@Wanderon - I don't think anyone has illusions of or is asking for a change in the Reputation system. Merely we are commenting that the system is not perfect or even close to realistic in any way.
Yes, the system puts in place consequences for doing bad things. And it should. I for one am not saying there shouldn't be consequences. What I am saying is the choice of consequences that were made for the game were in my opinion, poor and designed primarily to punish the PLAYER for playing evil (which is contrary to your point above). The more evil you do, the lower your reputation is. the lower the rep, the more Flaming fists attack on sight and the unreasonably higher prices get. These are not logical and reasonable outcomes. Not only are they not reality, they are abstractly the opposite to the way things work in reality.
As for it being a game and not expecting realism, I again disagree. We expect that gravity will work as it does here. We expect that characters in the game will respond as they do in this world (i.e. if you are friendly and nice, they respond as friendly and nice (most of the time)). Yes, there is magic which is not reality. However, those things that are mundane in the game world, we expect to act in the same manner as they do in real life. These things don't.
No one want to imput reality on your games @Wanderon, but fantasy =/= uncoherent behavior.
So if you really want to follow the line of thougth that yourself created, why you want to force on everyone's throat the hipocrite real world idea that good is the good of our actual society and evil is anything that go against our society?
Play your game as you like, but don't try to justify a broken system to refrain others from enjoy the game as they like.
And now serious, if you think that the actual reputation system is perfect i will start to doubt of your seriousness. There are tons of threads on the forum complaining against the system, not only for evil plots sake, but also in reason of how lame is to be able to get a reputation 1 to 18 by just donate for temples also for an example.
About the mod you mentioned, exist the virtue mod, while atm is the best solution, i don't like that mode at all. Someone spoken about an fame/infame scope for reputation, well i like that one, so lemme make an suggestion here.
2 reputation bars, fame and infame.
They're not dependable of each other bar and now most of the actions in game would influence both. Instead of lose reputation with an evil act the party would gain infame points.
Most of the reputation change acts in game should affect both bars not not in an isonomic way.
Ex:
flood the miners in cloakwood mines could give 3 (or 4) infame points while would reduce in 1 (or 2) the fame points of the party.
be caught stealing should reduce the fame points in 1 (or 2) while shouldn't give infame points, no one should get reputation by being incompetent in his line of work.
Help the demon boy in cloudpeak mountains to find his dog should give infame points, what would be fun, a person that doesn't know the quest would get a surprise at the end, after all people could comment that the party helped a demon.
kill greywolf should give infame points to the party, they gave help to a criminal against an agent hired by the law of the region (but not necessary taking fame points).
Some actions should even give fame and infame points at the same time, as the ones related to the main quest, killing bassilus mad cyric priest for example.
Well, it's an suggestion, it's pretty alike (a lot) the virtue system (2 bars) but with some minor differences, as the fact an evil party could benefect from a low reputation without having peasants praising them when they pass as heroes (what happens in virtue mod).
It's a huge change on the game, but from what i remember it's an eligible change and possible also, this will not come in conflict with the assignment of rights that beamdog has to work on the game at least.
I am pointing out that the reputation system as it applies to the price of goods is a failure of storytelling and inconsistent with basic human behavior. I don't see anything but circular logic being used to justify it (i.e., we should want punishment for evil behavior so it must make sense since it is a consequence for bad behavior and consequences are good).
Bear in mind that the only reason the mechanic even functions is based on yet another unrealistic mechanic. In the game setting, if Sarevok arrived and wanted to buy a magic sword that the merchant just quoted to another customer for 5000 GP and the merchant refused to take less than 50,000 GP Sarevok would just kill the merchant and take the sword. (That is exactly what is happening in multiple situations in BG2 where merchants are being attacked or threatened for their goods). The game has already made an unrealistic concession to game mechanics by not permitting players to kill the shopkeeper and take the goods. Given the impact on game balance, I am fine with this.
However, layering on a second punishment for evil characters (requiring 50,000 GP from Sarevok) is not justified by internal logic, realism or balance. I have already addressed realism so I won't touch that. Balance I have already pointed out is better achieved through law enforcement rather than price enforcement.
So I'll turn to the internal logic side of things. The argument is made in the post above that it makes sense to apply reputational punishment for evil across the game to avoid living in a world without consequences. First, there are consequences. The flaming fist and others try to hunt down the evil PC and kill him. Temples charge more to restore reputation based on the level of the PC's reputation (i.e., it costs more to move from 1 to 2 than from 8 to 9). Second, it doesn't make sense why merchants would be so principled that they would put their lives on the line to jack up prices but people like Duke Eltan, Drizzt, and others would help the PC without any real hesitation despite his notorious behavior.
The premise for the store prices is twofold - first it's simply a logical premise that if prices go down as characters become more heroic it makes sense to have them go up as they become more villianous - good for the goose and good for the gander.
