Should evil characters always have a low reputation

kiwidoc

I've always thought that evil PCs and NPCs shouldn't get upset when their reputation is high. After all many people in our history who were heartless, ruthless, and totally lacking in empathy deliberately manipulated other in order to increase their reputation, especially those with a high charisma. Stalin and Hitler had extremely high reputations in their own countries. High rep can be very useful for financial gain, getting power or simply getting other people to do what you want them to.

Walstafa

My blackguard goes around making all the people of Faerun love him so he can ultimately manipulate them at a later date.

Kamigoroshi

Reputation shouldn't be tied to alignment at all. Period.

As a side note, I very much enjoy playing good aligned characters with downright terrible reputation scores. :-P

O_Bruce

Reputation in this game is a broken system. Period.

SethDavis

I suppose it would also depend upon the general alignment of people in the area.

Awong124

You can be evil at heart, and do evil things while not getting caught. That's how a lot of people in real life are. That's why it's so hard to catch serial killers, because they don't get caught, and often they are respected members of the community with high reputation.

XeZeL

"Should never be allowed" is probably too strong a statement in my eyes, but it makes perfect sense to me how "evil", selfish/sadistic/psychotic what-have-you npcs get pissy when your party's reputation is too high (and vice versa, paladins, rangers etc getting upset when it's low).

I generally play neutral or evil runs, and as such tend to keep my rep rather low (or, around 8-12 if neutral) and love how guards show up every now and then in increasingly vain attempts to bring my party to justice. Aside from the insane increase in vendor prices (which I've modded to always be 100% regardless of rep, so not an issue for me) there isn't much of a problem running around with low rep, and (sorta unsure of this actually) I believe you actually require it to be at a certain (low) value for key evil choices here and there.

Long story short I suppose I just don't see the appeal of having a high reputation unless you're going for the whole [I'm a great and noble hero, champion of all that is right and just! Worship me please!] RP deal, which in my eyes is only an issue for charnames (or characters in general) who go out of their way to be morally "good".

RP wise, I believe (most) evil characters would only want a high reputation if they were activly using it towards a goal, such as taking over a city or country, and it would be a strictly short-term affair (that is to say, they'd only make the effort untill they achived whatever they were aiming for). The same way a (chaotic) good character might make a few questionable choices "for the greater good".

But then again, I also tend to play the chaotic alignment, and so my characters tend to be impulsive and emotional, ignoring long term plans in favor of short-term gratification

Flashburn

Smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave...

meagloth

I think it should be tied to each Individual character based on personality. Rep is broken though.

kiwidoc

@meagloth I agree - not everyone who is of a similar alignment is similar in other ways. Some of my evil PCs have carved a swathe of nasty acts through the Realms, and others have performed "good deeds" for rather twisted reasons.

@Flashburn - smile and wave back at you (just as well you can't see my eyes!)

Mivsan

I agree with the notion that evil NPCs, or at least some of them, shouldn't really be bothered by high reputation, but I approach it from a different angle. If this is perhaps a bit too off-topic, please disregard my post.

Some of the discussion about it occured in this thread:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/509134/#Comment_509134

To summarize my post from that thread, it was basically about the fact that most evil NPCs have pretty specified and precise interests and goals they are after and would realize that Charname's party gives them the best opportunities for achieving those goals. Some examples would be wealth (Kagain), carnage (Korgan) or power and magical artifacts (Edwin). A large part of what makes those characters evil is that they have a... more flexible set of limits as to what they are willing to do, while pursuing their goals. Unless I'm forgetting about someone, pretty much only Dorn, evil Sarevok and maybe Korgan want to do evil stuff just for the sake of it. For the others, doing a good deed every once in a while really shouldn't be a big deal, as long as they are getting closer to getting what they want. I mean, evil NPCs (and pretty much all NPCs in general) are not really doing so hot on their own, so it should be pretty easy for them to realize that a good deed here and there is a small sacrifice for the benefit of being a part of a group that by the end of ToB is one of the most powerful parties out there.
Of course, the fact that Charname's party makes a lot of friends/connections along the way, should also not go unnoticed, especially by the Lawful Evil or wise characters (which is when this post gets more on topic, I guess ;+) ).

It's just all a consequence of the reputation system being pretty old and stiff. I understand the purpose of it - to show that evil guys want to do evil (or at least don't mind doing evil in order to achieve their goals) and good guys want to do good and that those opposite ends of the spectrum are in conflict with each other. That's why I agree with meagloth that it would be more fitting to have personal standards/values for each NPC, but at the time of BG's release, I guess that wasn't yet the norm. That kind of system would make a lot of sense, especially for characters like Viconia, who shouldn't really be happy with either fame or infamy, as she's a kind of a person who just wants to lay low and be left alone - getting more popular one way or another is not in her best interest.

That's why I play with the Happy Patch component of BG Tweaks on. It just makes a lot more sense to me that evil characters would complain about high reputation, but not leave because of it (with a few exceptions mentioned above).

elminster

Reading through the players manual it seems like reputation was more for henchmen and hirings than for buying from stores and the like (but feel free to correct me if this was not the case). I wonder if the reputation system would be as disliked as it is if there were NPC's that you could trade with in the game that give better prices for evil characters (kind of like how some of the fallout games handle it). Provided they themselves had something good to sell I'm guessing the system would probably not be disliked as much.

kiwidoc

@Mivsan - your post on the thread you linked to is definitely not off-topic. It discusses exactly the kind of things I've thought about since the first time I played BG1 all those years ago. And YAY for the happy patch - it sure keeps me happy!