Why is Branwen pleased I'm at hero reputation?

PugPug

Neutrals used to get grumpy at either extreme. Which was pretty irritating, so I guess they changed it intentionally?

I think it's also a little weird that Ajantis is beaming about us following the righteous path of Helm, though Helm is lawful neutral. I guess we've been upholding the law, or something, and being good has been a side effect.

Wanderon

I'm pretty sure they tweaked the nuetral whining about rep for BGEE - even Xan sometimes says something positive

Jackkel_Dragon

In BGEE, neutral characters are pretty much happy at anything above 5 reputation or so. In Ajantis's case, he's lawful good since he's a paladin, correct? In that case, he'll be using the good alignment reputation table regardless of what deity he serves.

PugPug

Jackkel_Dragon said:

In BGEE, neutral characters are pretty much happy at anything above 5 reputation or so. In Ajantis's case, he's lawful good since he's a paladin, correct? In that case, he'll be using the good alignment reputation table regardless of what deity he serves.

I know, it just seems a little imprecise, is all. Not really wrong, but noteworthy.

WebShaman

Reputation really has nothing to do with good or evil, in that sense, or even lawful or chaotic. Just the social perception of the party IMHO.

I mean, you can be evil as &%$§-all, and by maintaining around an 18 rep, you are preceived by the "public" as a sociable group. You slaughter innocents, but donate rather richly to the holy houses...

This is how my group does it. Fallen Ranger, Vikki, Dorna, Baeloth, and of course the "outsiders" Neera and Rasaad. All kept in the party to make us "look good"...pure camouflage, believe me.

So why would neutrals even be bothered by reputation in the first place? Seems more of a thing for the other extremes if you ask me. Not that I really have neutrals in my party...

Darrylson

Helm is Lawful Anything, including good and evil, so Ajantis makes sense, as would a hypothetical Lawful Evil Cleric of Helm, though I'm sure that's a rarity.

In Branwen's case, she probably likes being with a group that battles evil and conducts themselves honorably.

ScytheKnight

Because Beamdog decided to make neutral characters like good characters.

Darrylson

ScytheKnight said:

Because Beamdog decided to make neutral characters like good characters.

Well I think many of the neutral characters lean somewhat towards good and evil. Jaheira for example leans good, while Faldorn leans evil. I would also argue that Branwen leans good as well.

Xan, Jan, Safana, Skie and Haer'Dalis are the only characters in the series I would describe as truly neutral without bias, but that's just me.

Frosty

It did make neutral characters much less annoying. since before it was not possible to make them happy.

SCARY_WIZARD

Darrylson said:

ScytheKnight said:

Because Beamdog decided to make neutral characters like good characters.

Well I think many of the neutral characters lean somewhat towards good and evil. Jaheira for example leans good, while Faldorn leans evil. I would also argue that Branwen leans good as well.

Xan, Jan, Safana, Skie and Haer'Dalis are the only characters in the series I would describe as truly neutral without bias, but that's just me.

Yep, and I love Safana's chaotic neutral! I'd like to see a sort of cold and detached lawful neutral character...like the cop that follows the letter of the law.

KidCarnival

I'm the minority who finds it weird that neutral characters, even druids who should really be keen on balance and stuff, act like good characters. But alas, minority... I'd prefer it if neutral characters would complain and ultimately leave the party if you favored either side too much.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Lemernis

I think Neutrals complaining about the benefits of a good reputation never made sense to begin with, so this is a welcome change to me.

On a related note, as I'm trying to roleplay Jaheira relatively independently in my current game, I recently reread the TN description (quintessential Neutralness, I guess) and now recall how silly it is. The whole 'maintain the balance' imperative is goofy. It's an artificial contrivance borne of the alignment system. I mean, okay, it can be a tenet for druid sect or something. But as a mode of being-in-the-world that's way too contrary to how people actually think and behave.

Stickan

The only characters who should complain about too many good actions would be True Neutrals, who are very rare. Neutral people don't mind good actions and most often prefer to live in a good society, they just don't go out of their way to make it so. Many Neutrals are still "good" human beings (Neera doesn't strike me as detached) but they lack the the truly altruistic strand of the good aligned.

Sidenote: I would also love to see a Lawful Neutral detached police type character. (I had a thought about Saemon Haeverian having such a brother in BGII, which in my view could be fun. Especially a couple of interactions between the two where no love is lost)

KidCarnival

Neera isn't neutral to me. She's technically neutral because a) the new NPCs all needed a class/kit not in the game yet and b) good and evil were already taken because they are required for monk and blackguard. From her personality and backstory - hunted by a clearly evil group, regretting her accident and trying to find a way to prevent it from happening again - she's chaotic good. Which would make perfect sense; Dynaheir is the only good aligned mage, vs. Edwin and Xzar for evil, and Xan and Quayle for neutral. Now it's 3 neutral mages and still only 1 good mage, and that's a bit weird.

