Skip to content

Reputation Caps for Character Recruitment

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,675
edited March 2013 in Archive (Feature Requests)
The user and all related content has been deleted.
  1. Reputation Caps for Character Recruitment71 votes
    1. Yes. Reputation cap would be better
      74.65%
    2. No. Keep the current reputation penalty.
      15.49%
    3. Just passing by...
        9.86%
«1

Comments

  • Stargazer5781Stargazer5781 Member Posts: 183
    Does suffer the problem that you'd never be able to lose a party member for being too good, but you can still lose party members for being too evil. It has a sort of realism to it though - the culture is such that no matter how great you seem to be, most people will never trust you completely because you're traveling with someone so universally distrusted.
  • toanwrathtoanwrath Member Posts: 621

    Does suffer the problem that you'd never be able to lose a party member for being too good, but you can still lose party members for being too evil. It has a sort of realism to it though - the culture is such that no matter how great you seem to be, most people will never trust you completely because you're traveling with someone so universally distrusted.

    I agree, except that I don't see that as a problem. Evil people will stay with you if you are being goody goody for their own selfish reasons, but it seems a bit more unlikely that good people will stay with someone who deserves rep 0 (constantly slaughtering children or innocents, spoiling the water supply in the capi...oh wait never mind).

    This is an interesting idea that would make me play evil more often. I don't know if it would be better, just different.
  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    Yeah this is a relatively good idea.
  • VnavekulVnavekul Member Posts: 181
    Great idea. I like it.
  • RangerSGRangerSG Member Posts: 22
    I don't see this as a significant change. Most people who are going to be evil in BG1 are going to do whatever it takes to stay that way, and the natural progress of the storyline necessitates brutality (justified by harbingers of the rage to come in Spellhold).

    That said, for me, the preferable way to play evil in the series is to be more or less neutral until the 'choices' and then act for self-preservation. ToB does give enough freedom to be a true anti-hero, at least, if still probably the 'least-evil' of the options (aside from a certain suicide waiting to commit).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited March 2013
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
  • IecerintIecerint Member Posts: 431
    I voted yes, but I think a better approach would be to add rewards to low-rep play. As is, lowering the reputation cap just penalizes you for taking evil characters, full-stop. This would be fine if evil players were OP, but they're not.

    That said -- if we must keep the reputation system as-is, implementing a reputation cap would be a kind of minimally-invasive way to remove one annoying play element in a way that can be headcanon'd easily.

    I do think there's something to be said for evil players leaving because they're upset by stuff the player has done, though....
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,790
    If memory serves me well, Viconia usually leaves the party when reputation is 19-20. Cap it at 18 and you'll remove this feature. Quite imperfect solution.
  • IecerintIecerint Member Posts: 431
    On the other hand, meta-gaming to avoid 19-20 reputation, when you could just talk to your party members ordinarily and explain your evil masterplan, also kinda takes you out of the universe.
  • ZenryoZenryo Member Posts: 9
    edited March 2013
    I don't think it would be 'better', but it would certainly be easier. As it is at the moment in Baldur's gate, you get thrown +reputation for things that have to be done anyway (like flooding some shit, or even returning firebead's book to get a lovely scro... item (spoilers!)

    It is however, very hard to lower your reputation, other then what some people mentioned, like slaughtering innocents. Not my kind of Evil (tho perfectly plausible for chaotic evil dudes).

    So for BG:EE, it would certainly be an improvement (even if you put it as an option, so people can still enjoy the 'classic' version).
  • MadhaxMadhax Member Posts: 1,416
    Voting 'yes', but as I've said elsewhere, I'd rather the whole reputation system be scrapped and redone.

    If anyone's read "Servant of the Shard", Jarlaxle at one point tries to impersonate Drizzt as a way to increase his "reputation" among the surface-dwellers. Being evil doesn't mean you can't strive to be liked, being liked is beneficial to anybody. Sarevok's reputation in BG1 is probably really, really high.
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    Keeping a high rep with an Evil party, but not so high that your Evil companions walk, is difficult, but it's do-able with care. As Evil, you're playing against canon, yet the game allows us to do that and to win, although more difficult. I think that's as it should be, so I see no need for change to make it easier.