The final straw being that merchants refuse to sell to them at all - which is what happens in vanilla IIRC altho I am not certain if this is still the case. Perhaps the heroes should complain that since stores eventually refuse to sell to villians that when they get to 20 rep the store owner should refuse to charge them at all and just give them anything they want on the house.
One might think the reason villians put up with it is becuase they have heard about cases where merchants signal the guards as soon as villians enter the door refusing to sell to them at all thus making paying higher prices the better of the two options.
Is it realistic? Perhaps not without including some mechanics that happen behind the scene (like making it impossible to kill the merchant and steal his stuff) but it accomplishes the goal which is to have a system that rewards heroes and punishes villians.
Is it the best possible system that could be used? Probably not but I have no real issue with the way it works currently and subscribe to the concept that if it's not broke don't fix it.
And I have to believe that the main reason this comes up has little to do with realism and logic and more to do with making evil runs easier to accomplish for those who wish to play that way - and in that I am quite content that they are as difficult as possible - look at it as the ultimate challenge - start a party - drop your rep to 1 asap and see how far you can get.
The premise for the store prices is twofold - first it's simply a logical premise that if prices go down as characters become more heroic it makes sense to have them go up as they become more villianous - good for the goose and good for the gander.
The premise that prices should go down as characters become more heroic is asinine. It is a flawed premise so there is no surprise that it produces a flawed result when you base things off a mirror image of that flawed concept.
The final straw being that merchants refuse to sell to them at all - which is what happens in vanilla IIRC altho I am not certain if this is still the case. Perhaps the heroes should complain that since stores eventually refuse to sell to villians that when they get to 20 rep the store owner should refuse to charge them at all and just give them anything they want on the house.
Doesn't this just show how stupid this concept is?
"Perhaps the heroes should complain that they don't get everything for free when they get a 20 rep."
Flawed concept leads extends to even more flawed results.
One might think the reason villians put up with it is becuase they have heard about cases where merchants signal the guards as soon as villians enter the door refusing to sell to them at all thus making paying higher prices the better of the two options.
Is it realistic? Perhaps not without including some mechanics that happen behind the scene (like making it impossible to kill the merchant and steal his stuff) but it accomplishes the goal which is to have a system that rewards heroes and punishes villians.
Again, we have flawed premises leading to silly results. Merchants now have secret bat signals to contact the flaming fist? The same villians who slaughter the flaming fists by the dozen are now accepting 45,000 GP hikes in prices (more in some cases).
Is it the best possible system that could be used? Probably not but I have no real issue with the way it works currently and subscribe to the concept that if it's not broke don't fix it.
You only play good characters. Why would you think a system you believe designed to favor the heroes you play was broken? If you are forced to pay six figures for something you might not find it quite as hunky dory.
And I have to believe that the main reason this comes up has little to do with realism and logic and more to do with making evil runs easier to accomplish for those who wish to play that way - and in that I am quite content that they are as difficult as possible - look at it as the ultimate challenge - start a party - drop your rep to 1 asap and see how far you can get.
It is about reason and logic. I generally play good parties then CN/smart-evil parties and rarely a low rep evil party. I personally have no problem personally paying off a temple to get prices to a manageable level and then killing someone to lower rep if I want to play a low rep party. Others want to play a character that is truly notorious and the game envisions this and leaves this open as a path for characters (which it should for a RP game that involves the child of Bhaal).
I have no problem with most of the consequences for low rep, evil parties. They make sense. What I don't buy off on is this artificial mechanic that makes no sense and doesn't square with any type of reasonable narrative.
If I want to play an ultimate challenge I install SCS and run a solo, no reload campaign or you can do the poverty challenge or a challenge with restrictions on leveling, etc.
The good/evil and reputation components for shops should not be about challenge for the sake of challenge (as if people using good characters don't like a challenge). It should be about narrative and this narrative makes no sense.
Since this thread is already a mess of tedious and pedantic conversation over statistics, I thought I might throw in one more:
Why has Xzar got the highest WIS in the game (well, tied) when he's quite clearly insane? It almost makes me wonder if the devs intended for him to be dualled, as 16 WIS doesn't fit his character at all, nor does it benefit him as a Necromancer...
Since this thread is already a mess of tedious and pedantic conversation over statistics, I thought I might throw in one more:
Why has Xzar got the highest WIS in the game (well, tied) when he's quite clearly insane? It almost makes me wonder if the devs intended for him to be dualled, as 16 WIS doesn't fit his character at all, nor does it benefit him as a Necromancer...
16 wisdom is the minimum stat requirement for a necromancer. Unless they did some illegal stat thing with Xzar, he couldn't have less than a 16 wisdom and be a necromancer.
The premise for the store prices is twofold - first it's simply a logical premise that if prices go down as characters become more heroic it makes sense to have them go up as they become more villianous - good for the goose and good for the gander.
I think the issue is two fold.