Foggy

Regardless of neutral NPC complaining at 6 or 18 rep or not, neutral characters should only make happy comments at 9-12 reputation range. Seems logical and it's already an option in BG2 Tweaks.

WebShaman

Again, what does reputation have to do with alignment? I simply do not see the connection here.

I really do not see neutral NPCs making any comment about reputation at all, seeing as they are...well, neutral.

A high reputation. And? Neutral NPC just continues on. low reputation. And? Neutral NPC just continuous on. Since reputation is really only a societal thing at best, I see no reason for a Neutral NPC to react to it much.

I think it is more a personal thing really. NPC X does not like/does like being popular (high rep) or infamous (low rep). I do not really see any relation between this and alignment.

The reputation system is kind of weird IMHO.

"Oh, we are really popular around here!" *all evil aligned characters leave*

Yeah, that makes alot of sense! *insert roll eyes here* The more popular, the easier it is to get away with dirty, rotten acts! IMHO, donating to the Church should not really raise reputation...that would really make it a good vs evil sort of thing, then. I mean...it is just money spent for rep! Kill some innocents, then spend money to "make it all better!"

I guess money is more valuable than life in BG.

At least I can understand Lawful Good characters having a problem with low reputation, for you have to be doing some pretty rotten things to get low enough. Would be cool if one could donate to evil Churches to get "low rep"...hehe.

reedmilfam

@WebShaman - Evil characters don't leave because of the popularity. On the contrary, they leave because of the long string of altruism that both raises the reputation in the first place, and leads to it being well-known across the lands. These two things are problematic; the first is that they're associated (directly) with do-gooders. The second is the harder one - all that extra attention makes it harder to do what you intended all along.

As for the Neutrals being happy, maybe it's because your goodly acts 'balance' out the evil of the Iron Throne? Anyway, it's a welcome change, even if means I don't get to hear Jaheira lament the poor choices of the leader and (of course) suggest better leadership (meaning, of course, her being leader)...

cyberhawk

WebShaman said:

...

I guess money is more valuable than life in BG.

...

Worked exactly like that in the middle ages. People did some sins, went to war, killed innocents, then made a huge ass donation so that a whole new church could be built in their name. Boom, instant paradise.

Conclusion: do not get born as a poor peasent, or you won't go to heaven Unless you become an adventurer and earn yourself lots of GP by killing monsters. Wait, or maybe I'm mixing reality and D&D up.

Jackkel_Dragon

reedmilfam said:

@WebShaman - Evil characters don't leave because of the popularity. On the contrary, they leave because of the long string of altruism that both raises the reputation in the first place, and leads to it being well-known across the lands. These two things are problematic; the first is that they're associated (directly) with do-gooders. The second is the harder one - all that extra attention makes it harder to do what you intended all along.

This makes sense for some evil characters, but it doesn't quite fit all of them. For instance, if you try to persuade Dorn to leave behind his Blackguard powers he'll note that while he did it for his own reasons, his actions would be considered "a good deed" since he eliminated a band of powerful thugs. And while there are some cliched evil characters that do evil things without caring about whether they are considered evil or not, it makes more sense to gain recognition for "good deeds" to keep the less than altruistic motives hidden from others.

Plus, the player gains reputation for completing certain parts of the main story anyway. I don't need Kaigan whining to me for remembering to ask the mayor of Nashkel for my money.

WebShaman

reedmilfam said:

@WebShaman - Evil characters don't leave because of the popularity. On the contrary, they leave because of the long string of altruism that both raises the reputation in the first place, and leads to it being well-known across the lands. These two things are problematic; the first is that they're associated (directly) with do-gooders. The second is the harder one - all that extra attention makes it harder to do what you intended all along.

But that does not apply to "smart evil" - those who prefer to hide their evil under a shining coat ala the wolf in sheeps clothing (or, for perhaps an even better comparison, Emperor Palpatine (as Senator)).

The more popular, the better! Just keep that true evil hidden away, until the time is right to unveil oneself and grasp total power! Muwahahahaha!

Case in point - I kill innocents (when no-one is witnessing, of course) after I "help them", of course...the gratefulness in their eyes, which then turns to horror as they realize that they are going to die.

Delicious!

Or having Dorna beat them senseless, then robbing them blind! Priceless! It is simply amazing that Rasaad has not up and left!

KidCarnival

I still think that especially the "smart evil" types would not see themselves as "evil" and therefore be proud of their deeds (which others would obviously still find evil) and not want to cover them up with deeds they personally disagree with. As example, Edwin tells you that Dynaheir is "evil" and therefore, you shouldn't trust her. With no word does he indicate he sees himself as evil. Eldoth, while being upfront about his intent to blackmail, also frames his plan as "rescuing Skie from her controlling father". In their minds, they ARE the good guys. Doing the opposite of what they suggest is the "bad thing" for them.