    By the way, a point which I think has often been overlooked in discussions about rep management is that Viconia will still join even if your rep is 20, and when she joins she automatically lowers a 20 rep to 18, so then other the Evil characters will also be willing to join. This detail can be pretty useful in managing a mixed-alignment party. (For example, let your Evil members except Viconia go, then let Viconia go, then claim a quest reward which boosts rep too high for the Evil guys, but then rejoin Viconia to take rep back down, and then your other Evil members will also rejoin.)
  • JalilyJalily Member Posts: 4,681
    We know about the Viconia trick. That's part of the tedious metagaming most of us hope to avoid by capping reputation.
  • NifftNifft Member Posts: 1,065
    If you're going to remove the only penalty for high Rep, you've basically thrown out the whole Reputation mechanic.

    This is fine. It's a bad mechanic, and it should go away.

    I can see what they were trying to accomplish with it, but it didn't work very well, and now we should just get rid of it.
  • EdvinEdvin Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 3,244
    edited March 2013
    @Nifft
    Actualy reputation mechanic can be easily fixed.

    We just need made three merchant types:

    25 % will be good merchants = hight reputation discount
    50 % will be neutral merchants = neutral reputation discount
    25 % will be evil merchants = low reputation discount

    Simple, reasonable and easy.
  • RangerSGRangerSG Member Posts: 22
    Edvin said:

    @Nifft
    Actualy reputation mechanic can be easily fixed.

    We just need made three merchant types:

    25 % will be good merchants = hight reputation discount
    50 % will be neutral merchants = neutral reputation discount
    25 % will be evil merchants = low reputation discount

    Simple, reasonable and easy.

    Actually, if we were playing by human nature, I'd say 50/25/25. Most people would want to sell to heroic figures. Some can't be bothered, and a handful (probably in special places like Thieves' Guild Halls and such) would cater to characters who 'Do what has to be done.'

  • karnor00karnor00 Member Posts: 680
    Seems like a cheesy powergaming way to enable people to have an evil party but consistently pick good choices with no consequences.

    If you want to do this then I think you should mod the game. I don't think it should be part of the default game.
  • ZenryoZenryo Member Posts: 9
    karnor00 said:

    Seems like a cheesy powergaming way to enable people to have an evil party but consistently pick good choices with no consequences.

    Yes, and? Let's break down reputation for a bit, in Baldur's gate (1), the only real way of losing reputation, apart from a few quests and recruiting viconia or dorn is to slaughter innocent people. By just running through main story line you can easily end up with 20 reputation without any sidequesting. Many sidequests end in + reputation.
    Also, it's not like Evil Party members are much better than their good counterparts (altho they may have slightly overdone it with Dorn). Many people say Dynaheir sucks compared to Edwin, but I finished the game with her all the same. And Edwin doesn't have Identify. It bugs me :p

    As it is now you have more benefit with a good party than with an evil party. No leaving issues, good merchant prices. There are only downsides to being evil. That is why many people strive to have 18 rep, and if they will do a quest that brings them to 19, most of the time they have to disband evil members, hand in the quest, and take them back (The 'Viconia trick'), pretty boring. Instead having Viconia in the party capping you at 18 would make much more sense, and would be more manageable. If you also have Dorn, you would be capped at 16 and then you would start to feel the downside since you lose some merchant advantage (but I wouldn't be too bothered if I was playing Evil, since ending the game with more than 300k gold is not uncommon for me).

    In BG2 however, there are much more choices (iirc) that will result in losing reputation, without having to slaughter innocents, or do the Viconia trick.
  • KidCarnivalKidCarnival Member Posts: 3,747
    Yes, but it should only apply to NPCs that currently give a rep hit - Dorn, Viconia, Baeloth.