1) No One in reality would do this. Price variation is based on market factors, not how nice or naughty you personally think the customer is.
2) Even if it is how nice or naughty they are, NO ONE in their right mind would vary the price by orders of magnitude, charging $200,000 to one person and $15,000 to another. It would NEVER be done.
and "Good for the goose and good for the gander"???? Um??? In what way is villainous jacking up the price for evil people good for the gander (whom presumably are the evil people)?
The final straw being that merchants refuse to sell to them at all - which is what happens in vanilla IIRC altho I am not certain if this is still the case. Perhaps the heroes should complain that since stores eventually refuse to sell to villians that when they get to 20 rep the store owner should refuse to charge them at all and just give them anything they want on the house.
See, I can see a merchant refusing to sell at all to someone that villainous. The uber-bad guys come to town and the store boards up the windows and locks the doors. Like in the old westerns. That i get. Blatantly highway robbing someone who is known for killing anyone who crosses them just seems a bit ill conceived to me.
One might think the reason villians put up with it is becuase they have heard about cases where merchants signal the guards as soon as villians enter the door refusing to sell to them at all thus making paying higher prices the better of the two options.
by this time, the party is already very VERY adept at killing Flaming Fist. I don't think some merchant quaking in his boots is really going to scare 5th level armed band of cut-throats into forking over 10X the normal cost for goods with threat of yet more corpses... ahem, I mean guards.
Is it realistic? Perhaps not without including some mechanics that happen behind the scene (like making it impossible to kill the merchant and steal his stuff) but it accomplishes the goal which is to have a system that rewards heroes and punishes villians.
What people are saying isn't that the system shouldn't reward heroic behavior and punish (or at least set limits and consequences around) villainous acts. They are saying that THESE are absurd consequences in the extreme and there are other, better ways of accomplishing this type of thing.
Is it the best possible system that could be used? Probably not but I have no real issue with the way it works currently and subscribe to the concept that if it's not broke don't fix it.
And I have to believe that the main reason this comes up has little to do with realism and logic and more to do with making evil runs easier to accomplish for those who wish to play that way - and in that I am quite content that they are as difficult as possible - look at it as the ultimate challenge - start a party - drop your rep to 1 asap and see how far you can get.
No one is saying that there shouldn't be consequences. But by your own admission, it is not even close to realism. If there are realistic ways to accomplish the same or similar, wouldn't they be preferable to something as absurd as the manner implemented?
We are not proposing that anything change; merely admitting that there could have been a much better system.
Well, @AHF said in the matter most of what i think. I played the game for more than a hudred times (literally), so i had my experiences with good and evil parties, neutral ones, mixed ones, solo games, even cluaconsole illegal party formations (capturing some unjoynable NPCs to my party). I also tried to get all the banters with all the npcs that exist in the game, pursued all of the romances in BG2 more than once (and more than 10 times for each romance avaliable, literally), i even make roleplays with the aerie screwed romance (when you go to bed with her the first time she asks), while the cluaconsole point the romance as status 3 (broken), the player yet got some lines on that romance.
I really enjoyed the game in all it's forms, but by experience, neutral is almost ignored in BG and evil experience is always injuried by the lack of content or a bad configuration of the game resources.
So, yes i want to fix what is broken for my line of gameplay.
I want neutral options in quests, giving me an oportunity to AVOID reputation (why can't i just get the job done without shouting to the 4 winds whom i am.
I want evil to be saw as a path to follow in the roleplay, not a penality, i want quests that make sense for an evil person to do, i want reactions (from merchants and other NPCs) coherent with my infame, i want to roleplay my evil character, not to suffer punishment from the game in reason of respect the alignment of my character.
I have an old rule book of D&D P&P, real old. It's probally a 2° edition of D&D (not AD&D), and something that i kept forever after read on it was the orientation for the dungeon master to always punish and reward players that respect and roleplay their alignments well. That doesn't happens in Baldur's Gate (or BG2 also).
The devs. made atm 4 new NPCs, 2 of them are evil, one is an embodiment of a champion of evil (a blackguard), the other is aknowledge as an sadistic drow. Those 2 characters point that beamdog recognize the mistakes done in the past with the evil path and they're fixing it now. What i ask here, and many others also, is an furthermore work to make better the evil experience.
While I do think the evil path needs work, I am really looking for better narrative and story-telling moreso than focusing on what is good for any particular alignment. As the game is currently made, I think that does go hand in hand with much of what @kamuizin because the weakest points in the narrative don't tend to affect the "good" alignment path (because it already tends to be pretty well done).
@AHF - don't know where you got the idea that I only play good characters I've been playing BG since before ToTSC was released and have played pretty much every manner the game can be played - all alignments - powergamed - RPed - min maxed - take what you get - full party - solo - duo - trio - all PCs - 3 PCs & 3 NPCs (evil run from BG1 to just out of the underdark) - today I play either no reload - or minimum reload (PC death only) - I rarely played reload anytime things don't go my way games but a few back in the early days.
