Killing Zhurlong or Pheirkas should lower your reputation
macu67
Member Posts: 56
I was already posting about it in some other topic which was referring to SCS. Now I'm starting a separate one about unmodded BG:EE.
As I remember from my original BG game guide/instrustion book, reputation is not only the general opinion among people, but also something like karma, so It should drop when you kill someone innocent, even if you are not seen at that moment. In my opinion killing someone after you've just done quest for him has nothing in common with rpg rules. On the other hand I understand people who just want Zhurlong boots without the annoying, unfinished quest in journal.
Perhaps I have a solution that will satisfy everyone:
Zhurlong - I agree that there should be a rage option to kill him, but only when he steals from you not after doing his quest! My solution is simple. When the player speaks to him for the first time give him the two following options:
-I'll find your boots man (journal update)
-You stole from me DIE ARGH ARGH!!! (which will turn him hostile)
After you finish the quest he should give you the boots as a compensation for the gold he stole from you. Everybody happy.:)
It's the same situation as with Marl. You can kill him as a consequence of the dialogue without the rep loss, but if you do it later, you recieve some reputation hit. So it's doable. :P
Pheirkas - There is completely no explanation why she shouldn't provide rep loss when killed. I see no reason why Unshey is protected in this way and Pheirkas not. She's not stealing from us, threatening or offending us in any way.
As I remember from my original BG game guide/instrustion book, reputation is not only the general opinion among people, but also something like karma, so It should drop when you kill someone innocent, even if you are not seen at that moment. In my opinion killing someone after you've just done quest for him has nothing in common with rpg rules. On the other hand I understand people who just want Zhurlong boots without the annoying, unfinished quest in journal.
Perhaps I have a solution that will satisfy everyone:
Zhurlong - I agree that there should be a rage option to kill him, but only when he steals from you not after doing his quest! My solution is simple. When the player speaks to him for the first time give him the two following options:
-I'll find your boots man (journal update)
-You stole from me DIE ARGH ARGH!!! (which will turn him hostile)
After you finish the quest he should give you the boots as a compensation for the gold he stole from you. Everybody happy.:)
It's the same situation as with Marl. You can kill him as a consequence of the dialogue without the rep loss, but if you do it later, you recieve some reputation hit. So it's doable. :P
Pheirkas - There is completely no explanation why she shouldn't provide rep loss when killed. I see no reason why Unshey is protected in this way and Pheirkas not. She's not stealing from us, threatening or offending us in any way.
Post edited by macu67 on
0
Comments
However, bear in mind that he'll pick your pocket again, after you've completed his quest, if you speak to him again. I therefore see no roleplaying problem with killing him for picking my pocket, with no loss of REP, because Forgotten Realms characters usually attack whenever they notice their pockets being picked. It may seem harsh in terms of real-life morality, but it's definitely normal in FR morality.
"Hi Zhurlong I found your boots! Put 'em on because I got an added treat!"
"I love treats! "
"We got you a shovel!"
"Why do I need a shovel?"
"To dig up treasure! Lets go!"
(Rep + 2 for being kind and generous!)
*After taking Zhurlong outside to dig a hole in the woods outside Beregost... Zhurlong begins to have doubts...*
"I doubt there is any treasure here..."
"But there is rich pickings on this corpse!"
"I don't see no cor-"
*Backstab*
"Check out these boots!"
For Pheirkas, I actually agree that there's a reasonable argument that there ought to be a REP penalty if you murder him to recover the Cloak. I'm not definitely decided one way or the other, but I do find it a stronger argument than in Zhurlong's case.
I'd even say the same in one or two other cases where there's currently no penalty for murdering someone for good equipment, such as Fenten. (If you haven't tried this, he drops a unique axe.)
But in Zhurlong's case, no. I think the killing is quite justifiable in the context of the game-world, so there should remain no REP penalty.
Gallowglass - I understand your point but for me killing someone AFTER doing his quest is just a "more exp omg" powergaming. :P
Reputation is that which it is - how others see the group.
If there are no witnesses to said act, it should not affect reputation either positively or negatively.
Such acts should change alignment (as is meant to).
Killing innocents is an evil act. Even if it is not witnessed, it is still an evil act and should change alignment accordingly.
And in a world where magic abounds, someone disappearing can be explained in any number of ways - if there are no witnesses, it is going to be difficult to accuse someone circumstantially.
So, say, a certain NPC ducks into an otherwise deserted area and is discovered later dead - could have been a number of different things! An invisible stalker, some magical trap, some sort of monster that can either go ethereal (or astral travel) or can camouflage (disguise) itself...etc.
@macu67 - Ajantis (like other Paladins) doesn't need much provocation to attack anyone Evil, even if they're not actively hostile at the time, because "smiting Evil" is a Paladin's job. If Pheirkas or Fenten detect as Evil (I haven't checked), then it's quite credible for Ajantis to reach for his sword. Certainly Ajantis is Lawful, but in the Forgotten Realms there seems to be no law against killing Evil adversaries ... and anyway, "Lawful" in the alignment system seems to be more about "being in favour of order" than about "following specific local laws" - it's the opposing principle to Chaos, not the opposing principle to Crime, which is not the same thing. Concerning Dynaheir, I don't find her such a well-defined character, I'm not sure where she'd stand.
Another one: I kill some peasant in the wilds (for eg. Hulrik from the xvart/cow quest) - rep loss. I kill Sahedra (Ogre Quest) - no rep loss.
If there was an alignment system ala NWN combined with a Rep system, well, it might then work a bit better IMHO. Then we would see party members being affected by things that instead affect only Rep (though killing a Commoner is pretty close to killing an innocent, but if it is unwitnessed, well...it shouldn't really hit Rep, should it?).
In the FR, there are various laws in various regions against killing innocents, regardless of how they "detect". Law and Order are still a big part of many "civilized" regions of the FR - as is Crime and Punishment.
The real question is, if a Paladin detects someone as evil, then she knows that that person/monster/thing has commited evil acts (because one does not simply become evil, one has to actually do evil to be evil), so is a Paladin justified in attacking? I believe so, at least in the case of attack vs alignment adjustment here.
This IMHO would be a case of Alignment not taking a hit, but Rep would. Also, I am pretty sure that without sufficient evidence of said victim's guilt, the Paladin is going to have a hard time proving her case before the Law.
Btw - detect evil and know alignment and detect lie are not reliable methods in which to base a method of Law and Order on. The reason being is that they can be simulated. Thus, it would be relatively easy for the rich and powerful to frame one another (rivals, etc) and there would be an almost immediate retaliation of the same...resulting in chaos.
Most regions would quickly ban such methods due to the above.
Of course, a Paladin would not have such problems (a case of the individual vs society IMHO). A Paladin cannot "trick" the Alignment system - it is just not possible.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.