As out of universe example, take Magneto. His goal is to "create a world where mutants can live in peace". He absolutely thinks of himself as a hero. In his mind, it's not "evil" that his way to create this world includes killing all non-mutants (or at least it's an acceptable casualty) because the non-mutants ARE the evil ones. He does not want to be famous for saving humans and being seen as a great guy. To him, it would mean being famous for aiding the enemy, and that's the last thing he'd want.

Jackkel_Dragon

@KidCarnival: You make a good point, but the reputation system in BG is a little too simplistic to deal with that sort of thing. The system in BG is basically "Good Hero", "Uniteresting/Wild Crazy Hero-who-sometimes-murders-people" and "Phycopath that needs to be put down". It'd almost help if the reputation system only went in one direction (how well known one is), as that would allow for more RP'ed granularity in reputation types. As it is, Dorn's example of killing bandits being a "good deed" despite the evil reasoning can't be replicated anywhere else in the game.

KidCarnival

Yeah, I think the core of the problem is that the reputation is really only "fame", but doesn't have any indicators what the party is famous for. Both Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler are famous, but are on opposite ends of the good/evil scale.

There are many issues with the "all evil NPCs want you to be a mass murdering lunatic" - it's the only thing you can do to keep your rep reasonably low long term. Even if you avoid the minor + rep quests (i.e. Bjornin) and save up the few that can give - rep for when you absolutely need a drop, you still end up with 20 rep from the bigger/main story quests. On the other hand, most evil NPCs do NOT want random killing sprees. Edwin dislikes violence. Eldoth prefers more subtle crimes. Viconia just wants to be left in peace. Kagain is a businessman and only kills if it pays. Even Shar-Teel is selective in who she wants to kill. The only one who really enjoys random kills is Montaron, and maybe Xzar (at least he doesn't express a preference for a certain kind of victim).

Iecerint

All this "reputation is fame" talk is silly, because low reputation makes you quite famous to bounty hunters and the Flaming Fist.

By that logic, evil characters would want to have middle-of-the-road reputation.

Stickan

I think we can all agree that the reputation system is quite flawed, which is why it wasn't ported either into newer generation RPGs while the alignment system got more dynamic.

OperativeNL

Eh, BG should work like how the "Virtue mod" works.

For those who don't know: Virtue mod changes how reputation works and adds Virtue to the game. Do something "good": Virtue goes up. Do something "evil": Virtue goes down. Got a high Virtue? Alignment changes to X Good. Got average Virtue? Alignment changes to X Neutral. Got low Virtue? Alignment changes to X Evil. (X=Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic).

With regards to Reputation, Virtue mod uses this to reflect outside popularity. Killing a beggar a quiet corner of the sewers without any witnesses? Reputation is unchanged, but Virtue goes down.

Also changing to Slayer form at the end of BG2 didn't cost you any Reputation, but it did cost you Virtue. So changing into Bhaal's evil avatar would actually change your alignment to Evil eventually. This when would make Rangers and Paladins fall.

now UNFORTUNATELY, there is one big dissapointing thing... Virtue would sometimes flunk my game because it wouldn't work properly. Also the whole mod was dependent on the modder's work to apply this new system to anything you could do in the game. Many cases were simply forgotten about. Ergo, I would sometimes kill innocents and it wouldn't cost me any Virtue because the modder simply forgot about that particular NPC.

Also I don't believe Virtue works for BG1, so, we'd have to wait for BG2:EE

OperativeNL

Or see: http://www.pocketplane.net/virtue

This mod sets out to remedy apparent flaws in the game's original system by splitting reputation into two separate variables: Reputation, which represents how people in the game feel about the party; and Virtue, which represents how morally correct the party's actions are. Virtue will now appear alongside reputation on the character screen, and be treated separately where appropriate.
Additionally, Virtue will affect your alignment, so if your Virtue goes down, it drags your alignment down with it. Party members also respond to Virtue instead of reputation, so you can have a party that feels your actions are good, even if everyone around you hates you. Additional familiar dialog has been written to account for the impact of changing alignment on your familiar.

Paladins will now fall after committing a SINGLE non-virtuous act, and rangers will now fall after their Virtue drops too low. You can get away with killing commoners without incurring a Reputation hit, so long as nobody sees you. Your Virtue always drops, however.

Some of the things for which you would previously have incurred no penalty will now affect your Virtue. This includes abandoning or killing NPCs and the trials you face in Hell.

The Virtue mod should be compatible with most other mods, but should be installed last. Note that ToB is required for installation of the Virtue mod.

Also remember to check out the rest of Ding0's Mods for further enhanced roleplaying and continuity.