As for all your high school/college debate style reflections on failed premises false premises strawmen and the like - no need to try to impress me with your terminology I'm interested in discussion not debate class - the object (for me) is to discuss the game and how we think about it not win an argument by scoring more debate points.
@MilesBeyond - who says you can't be wise and insane?
Wisdom
Wisdom measures a character’s enlightenment, judgment, and common sense. It is the prime requisite of priests(except Druids).
Well, if insanity is understood to mainly mean loss of contact with reality, then that heavily impairs judgment; and judgment is really the hallmark of wisdom. I.e., judgment = sound decision-making capacity. If one is unable to distinguish what is real from what is not, it's hard to make decisions well. It is also virtually impossible have good common sense if one's reality testing doesn't work properly.
"Enlightenment" could be enhanced via occasional flashes of insight into things that most others might tend to overlook. The "insight" would often be impractical however, or likely most often not adequately reality-based.
Although I think the manual uses the term "enlightenment" to refer generally learnedness, i.e., a fund of knowledge about the world and what seems to make it's wheels go 'round. And that could be concomitant with insanity.
Xzar is an agent of the Zhentarim, so I tend to see him as possessing considerable 'street savvy', albeit in a twisted form. There's also the classic trope of the insane man who spouts profound wisdom, but whom nobody pays enough attention to to understand, writing him off as delusional.
That is exactly how I see Xzar - and if I used him more often, also Tiax. It's always the fool who mutters the truth. Xzar also says "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad" - in his mind, he is death, destroyer of worlds and certainly appears as a threat to a god, who would be responsible for his current state.
@KidCarnival: As a note, since I haven't had Xzar *and* Monty with me by BG city for a long, long time, does who is writing reports to the Zhentarim about you change due to who is in your party? The guy in Sorcerous Sundries told me that Xzar spoke highly of me in his reports, I was wondering if it was Monty if you didn't have Xzar anymore, or if you had both which of them was writing to their superiors about you?
Well, in my new run - with the purpose of finding out - Monty sadly got chunked by the Harpers, so I can't find out this time. I was wondering the same thing - in Nashkel, the mayor also says he recognized Xzar if you arrive with both (and Jaheira if you have all four). I think if you have both, it's always Jaheira and Xzar - who are also the ones you talk to when they join. Monty and Khalid don't start the join dialogue, it's automatically the other half of the pair talking.
I think I once got to Nashkel with only Khalid, and the mayor didn't address him (same dialogue as if you arrived alone or without any of the four). I'm not sure though, it's been a while.
I always see Xzar as the organisational superior, maybe just because he has higher INT and WIS, and Monty just seems like his hired-thug/bodyguard, but I wondered how much in the game suggests this type of partnership. The most obvious example would be who writes the reports if they're both alive and with you, but I can make an assumption that it is probably the same as Berun in Nashkel.
Wasn't there a 2nd Edition Thief kit called 'Thug'? Sounds so very Monty...
@Eudaemonium and @KidCarnival In practice, in this game, I think you're both totally right that Xzar's "insanity" can be up to the player to determine as de facto DM in that fantasy universe. (For those us us who roleplay him.) Otherwise he'd always be doing things that would just get him booted from the party pretty fast.
Maybe Khalid is glad to fly a bit under the radar. It's safer to not be recognized by everyone, especially Zhentarim agents, and Khalid isn't exactly the bravest guy alive.
I imagine Xzar is indeed the "superior", too. Not so much that Monty takes orders or is a lower rank, just that everyone agreed Xzar is more suited to do the talking in this type of mission. Being insane is a good disguise - people are more likely to mention things they shouldn't around nutjobs, at least compared to Monty. Maybe even their open dislike of the other is part of the plan - hoping charname will take a side and trust one easier. I could see a goody twoshoes charname trust Xzar more easily - as I said elsewhere, he's social, friendly, not arrogant or bloodthirsty - especially if he repeatedly points out that he doesn't like the more dangerous/violent one. And vice versa, that may be the quality that appeals to an evil charname, who empathizes more with Monty and his burden of travelling with a madman.
@AHF - don't know where you got the idea that I only play good characters I've been playing BG since before ToTSC was released and have played pretty much every manner the game can be played - all alignments - powergamed - RPed - min maxed - take what you get - full party - solo - duo - trio - all PCs - 3 PCs & 3 NPCs (evil run from BG1 to just out of the underdark) - today I play either no reload - or minimum reload (PC death only) - I rarely played reload anytime things don't go my way games but a few back in the early days.
As for all your high school/college debate style reflections on failed premises false premises strawmen and the like - no need to try to impress me with your terminology I'm interested in discussion not debate class - the object (for me) is to discuss the game and how we think about it not win an argument by scoring more debate points.
