Reputation, Donations & Temples

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Darrylson

Well there's the Umberlant Temple in Baldur's Gate, which I don't believe accepts donations, and you can even slaughter all the priests in there without incurring a reputation loss.

In BG2 of course there's the Temple of Talos, which will accept donations, which will raise your reputation, something I found rather odd and I would agree that donating to them should reduce one's reputation. The Talosians aren't exactly known for their quality orphanages and cancer treatment centers.

Lapa

There are temples of Umberlee (Baldur's Gate) and Talos (Athkatla) which are evil deities. It would be wonderful feature if donating to evil temples would reduce the reputation.

IMO the current reputation system is stupid because the game rewards you if you have high reputation (by reducing cost of items) but doesn't give anything if your reputation is low. It favors parties of good alignment but gives nothing beneficial to evil parties. I would add some feature to this system that would give something to low reputation evil parties also.

Stargazer5781

Religious temples are actually well-organized marketing and public relations firms.

KidCarnival

I'd like this as a system, too. I'd prefer a slightly different way to "donate" though, for example donate (magical) items for the temple to destroy and harvest the energy or something. It would feel more evil to make a sacrifice than simply dropping some coins. It's not for charity, after all.

Darrylson

KidCarnival said:

I'd like this as a system, too. I'd prefer a slightly different way to "donate" though, for example donate (magical) items for the temple to destroy and harvest the energy or something. It would feel more evil to make a sacrifice than simply dropping some coins. It's not for charity, after all.

I like this idea, especially if the temple will actually pay you for those items, that way an evil character has motivation (profit) for donating them, and it shouldn't cause too much of a discrepancy between how much money good and evil players will make since good parties have more access to quests, and can sell the same magical items at stores anyway.

KidCarnival

I hadn't thought about the temples buying them, but it would make up for the worse store prices and lower quest rewards for low rep. The only real advantage good parties would have either way would be that they can buy items back, while evil destroys them. But there are enough Long Sword +1s to go around and I doubt anyone would buy those back anyway (or sacrifice something potentially useful).

atcDave

Lapa said:

There are temples of Umberlee (Baldur's Gate) and Talos (Athkatla) which are evil deities. It would be wonderful feature if donating to evil temples would reduce the reputation.

IMO the current reputation system is stupid because the game rewards you if you have high reputation (by reducing cost of items) but doesn't give anything if your reputation is low. It favors parties of good alignment but gives nothing beneficial to evil parties. I would add some feature to this system that would give something to low reputation evil parties also.

Evil is by definition self serving, so I would say simply "being evil" (being able to kill for fun and profit...) is all the reward you'll ever get for it. Evil is all about the short term, getting what you want and getting it now; as opposed to cultivating relationships and goodwill. So the evil character's "reward" is the freedom to walk into a shop, rob the merchant, kill his cat and walk away with a smirk on your face. Ultimately, I think evil is banal and a loosing proposition.

Now that said, its not inconceivable that evil religions would stand for something other than just being evil. Something like a storm god, or war god, might receive offerings or worship that were more along the lines of "oh great and horrible Ares please pass us by and not visit this bleak land this season..."
Someone giving large sums of offering (bribes) at such a temple may foster some good will for themselves if they're seen as appeasing the wrath of a hateful god. If their motives are later seen as suspect it could backfire in an ugly way, but such things are mostly beyond the scope of a CRPG.

Djimmy

It is a point of view. For evil societies, like devils, killing people and stuff should increase reputation. For good societies, like those in Baldur's Gate or Amn, things should be opposite. So my suggestion is that there are different reputation sets: Evil, Good and Neutral. That cannot happen in the game though.

KidCarnival

Evil is short term thinking? How do you explain Sarevok or the Zhentarim or... well, any evil organisation or schemer? An evil church is clearly organized in some way, even if it serves a chaotic evil god. Evil clerics get their powers from evil gods, and it makes sense to offer the god something in exchange for more power - i.e. magical energy drawn from objects - where a good deity/cleric may find that prayers and charity are reason enough to grant the priest powers.

atcDave

KidCarnival said:

Evil is short term thinking? How do you explain Sarevok or the Zhentarim or... well, any evil organisation or schemer? An evil church is clearly organized in some way, even if it serves a chaotic evil god. Evil clerics get their powers from evil gods, and it makes sense to offer the god something in exchange for more power - i.e. magical energy drawn from objects - where a good deity/cleric may find that prayers and charity are reason enough to grant the priest powers.

I'm talking real world definition. Its about valuing the temporal over the eternal. Ruling the world at the cost of your eternal soul. So yeah, short run. Even in classical mythology evil vs good was the difference between Hades and Elysium.
A fantasy setting may change the rules somewhat, but I think even then an evil eternity is not something most folks would aspire to (Torment? Loneliness? Oblivion if you're lucky...)

the_spyder

Isn't the act of donating an inherently 'Goodly' act? I mean you are giving of yourself for no (apparent) gain.

I could see 'Investing' in an evil temple, but I can't see an over abundance of 'Evil' patrons reaching into their own pockets and dolling out large sums of money for no benefit. And isn't the point of a donation to fund charity functions? I can just see it now.

