I find this "prices are higher the lower your reputation is" system kind of stupid...
Korlamaq
Member Posts: 216
I mean really? Six people that radiate evil, armed to the teeth and most wanted in all of Amn enter your shop and you would dare to deny them your services? Or only sell items at ridiculous prices? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be honest... Isn't intimidation worth anything in this game? It should be the same modifier as a high reputation while charisma still applies as normal.
2
Comments
Secondly, from a game mechanics perspective. Higher store prices for evil parties is supposed to balance the fact that an evil party can slaughter, steal and loot their way to greater xp and material rewards, and the evil NPCs are generally stronger than their Good counterparts.
I can't remember the exactly shops in question, but I remember that there's a few questionable institutions that are reversed, with high prices for high reputation, and vice versa.
However for shops like the riff-raff in the Docks District, or Roger the Fence in the Temple Sewers or even the shop on the ground floor of the Shadow Thieves headquarters, I can't see why reputation would be so heavily considered in your dealings.
I'm not sure how the game does the Underdark (haven't really played evil) but I feel like your reputation should mean NOTHING when you are under cover as a Drow, since they literally know nothing of "Veldrin" when you first arrive.
I agree with OP that this mechanic is silly, so when I get ripped off I go around burgling other merchants and selling their own gear back to them to get my money back.
I have no real problem with reputation though i do agree that the system is a bit simplistic.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/464850
i also think that reputation shouldnt be that big of a deal and charisma a bigger one
(I'll put this in a spoiler tag to avoid derailing the thread)
-For one, it does not appear, from my internet search, that these allegations (which, I should note, did not mention any specific banks) ever amounted to anything.
-It is important to also note that the evidence came "Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US". I can't say much about Italy, but the US, Britain and Switzerland are the three nations that are known for having among the strongest appreciation for the rule of law in all the world. If anything, the fact that this apparently worldwide occurrence was discovered in such nations proves my point about developed economies with proper legal systems.
-Also it is important to distinguish between the financial sector and the general business environment (especially when talking about inter-bank loans as this article is). In fact, considering the role of central banks in the past century, modern banking seems to be the one area of the economy in the US (and that of most developed economies) that is decidedly *not* capitalistic.
-Your typical businessman (such as Ribald!!!! lol) works in a far more open environment than the financial behemoths, in which customers are far more informed about the nature of their transactions (one of the big problems that led to the crash was the general public's lack of understanding of how the financial sector worked) and wrongdoing is more easily prosecuted.
-The state of a panicked economy during a financial crisis (like in 2008) is not very indicative of general trends. There is a reason the crime rises during recessions.
If the focus of the game was going to be thieving there is a lot they could have done about threatening and coercing shop-keepers. But that isn't what the game's about, so it uses a simple system to represent day to day business in civilized areas.
I agree with some of this statement, but it really depends on the shop in question
@shar interesting response, and I agree with much of what you said. The one thing I'd dispute is that financial metltdowns are cyclical. The business cycle is not the same thing as a massive recession as seen in 2008. There are always ups and downs, but that was an extreme occurrence. A normal business cycle does not involve the collapse of the entire financial sector, or else we would not be anywhere near as advanced as we are today! haha
As I've said before: worst. business model. ever.
This was a game made with limitless possibilities. When before did you have such freedom? You couldn't attack and kill Yoshi in Super Mario if you wanted to. I mean, you can chop Ribald Barterman to bits if you really want to. To discourage people from taking such a course, the game came with a multitude of ways to keep people acting generally sane and normal. The manipulation on the part of the creators was thorough and effective, and I highly doubt any of you go through baldur's gate slaughtering everything or everyone you see. You might say "well that has nothing to do with paying more at the store for being evil."
But actually it does.
In BG terms, having a 1 reputation means you will have to slaughter a unit of guards when you enter town. But that's the only consequence as far as BG goes. But if we wanted to be more realistic then the consequences of this would be much more serious - no government could let this kind of behaviour go unpunished - you would end up with every member of the city guard and army coming after you.
And even if you were somehow powerful enough to kill an entire army, then all the other governments in the region would take notice and have to react to it. Eventually you would come up against someone big and bad enough to take you down.
So at the end of the day, higher shop prices seems a small price to pay compared to a more realistic penalty for low reputation.