Sorry for misconstruing your use of characters - I confused you with another poster and apologize for the mistake.
As for your own strawman argument, I haven't been in high school for 20 years and have never done debate.
The fact that you would make arguments about how good characters with 20 reps should complain about not getting items for free and then be dismissive of criticism of that as some type of hypertechnical debate strikes me as missing the point. Bad logic and bad storytelling are not good for a roleplaying game.
You should be able to envision the RP scenario in your head. Can you imagine the flaming fist coming after a psychotic killer? Of course. That is storytelling with a sense of realism and logic. It is a logical consequence and should be part of the story.
Can you imagine a shopkeeper telling Sarevok that he will be charged 200,000 GP for that dagger of venom without suspending your sense of disbelief? I can't. Can you imagine a world where most sellers of merchandise are more concerned about rewarding the good and punishing the bad than on staying alive and getting paid for their sales? I can't.
This is a bad mechanic and is low hanging fruit for improvement from a logic and storytelling perspective. It is really that simple.
Yeah, honestly, the merchants would be quaking in their boots at totally evil badass NPCs, and if anything would probably intimidated into giving them extremely low prices, not high ones.
@MilesBeyond - who says you can't be wise and insane?
Wisdom
Wisdom measures a character’s enlightenment, judgment, and common sense. It is the prime requisite of priests(except Druids).
Well, if insanity is understood to mainly mean loss of contact with reality, then that heavily impairs judgment; and judgment is really the hallmark of wisdom. I.e., judgment = sound decision-making capacity. If one is unable to distinguish what is real from what is not, it's hard to make decisions well. It is also virtually impossible have good common sense if one's reality testing doesn't work properly.
"Enlightenment" could be enhanced via occasional flashes of insight into things that most others might tend to overlook. The "insight" would often be impractical however, or likely most often not adequately reality-based.
Although I think the manual uses the term "enlightenment" to refer generally learnedness, i.e., a fund of knowledge about the world and what seems to make it's wheels go 'round. And that could be concomitant with insanity.
LOL. Thanks for the quote. I guess I need to work on my sarcasm when posting to these forums.
@spyder lol that has me now wondering if it was only me that missed the sarcasm, eg, the agrees. It would make me laugh even more if that was the case. Sometimes not so easy to tell.
@AHF - don't know where you got the idea that I only play good characters I've been playing BG since before ToTSC was released and have played pretty much every manner the game can be played - all alignments - powergamed - RPed - min maxed - take what you get - full party - solo - duo - trio - all PCs - 3 PCs & 3 NPCs (evil run from BG1 to just out of the underdark) - today I play either no reload - or minimum reload (PC death only) - I rarely played reload anytime things don't go my way games but a few back in the early days.
As for all your high school/college debate style reflections on failed premises false premises strawmen and the like - no need to try to impress me with your terminology I'm interested in discussion not debate class - the object (for me) is to discuss the game and how we think about it not win an argument by scoring more debate points.
Sorry for misconstruing your use of characters - I confused you with another poster and apologize for the mistake.
As for your own strawman argument, I haven't been in high school for 20 years and have never done debate.
The fact that you would make arguments about how good characters with 20 reps should complain about not getting items for free and then be dismissive of criticism of that as some type of hypertechnical debate strikes me as missing the point. Bad logic and bad storytelling are not good for a roleplaying game.
You should be able to envision the RP scenario in your head. Can you imagine the flaming fist coming after a psychotic killer? Of course. That is storytelling with a sense of realism and logic. It is a logical consequence and should be part of the story.
Can you imagine a shopkeeper telling Sarevok that he will be charged 200,000 GP for that dagger of venom without suspending your sense of disbelief? I can't. Can you imagine a world where most sellers of merchandise are more concerned about rewarding the good and punishing the bad than on staying alive and getting paid for their sales? I can't.
This is a bad mechanic and is low hanging fruit for improvement from a logic and storytelling perspective. It is really that simple.
You are overthinking this - we are talking about a very simple to implement game mechanic from a 15 year old game - the point was not to create a realistic or logical aspect to the storyline it was simply a way to provide either some consequences or rewards tied to the characters actions dependent on where they fall on the good vs evil axis.
It's a gameplay/roleplay mechanic that tied with the reputation vs alignment mechanic makes alignment and the actions of doing good or doing evil within the gameworld mean something to gameplay and not just be something that exists only in the mind of the player.
I think it works fine for what it was (and is) intended to do.
@Wanderon - you are Under-thinking it. The fact that it is so far from reality, it is a significant immersion break for most players. And considering that there are other ways of doing it that would be more in line with realistic behavior patterns which would be significantly less of an immersion break for players, it is therefore a poor mechanic.
I don't believe that anyone is suggesting Overhaul make any changes, merely that we recognize it as a poor mechanic to begin with.
