The two words together in this title sums up why I dislike the entire system... for an evil party reputation is something you 'manage' not a reflection of how that party is playing.
I cannot stress enough how satisfied I was after installing the happy party mod in BG2. Reputation is dumb. In so many ways. Your party's reactions to reputation changes are sometimes even dumber.
No offense, but stripping the tiny hint of personality the NPCs have - the only choice they can make - isn't the answer either. I get it, you really like that mod, but simply making no-one complain about anything doesn't make any sense to me in a roleplaying game. And the party reactions may be dumb, but they can also make my day:
Jaheira definitely gets whiny at higher reps (at least in Tutu). 'These are not the actions of Warrior Born!' Then Leave!!!!
But it is the age old thing. Rep shouldn't equal alignment. But that is what we got so make the best of it. The rest of the game is so awesome that this is a minor thing.
I have to say I was somewhat disappointed that they nerfed the NPCs whining about reps for BGEE - IMO it does indeed take away from their personality and their abiltiy to have some sort of roleplay impact - even when not done especially well I find it preferable to the lack of any at all.
For those who can't stand it there would have been options like the Happy mod but I doubt anyones going to make a mod that puts it back in for those of us who would prefer it.
Quayle is 100 % indifferent about rep changes. It suits his personality, but it stands out in a weird way with a mixed party.
The NPCs are what we make of them via roleplay, and in BG1, there isn't much to work with (as is the rep system). They have no say in wether they join a party (with the notable exception of Garrick if you kill the "thugs") or leave unless rep comes into play (except the ones with timers/quests). Taking that little bit of choice and personality away makes them as bland as adding own party members via multiplayer. I'd be the first to install a mod that makes the BG1 NPCs be more harsh, i.e. have neutral NPCs leave if the rep goes too high or low.
For me, I always use either my PnP experiences or (more generically) the DragonLance books as my baseline for imagining a party in conflict. In that you had a party with conflicts. You had characters that actually had agendas and liked/didn't like certain actions. You even had party members who left after certain actions were taken. And that felt real. Maybe it was because it was based (loosely) on an actual PnP game played by the authors, but it actually felt like there was party strife.
So, although rep management for evil is a challenge (and poorly implemented), I like that the party members have their own minds on how things should go. And more importantly, i don't need to imagine it even if what I would imagine were different than what actually happens in the game.
I agree that although reputation management is frustrating, and is necessary only because it was poorly implemented, the hassle is worth the bother because without it the NPC's do become a lot less unique. I disliked and yet at the same time liked the fact that Jaheira would voice her disdain for our actions if we were tipping the scales too greatly. It fits her morals and her values of being a true neutral. She desires the scales to be balanced. Sure, I would grow tired of her constant badgering on the subject, and occasionally feel obliged to hurl my helmet in her direction, but I would not change it, because different strokes for different folks is a part of life. It makes the world a whole lot more interesting, sometimes frustrating, but always interesting.
Yes. It's just a game, but some folks like to be immersed in the experience and play with a moral code of conduct which the reputation system (and many of its mods) quite simply shatters. I never liked the happy patch, because of that reason. I can see its benefits, certainly, but I did approve of how it achieved them. A simple -2 per evil character to the maximum reputation value, with unhappy outbursts or pleasant nods of approval remaining intact and activating when the extremes are reached, that would be very welcome.
Comments
But it is the age old thing. Rep shouldn't equal alignment. But that is what we got so make the best of it. The rest of the game is so awesome that this is a minor thing.
For those who can't stand it there would have been options like the Happy mod but I doubt anyones going to make a mod that puts it back in for those of us who would prefer it.
The NPCs are what we make of them via roleplay, and in BG1, there isn't much to work with (as is the rep system). They have no say in wether they join a party (with the notable exception of Garrick if you kill the "thugs") or leave unless rep comes into play (except the ones with timers/quests). Taking that little bit of choice and personality away makes them as bland as adding own party members via multiplayer. I'd be the first to install a mod that makes the BG1 NPCs be more harsh, i.e. have neutral NPCs leave if the rep goes too high or low.
So, although rep management for evil is a challenge (and poorly implemented), I like that the party members have their own minds on how things should go. And more importantly, i don't need to imagine it even if what I would imagine were different than what actually happens in the game.
Yes. It's just a game, but some folks like to be immersed in the experience and play with a moral code of conduct which the reputation system (and many of its mods) quite simply shatters. I never liked the happy patch, because of that reason. I can see its benefits, certainly, but I did approve of how it achieved them. A simple -2 per evil character to the maximum reputation value, with unhappy outbursts or pleasant nods of approval remaining intact and activating when the extremes are reached, that would be very welcome.