want to play the game as an evolved hack n slash but it would greatly enhance the experience of the story/roleplay driven crowd. (for the record i can play BG either way, completely powergamer or completely roleplayed and enjoy both equally.)
Sorry for the slight derail, it is only because i believe a new alignment and reputation system is a key component to increasing the scope of the game and creating a new benchmark for the genre or gaming as a whole...
Why would someone who was playing an evil aligned character have a good aligned npc in their party?
Why would someone who was playing a neutral aligned character have any problems staying between 2-18 reputation?
Seriously,... I am super lawful good knight I save everyone and even stop to help an old lady cross the street.. WHAAA EVIL DROW WHO WORSHIPS SHAR NO LIKEY? I R CONFUSED!!!
Evil people want to be famous for being bad, not for being heroic. Think about it.
I mean, I'm ok with making it optional for people who want to play a lawful good paladin CHARNAME and have dorn in the party, but that makes no sense.
Anyway, there are tons of reasons why this could happen. See literature and film.
But my main problem is this arbitrary point system. At 18, evil npcs are fine. At 19, things are suddenly unbearable.
Impose an XP penalty if you must or have a bribe system, but don't have Shar-Teel leave if you save a cow.
Also, lets take a look at that other statement of evil people want to be famous for being bad, not for being heroic. In Viconia's case her reputation proceeds her due to just her skin color, and she hates it. Only dumb people, chaotic people, or people with enough power to back up their reputation want infamy. A person like Viconia is just trying to survive and being in a party that does "good" things provides the benefits she needs to make the likely hood of her getting her throat slit in the middle of night or bounty hunters and guards jumping her more likely to not happen.
Also in PnP D&D parties are made of whatever the participants there produce. 6people could have 6 different non matching alignments.
A Lawful good party will want Viconia because they SAVE HER, THEY DON'T CARE IF SHES DROW, in addition a chaotic good person probably would have zero issues if that evil person could pull their weight,(Chaotic good people break laws all the time... they fallow their own codes of justice etc) Viconia IS the best cleric in BG1(and 2) and she certainly pulls her weight, A neutral good wouldn't care beyond sleeping with 1 eye open as long as it was a means to an end.
Reputation rarlely drops on quests. And even if it does, you have to be total douche, to get the rep drop.
So the only option is murdering innocents. From Roleplaying point of view, a neutral character rather would not kill innocents without any reason (other than reputation drop, in order to keep his evil comrades - which is silly).
I've noticed this long time ago, that in Baldur's Gate it's almost impossible to roleplay as neutral character. Either you are total saint Goodie O'Good, or murdering bastard Murderer McDouche. There are simply no options inbetween, not only in questlines, but even in dialogs. Sometimes you don't even have some decent evil answer - you get only "I'm a carebear, and love is the answer" type of response
So yeah, having your rep somewhere between 6-18 is hard. And if you are hardcore roleplayer - maybe even impossible.
Fallout2 is spot on, when it comes to reputation system AND dialog options AND impact to your dialogs with your Charisma, Intelligence and other stats.