Well, i'm suggesting overhaul to make changes, after all that's the point in the enhanced edition project, otherwise why wouldn't i bother in pay again for baldur's gate? New NPCs? mods can solve. Tweaks? Already have most of the fixs made by mods. Multiplayer contend? Comming soon... yet. New interface? While is cool and not a thing that can be just moded, it doesn't justify buy twice the same title.
They can't change old content and a bunch of limitations where imposed on this project, at least fix some bad function mechanics is what i can hope for.
@kamuizin - I could be wrong, but I would guess that a major component such as the reputation system is covered by the 'We can't change content' clause in Overhaul's contract. I wish it weren't, but I'd bet it is.
As for why you should play BG:EE, there are a host of reasons. As you stated, there are new NPCs and a whole host of bug fixes and tweaks. If that isn't enough, how about the possibility of BG:3? If that isn't enough, and you don't leverage the multi-platform availability, then maybe there isn't a reason for you to purchase. By all means, spend your money as you see fit.
Comments
Yes, the system puts in place consequences for doing bad things. And it should. I for one am not saying there shouldn't be consequences. What I am saying is the choice of consequences that were made for the game were in my opinion, poor and designed primarily to punish the PLAYER for playing evil (which is contrary to your point above). The more evil you do, the lower your reputation is. the lower the rep, the more Flaming fists attack on sight and the unreasonably higher prices get. These are not logical and reasonable outcomes. Not only are they not reality, they are abstractly the opposite to the way things work in reality.
As for it being a game and not expecting realism, I again disagree. We expect that gravity will work as it does here. We expect that characters in the game will respond as they do in this world (i.e. if you are friendly and nice, they respond as friendly and nice (most of the time)). Yes, there is magic which is not reality. However, those things that are mundane in the game world, we expect to act in the same manner as they do in real life. These things don't.
So if you really want to follow the line of thougth that yourself created, why you want to force on everyone's throat the hipocrite real world idea that good is the good of our actual society and evil is anything that go against our society?
Play your game as you like, but don't try to justify a broken system to refrain others from enjoy the game as they like.
And now serious, if you think that the actual reputation system is perfect i will start to doubt of your seriousness. There are tons of threads on the forum complaining against the system, not only for evil plots sake, but also in reason of how lame is to be able to get a reputation 1 to 18 by just donate for temples also for an example.
About the mod you mentioned, exist the virtue mod, while atm is the best solution, i don't like that mode at all. Someone spoken about an fame/infame scope for reputation, well i like that one, so lemme make an suggestion here.
2 reputation bars, fame and infame.
They're not dependable of each other bar and now most of the actions in game would influence both. Instead of lose reputation with an evil act the party would gain infame points.
Most of the reputation change acts in game should affect both bars not not in an isonomic way.
Ex:
flood the miners in cloakwood mines could give 3 (or 4) infame points while would reduce in 1 (or 2) the fame points of the party.
be caught stealing should reduce the fame points in 1 (or 2) while shouldn't give infame points, no one should get reputation by being incompetent in his line of work.
Help the demon boy in cloudpeak mountains to find his dog should give infame points, what would be fun, a person that doesn't know the quest would get a surprise at the end, after all people could comment that the party helped a demon.
kill greywolf should give infame points to the party, they gave help to a criminal against an agent hired by the law of the region (but not necessary taking fame points).
Some actions should even give fame and infame points at the same time, as the ones related to the main quest, killing bassilus mad cyric priest for example.
Well, it's an suggestion, it's pretty alike (a lot) the virtue system (2 bars) but with some minor differences, as the fact an evil party could benefect from a low reputation without having peasants praising them when they pass as heroes (what happens in virtue mod).
It's a huge change on the game, but from what i remember it's an eligible change and possible also, this will not come in conflict with the assignment of rights that beamdog has to work on the game at least.
I am pointing out that the reputation system as it applies to the price of goods is a failure of storytelling and inconsistent with basic human behavior. I don't see anything but circular logic being used to justify it (i.e., we should want punishment for evil behavior so it must make sense since it is a consequence for bad behavior and consequences are good).
Bear in mind that the only reason the mechanic even functions is based on yet another unrealistic mechanic. In the game setting, if Sarevok arrived and wanted to buy a magic sword that the merchant just quoted to another customer for 5000 GP and the merchant refused to take less than 50,000 GP Sarevok would just kill the merchant and take the sword. (That is exactly what is happening in multiple situations in BG2 where merchants are being attacked or threatened for their goods). The game has already made an unrealistic concession to game mechanics by not permitting players to kill the shopkeeper and take the goods. Given the impact on game balance, I am fine with this.
However, layering on a second punishment for evil characters (requiring 50,000 GP from Sarevok) is not justified by internal logic, realism or balance. I have already addressed realism so I won't touch that. Balance I have already pointed out is better achieved through law enforcement rather than price enforcement.