"Come on down to the Umberlee Charity Auction and fund raiser. Take a spin at our wheel of Miss-fortune. Or play 'Spin the dead baby' for prizes and fortune. Make a blood sacrifice and finally win that revenge curse you have been wanting to cast on your neighbor's crops. All proceeds to fund the campaign to have the Dukes assassinated."

KidCarnival

Well, this is a fantasy setting. In the real world, we also need to eat and in game, we don't. It just doesn't translate well. Evil churches likely don't think "OMAI are we evil, we'll all die miserable and alone"; they worship the deity of choice because they find this deity worthy of worship. It's a world where worshipers of Ilmater seek out pain and suffering and that's not even chaotic evil. I don't see a difference in the short or long term planning between the alignments.

atcDave

the_spyder said:

Isn't the act of donating an inherently 'Goodly' act? I mean you are giving of yourself for no (apparent) gain.

I could see 'Investing' in an evil temple, but I can't see an over abundance of 'Evil' patrons reaching into their own pockets and dolling out large sums of money for no benefit. And isn't the point of a donation to fund charity functions? I can just see it now.

"Come on down to the Umberlee Charity Auction and fund raiser. Take a spin at our wheel of Miss-fortune. Or play 'Spin the dead baby' for prizes and fortune. Make a blood sacrifice and finally win that revenge curse you have been wanting to cast on your neighbor's crops. All proceeds to fund the campaign to have the Dukes assassinated."

Funny, but absurd of course.

I think evil gods could get quite a bit of funding from forms of extortion. And no, I don't believe "donating" is innately good; it could be bribery, extortion, or funding an evil or corrupt cause (people did donate to support the Nazi cause, and dang.... I just proved Godwin's Law...). Again classical mythology is a great example, sacrificing animals or even humans to appease a storm god (Poseidon) before an ocean voyage. Human sacrifice for fertile crops (Dionysus), or success in War (Ares). And typically these religions were quite well funded and supported from a variety of sources. The Romans outlawed the worship of Bacchus (Latin Dionysus) on several occasions (because it involved human sacrifice) and had a very hard time stamping it out.
Possibly in a less lurid game setting we could imagine the temple accepting cash/livestock/crops or other valuables to keep their angry gods happy, or absent entirely. At least that's how commoners would likely respond.
More powerful sorts, whether they are nobility, wealthy, or professional adventurers; may play the very dangerous game of courting the evil deity for favor and success. But just as modern drug lords live lavishly until they die in a hail of gunfire (or are stabbed in the back by a corrupt henchman); anyone playing with malevolent powers is playing a dangerous game, and will almost certainly end in spectacular and horrible fashion (anyone familiar with Greek tragedy?!).

I think evil gods could get quite a bit of worship from fear and greed. And its easy to enough to look at history and mythology to see how it can play out.

the_spyder

@atcDave. Well spoken. I stand corrected.

atcDave

the_spyder said:

@atcDave. Well spoken. I stand corrected.

I just love Classical Mythology, and history!

the_spyder

I will say that the Nazi party description you gave wasn't 'Quite' what I consider charity. While it is true that people donated to the cause, they did so primarily for three reasons:

1) To 'Appear' to be on the 'Right' side. This curried favor in the upper echelons of the Nazi party and prevented people from looking to deeply into their business.
2) To get political favors, power and prestige
3) Because they had some vested interest in whatever aspect of the party they were investing in.

In all three cases it was self motivated interest that caused the 'Donation'. In short, they expected to get something for what they gave "Freely".

Now, we could get into a long and philosophical debate on if 'Goodly' people don't donate to the church for much the same reasons, that they hoped/expected to get something out of it. But where would be the fun in that? ::evillol::

atcDave

the_spyder said:

I will say that the Nazi party description you gave wasn't 'Quite' what I consider charity. While it is true that people donated to the cause, they did so primarily for three reasons:

1) To 'Appear' to be on the 'Right' side. This curried favor in the upper echelons of the Nazi party and prevented people from looking to deeply into their business.
2) To get political favors, power and prestige
3) Because they had some vested interest in whatever aspect of the party they were investing in.

In all three cases it was self motivated interest that caused the 'Donation'. In short, they expected to get something for what they gave "Freely".

Now, we could get into a long and philosophical debate on if 'Goodly' people don't donate to the church for much the same reasons, that they hoped/expected to get something out of it. But where would be the fun in that? ::evillol::

I would agree mostly with the reasons you give, and add that many simply felt it was the best thing for Germany, but that is EXACTLY the sort of support and donations I think evil religions would likely get. It's all about expectations, favor, and appearances.
The big thing I would add for the evil religions is avoidance. Offerings to the evil God so he'll stay away. That can be documented in Ancient Greece, where Ares was generally feared and despised, and temple prayers and "holy" writings are all of the "oh mighty Ares, please leave us alone" sort. (Romans had a different attitude towards Mars, their version of the War God).

Bigfish

the_spyder said:

Isn't the act of donating an inherently 'Goodly' act? I mean you are giving of yourself for no (apparent) gain.

No one intentionally gives anything away for no apparent gain. Sometimes its Conspicuous Generosity, sometimes its trying to attempt to gratify the altruistic instinct, some times its for peace of mind because you believed the man who tells you the sky-father won't make you eternally suffer if you give him your money.

the_spyder

Sometimes it is because you have to much and why not give it to someone.

There are altruistic people out there.