    They face prejudice based on their race, or in Dorn's case, being known as a mass murderer. It should not apply to ALL evil NPCs, as the others can't be recognized as evil from just looking at them. Xzar, Tiax and Edwin are probably regarded as nutjobs, but not as dangerous and evil as a blackguard (which characters with high INT can recognize, i.e. charname can know Dorn is one before Dorn explains it - so smarter commoners and scholars in the cities will likely know, too). Eldoth might even be popular because he's charming and a perfect example for a "villain with good PR".
  • AnduinAnduin Member Posts: 5,745
    I think having a Drow in the party should give you an instant -2 and a cap at 18 as no one would trust you... Half-orcs -1? There is a half-human there as well you know...

    But this could-should effect the main character as well!

    My only objection is, it would make NPCS management overly easy...
  • NifftNifft Member Posts: 1,065
    Anduin said:

    My only objection is, it would make NPCS management overly easy...

    Yeah, even with just a -2 cap, Reputation for Evil NPCs becomes an easy-mode game.

    Since NPCs already tend to hate each other (to the point of violence) when they're from opposed alignments, maybe enhance that, and just drop the Evil NPCs leaving due to Reputation.

    The effect of the cap will be that these NPCs are easy-mode:
    - Dorn, Viconia, *SPOILER*
    ... and the other Evil NPCs are hard-mode, unless you take one of the easy-mode NPCs with you.
  • gamegeek1995gamegeek1995 Member Posts: 8
    It seems like a good compromise may be:
    For every rep-penalty party member, take a max rep penalty of -2 (so 16 with Dorn & Viconia)
    No effect on regular evil characters.

    This basically will prevent metagaming of firing and hiring these two for the rep increase, which will be inevitable with those using them (and most pure-evil parties would have one of either, if not both).

    However, those without metagame knowledge who happened to pick up Kagain and Edwin, both being strong characters, would still have to deal with keeping their rep under 18. While this is inconvenient, and metagaming may be resorted to in order to drop reputation by those who know how to do it effectively, it is still quite a bit more balanced for potential newbies or those who refuse to slaughter innocents.
  • EdvinEdvin Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 3,244
    edited March 2013
    @gamegeek1955
    "Damn my party full of demons, drows and another pure evil creatures have again heroic reputation 20. Why world love us so much ?"
    Post edited by Edvin on
  • EudaemoniumEudaemonium Member Posts: 3,199
    This is just a great idea. With Dorn and Viconia this means your max Rep is 16. With Mr Spoiler it'd be 14. To be honest, I wouldn't mind taking a rep hit for Edwin, either, but that's neither here nor there. I just figure it'd be more realistic this way, and yes it would be easier to manage, but I don't really think that amount of ease-of-use feature is actually a negative given how ridiculous the current system is.

    If there was a mod to do this, I would gladly use it on 11/10 playthroughs.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,155
    Nice idea, never loosing Dorn!!
    I'm heroic party, so I had to loose Rep to recruit Dorn, what I do was killing Quenash, because I had lost the Scroll and I my PickPockets is not very good, and all my party were Mages and Warrior, and Yeslick!
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • SenashSenash Member Posts: 405
    I would like the temporary penalty AND reputation cap option! You get a penalty, but it always comes donw from your reputation, like a debuff. So you get -2 rep when recruiting the NPC and with it comes a -2 cap too, so your rep can't go above 20. BUT if you drop the party member your rep goes back.

    Example:
    Rep=17
    Recruit NPC --> Rep=15 (17-2)
    Gain +3 rep --> Rep=18 (20-2)
    Gain +1 rep --> Rep=18 (capped)
    Kick NPC from party --> penalty removed --> Rep= 20

    Being the penalty temporary would enable you to leave the NPC for a while and get them back later. Otherwise you would get the penalty twice (or more).
  • IecerintIecerint Member Posts: 431
    edited March 2013
    I'd rather they completely alter the reputation system.

    Virtue mod offers a low-labor solution.
Sign In or Register to comment.