So I'll turn to the internal logic side of things. The argument is made in the post above that it makes sense to apply reputational punishment for evil across the game to avoid living in a world without consequences. First, there are consequences. The flaming fist and others try to hunt down the evil PC and kill him. Temples charge more to restore reputation based on the level of the PC's reputation (i.e., it costs more to move from 1 to 2 than from 8 to 9). Second, it doesn't make sense why merchants would be so principled that they would put their lives on the line to jack up prices but people like Duke Eltan, Drizzt, and others would help the PC without any real hesitation despite his notorious behavior.
The final straw being that merchants refuse to sell to them at all - which is what happens in vanilla IIRC altho I am not certain if this is still the case. Perhaps the heroes should complain that since stores eventually refuse to sell to villians that when they get to 20 rep the store owner should refuse to charge them at all and just give them anything they want on the house.
One might think the reason villians put up with it is becuase they have heard about cases where merchants signal the guards as soon as villians enter the door refusing to sell to them at all thus making paying higher prices the better of the two options.
Is it realistic? Perhaps not without including some mechanics that happen behind the scene (like making it impossible to kill the merchant and steal his stuff) but it accomplishes the goal which is to have a system that rewards heroes and punishes villians.
Is it the best possible system that could be used? Probably not but I have no real issue with the way it works currently and subscribe to the concept that if it's not broke don't fix it.
And I have to believe that the main reason this comes up has little to do with realism and logic and more to do with making evil runs easier to accomplish for those who wish to play that way - and in that I am quite content that they are as difficult as possible - look at it as the ultimate challenge - start a party - drop your rep to 1 asap and see how far you can get.
"Perhaps the heroes should complain that they don't get everything for free when they get a 20 rep."
Flawed concept leads extends to even more flawed results. Again, we have flawed premises leading to silly results. Merchants now have secret bat signals to contact the flaming fist? The same villians who slaughter the flaming fists by the dozen are now accepting 45,000 GP hikes in prices (more in some cases). You only play good characters. Why would you think a system you believe designed to favor the heroes you play was broken? If you are forced to pay six figures for something you might not find it quite as hunky dory. It is about reason and logic. I generally play good parties then CN/smart-evil parties and rarely a low rep evil party. I personally have no problem personally paying off a temple to get prices to a manageable level and then killing someone to lower rep if I want to play a low rep party. Others want to play a character that is truly notorious and the game envisions this and leaves this open as a path for characters (which it should for a RP game that involves the child of Bhaal).
I have no problem with most of the consequences for low rep, evil parties. They make sense. What I don't buy off on is this artificial mechanic that makes no sense and doesn't square with any type of reasonable narrative.
If I want to play an ultimate challenge I install SCS and run a solo, no reload campaign or you can do the poverty challenge or a challenge with restrictions on leveling, etc.
The good/evil and reputation components for shops should not be about challenge for the sake of challenge (as if people using good characters don't like a challenge). It should be about narrative and this narrative makes no sense.
Why has Xzar got the highest WIS in the game (well, tied) when he's quite clearly insane? It almost makes me wonder if the devs intended for him to be dualled, as 16 WIS doesn't fit his character at all, nor does it benefit him as a Necromancer...
1) No One in reality would do this. Price variation is based on market factors, not how nice or naughty you personally think the customer is.
2) Even if it is how nice or naughty they are, NO ONE in their right mind would vary the price by orders of magnitude, charging $200,000 to one person and $15,000 to another. It would NEVER be done.
and "Good for the goose and good for the gander"???? Um??? In what way is villainous jacking up the price for evil people good for the gander (whom presumably are the evil people)?
See, I can see a merchant refusing to sell at all to someone that villainous. The uber-bad guys come to town and the store boards up the windows and locks the doors. Like in the old westerns. That i get. Blatantly highway robbing someone who is known for killing anyone who crosses them just seems a bit ill conceived to me. by this time, the party is already very VERY adept at killing Flaming Fist. I don't think some merchant quaking in his boots is really going to scare 5th level armed band of cut-throats into forking over 10X the normal cost for goods with threat of yet more corpses... ahem, I mean guards. What people are saying isn't that the system shouldn't reward heroic behavior and punish (or at least set limits and consequences around) villainous acts. They are saying that THESE are absurd consequences in the extreme and there are other, better ways of accomplishing this type of thing. No one is saying that there shouldn't be consequences. But by your own admission, it is not even close to realism. If there are realistic ways to accomplish the same or similar, wouldn't they be preferable to something as absurd as the manner implemented?
We are not proposing that anything change; merely admitting that there could have been a much better system.
I really enjoyed the game in all it's forms, but by experience, neutral is almost ignored in BG and evil experience is always injuried by the lack of content or a bad configuration of the game resources.
So, yes i want to fix what is broken for my line of gameplay.
I want neutral options in quests, giving me an oportunity to AVOID reputation (why can't i just get the job done without shouting to the 4 winds whom i am.