WebShaman

KidCarnival said:

I still think that especially the "smart evil" types would not see themselves as "evil" and therefore be proud of their deeds (which others would obviously still find evil) and not want to cover them up with deeds they personally disagree with. As example, Edwin tells you that Dynaheir is "evil" and therefore, you shouldn't trust her. With no word does he indicate he sees himself as evil. Eldoth, while being upfront about his intent to blackmail, also frames his plan as "rescuing Skie from her controlling father". In their minds, they ARE the good guys. Doing the opposite of what they suggest is the "bad thing" for them.

As out of universe example, take Magneto. His goal is to "create a world where mutants can live in peace". He absolutely thinks of himself as a hero. In his mind, it's not "evil" that his way to create this world includes killing all non-mutants (or at least it's an acceptable casualty) because the non-mutants ARE the evil ones. He does not want to be famous for saving humans and being seen as a great guy. To him, it would mean being famous for aiding the enemy, and that's the last thing he'd want.

Absolutely rubbish! Edwin would know that spells and abilities like Detect Evil exist, and would test them on himself - and would know that he is evil! And he would know if Dynaheir is evil or not, accordingly!

Edwin says that Dynaheir is "evil" in order to manipulate you, nothing more, nothing less. And of course he is not going to come out and say "of course I am evil!" - I mean, he is "smart evil!", obviously! So he sells himself well.

WebShaman

OperativeNL said:

Eh, BG should work like how the "Virtue mod" works.

For those who don't know: Virtue mod changes how reputation works and adds Virtue to the game. Do something "good": Virtue goes up. Do something "evil": Virtue goes down. Got a high Virtue? Alignment changes to X Good. Got average Virtue? Alignment changes to X Neutral. Got low Virtue? Alignment changes to X Evil. (X=Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic).

With regards to Reputation, Virtue mod uses this to reflect outside popularity. Killing a beggar a quiet corner of the sewers without any witnesses? Reputation is unchanged, but Virtue goes down.

Also changing to Slayer form at the end of BG2 didn't cost you any Reputation, but it did cost you Virtue. So changing into Bhaal's evil avatar would actually change your alignment to Evil eventually. This when would make Rangers and Paladins fall.

now UNFORTUNATELY, there is one big dissapointing thing... Virtue would sometimes flunk my game because it wouldn't work properly. Also the whole mod was dependent on the modder's work to apply this new system to anything you could do in the game. Many cases were simply forgotten about. Ergo, I would sometimes kill innocents and it wouldn't cost me any Virtue because the modder simply forgot about that particular NPC.

Also I don't believe Virtue works for BG1, so, we'd have to wait for BG2:EE

I actually like this. If it worked properly, it would be a major leap forward, IMHO.

KidCarnival

WebShaman said:

KidCarnival said:

I still think that especially the "smart evil" types would not see themselves as "evil" and therefore be proud of their deeds (which others would obviously still find evil) and not want to cover them up with deeds they personally disagree with. As example, Edwin tells you that Dynaheir is "evil" and therefore, you shouldn't trust her. With no word does he indicate he sees himself as evil. Eldoth, while being upfront about his intent to blackmail, also frames his plan as "rescuing Skie from her controlling father". In their minds, they ARE the good guys. Doing the opposite of what they suggest is the "bad thing" for them.

As out of universe example, take Magneto. His goal is to "create a world where mutants can live in peace". He absolutely thinks of himself as a hero. In his mind, it's not "evil" that his way to create this world includes killing all non-mutants (or at least it's an acceptable casualty) because the non-mutants ARE the evil ones. He does not want to be famous for saving humans and being seen as a great guy. To him, it would mean being famous for aiding the enemy, and that's the last thing he'd want.

Absolutely rubbish! Edwin would know that spells and abilities like Detect Evil exist, and would test them on himself - and would know that he is evil! And he would know if Dynaheir is evil or not, accordingly!

Edwin says that Dynaheir is "evil" in order to manipulate you, nothing more, nothing less. And of course he is not going to come out and say "of course I am evil!" - I mean, he is "smart evil!", obviously! So he sells himself well.

Yes, but he will not think "oh my, I'm such a villain, people should kill ME!" Same as Dorn, who embraces the evil aspect most out of all NPCs, but he is also certain that he does the "right thing". The Red Wizards want, ultimately, to dominate the world because they think that's "best for the world"/their way to rule is the "best".
Evil NPCs are aware of how others percieve them (in most cases, not so sure about Xzar), but it is not how they see themselves. Being "evil" is not "bad" to them. Some will think they are just misunderstood by the world (Dorn, Viconia), others will think the lowly monkeys just don't get their genius (Edwin, Tiax), Xzar does probably neither know nor care what others think about him, but none thinks that being evil is wrong or shameful.