I want evil to be saw as a path to follow in the roleplay, not a penality, i want quests that make sense for an evil person to do, i want reactions (from merchants and other NPCs) coherent with my infame, i want to roleplay my evil character, not to suffer punishment from the game in reason of respect the alignment of my character.
I have an old rule book of D&D P&P, real old. It's probally a 2° edition of D&D (not AD&D), and something that i kept forever after read on it was the orientation for the dungeon master to always punish and reward players that respect and roleplay their alignments well. That doesn't happens in Baldur's Gate (or BG2 also).
The devs. made atm 4 new NPCs, 2 of them are evil, one is an embodiment of a champion of evil (a blackguard), the other is aknowledge as an sadistic drow. Those 2 characters point that beamdog recognize the mistakes done in the past with the evil path and they're fixing it now. What i ask here, and many others also, is an furthermore work to make better the evil experience.
As for all your high school/college debate style reflections on failed premises false premises strawmen and the like - no need to try to impress me with your terminology I'm interested in discussion not debate class - the object (for me) is to discuss the game and how we think about it not win an argument by scoring more debate points.
"Enlightenment" could be enhanced via occasional flashes of insight into things that most others might tend to overlook. The "insight" would often be impractical however, or likely most often not adequately reality-based.
Although I think the manual uses the term "enlightenment" to refer generally learnedness, i.e., a fund of knowledge about the world and what seems to make it's wheels go 'round. And that could be concomitant with insanity.
I think I once got to Nashkel with only Khalid, and the mayor didn't address him (same dialogue as if you arrived alone or without any of the four). I'm not sure though, it's been a while.
I always see Xzar as the organisational superior, maybe just because he has higher INT and WIS, and Monty just seems like his hired-thug/bodyguard, but I wondered how much in the game suggests this type of partnership. The most obvious example would be who writes the reports if they're both alive and with you, but I can make an assumption that it is probably the same as Berun in Nashkel.
Wasn't there a 2nd Edition Thief kit called 'Thug'? Sounds so very Monty...
I imagine Xzar is indeed the "superior", too. Not so much that Monty takes orders or is a lower rank, just that everyone agreed Xzar is more suited to do the talking in this type of mission. Being insane is a good disguise - people are more likely to mention things they shouldn't around nutjobs, at least compared to Monty. Maybe even their open dislike of the other is part of the plan - hoping charname will take a side and trust one easier. I could see a goody twoshoes charname trust Xzar more easily - as I said elsewhere, he's social, friendly, not arrogant or bloodthirsty - especially if he repeatedly points out that he doesn't like the more dangerous/violent one. And vice versa, that may be the quality that appeals to an evil charname, who empathizes more with Monty and his burden of travelling with a madman.
As for your own strawman argument, I haven't been in high school for 20 years and have never done debate.
The fact that you would make arguments about how good characters with 20 reps should complain about not getting items for free and then be dismissive of criticism of that as some type of hypertechnical debate strikes me as missing the point. Bad logic and bad storytelling are not good for a roleplaying game.
You should be able to envision the RP scenario in your head. Can you imagine the flaming fist coming after a psychotic killer? Of course. That is storytelling with a sense of realism and logic. It is a logical consequence and should be part of the story.
Can you imagine a shopkeeper telling Sarevok that he will be charged 200,000 GP for that dagger of venom without suspending your sense of disbelief? I can't. Can you imagine a world where most sellers of merchandise are more concerned about rewarding the good and punishing the bad than on staying alive and getting paid for their sales? I can't.
This is a bad mechanic and is low hanging fruit for improvement from a logic and storytelling perspective. It is really that simple.
"Enlightenment" could be enhanced via occasional flashes of insight into things that most others might tend to overlook. The "insight" would often be impractical however, or likely most often not adequately reality-based.
Although I think the manual uses the term "enlightenment" to refer generally learnedness, i.e., a fund of knowledge about the world and what seems to make it's wheels go 'round. And that could be concomitant with insanity.
LOL. Thanks for the quote. I guess I need to work on my sarcasm when posting to these forums.
It's a gameplay/roleplay mechanic that tied with the reputation vs alignment mechanic makes alignment and the actions of doing good or doing evil within the gameworld mean something to gameplay and not just be something that exists only in the mind of the player.
I think it works fine for what it was (and is) intended to do.
I don't believe that anyone is suggesting Overhaul make any changes, merely that we recognize it as a poor mechanic to begin with.
They can't change old content and a bunch of limitations where imposed on this project, at least fix some bad function mechanics is what i can hope for.
As for why you should play BG:EE, there are a host of reasons. As you stated, there are new NPCs and a whole host of bug fixes and tweaks. If that isn't enough, how about the possibility of BG:3? If that isn't enough, and you don't leverage the multi-platform availability, then maybe there isn't a reason for you to purchase. By all means, spend your money as you see fit.