Party members leaving permanantly
ari1413
Member Posts: 7
I'm trying to mix things up a bit and change my party. I have multiple NPCs at the Jovial Juggler in chapter 5 that I am adding or removing as they gain experience. I've been playing a good party and my reputation has gradually increased to 20. This had been working fine for the last 4 chapters, with characters waiting after I dismissed them. Now, however, anytime I kick out a neutral character, I get a rude dismissal followed by them disappearing outright (ie xan tells me he considers this mission a dismal failure and our debt is repaid, garrick tells me I'm as bad as Silke, branwen tells me I'm no better than the loki spawn she left behind). I altered my save state so that my reputation was 16, with no change in the reaction. I've even tried the happy mod to make reputation less of an issue overall, with no effect. Good characters don't seem to have an issue, only neutral ones (with the exception that jaheira seems ok with being kicked out - I'm guessing she's coded to be more tolerant of...whatever this is). Strangely, even evil characters that have already joined I'm able to add to the party and then dismiss without them leaving.
Any idea how to keep these people in my party?
EDIT: save state changing Branwen's alignment to good doesn't seem to change her leaving pissed at me
Any idea how to keep these people in my party?
EDIT: save state changing Branwen's alignment to good doesn't seem to change her leaving pissed at me
0
Comments
"I am neutral! You can't be too good or too evil. Be right in the middle!" What? That makes no sense. If you are neutral, you should be okay either way, right? Unless you are a Druid and trying to uphold "balance." That is a bit different.
Yeah, it's one of the more annoying aspects of bg2, where neutral party members are constantly whining about my reputation, but at least there they can be removed from the party and not vanish. And even "balance" usually doesn't mean randomly helping people and then randomly hurting/refusing to help people. Usually the things that lead to reputation increases *involve* helping the underdog, after all.
I've used BG tweaks for some cosmetic changes (I did try the happy mod, but only *after* this problem arose). Possibly something was altered in the process? I'm going to try to uninstall and reinstall to see if the save games are at fault. Failing that, an incremental save from (ouch!) before the naskell mines is fine (reputation is 16 at that point). Even my save from a week or so after is bad, so either I backtrack to there and just get more paranoid, live with all good parties, or hopefully someone has an idea.
I've used near infinity to browse around. There's 3 different dialogue files for, say, xan: xan, xanj, and xanp. Not sure what each of these does, but failing all else I'll try to go under the hood and figure out what's going on. Perhaps I can "neuter" that particular trigger, but this seems excessive. Grrrr.
Neutrality should "strictly speaking" mean that you don't want to get involved. You go out of your way to avoid doing EITHER Good or Evil. It should be just as hard to play any one of the big three (good, neutral or evil) as any other. You should (when properly played) have to stick strictly (within tolerances) to your chosen ethos, not dabble across all of them.
A good person might help an old lady cross the street. An evil doer might very well push the old lady down in the street. A Neutral wouldn't take either course of action, they would simply observe the woman as she chose her own fate.
With that having been said, yeah the reputation system could use a serious overhaul, assuming that were possible.
A Lawful Neutral character might be a guardsman that takes the letter of the law as the absolute authority. He would enforce the laws of the land whether they were to protect the innocent or exploit them. The morality behind the law and whether it is ethical or not doesn't come into play, only that the law is the law and it will be upheld to the letter. Also, a lawful neutral character doesn't have to uphold the law of the land and might be devoted to his or her own set of rules or guidelines. Like a hitman that refuses to do certain jobs depending on what he thinks is right. Leon from The Professional would be a Lawful Neutral character. "No women, no kids..."
True Neutral characters are more akin to what you are describing, but that doesn't have to be the rule. The Harper's, as described by Jaheira, are Neutral with the idea of upholding the balance of the land as paramount. The Harpers, as described by Jaheira (they're much more "good aligned" in the novels), are just as likely to put a stop to a tyrannical warlord gaining too much power as they are to stop a good kingdom from enveloping its surrounding lands.
Chaotic Neutral characters just do what strikes their fancy at the time. They have no moral compass as to what is good or evil, it doesn't matter to them. All that matters is what they think is the best course to take at any given moment. A chaotic neutral character is just as likely to stop a group of bandits from robbing a caravan as he is to join them, depending largely on how favorable the outcome will be for them. This isn't due to greed but more out of self preservation, one of the strongest diriving forces of any sentient being. Morality is nothing to a chaotic neutral character, they rely purely on instinct and gut reactions.
Altering Xan's dialogue file specifically told me it was the happiness that was at issue (the XANJ file in particular was triggering - this is the one where happinesslt (myself,0) is the trigger. I'm guessing it's checked at the time of reputation change, not at the time you kick the party member out. Hopefully with this in place, the happiness patch will now make it impossible for neutral characters to get "primed" a second time regardless of any further actions on my part.
But don't think of Good and Evil as the "right" or "wrong" thing. Think instead of them as physical forces manifest. Neutrality likewise is a force manifest, making the third point on a three sided triangle. Sure there are more moderates (of all three alignments) who gravitate towards one of the other two points aren't "Purists". But by and large they are either Good, Neutral or Evil because their main focus is that ethos.
Therefore I stand by my original statement. Neutrality isn't intended to be "The alignment of choice" for those who don't want to choose an alignment as so many players think. Particularly if your character is a Divine caster or other representative of your Deity. Your stance towards Good and/or Evil should absolutely be "I am not going to support either side" primarily because their patron Deities are often times in direct conflict with one side or the other.
Neutrality as a force in the cosmology of the realms is somewhat lacking. While there are the Inevitables as Lawful Neutral enforcers of the laws of the universe, and the Slaadi, the often brutal and merciless denizens of Limbo representing Chaotic Neutral outsiders, the Rilmani are very much not represented in DnD at all let alone the FR cosmology. Truth be told, none of the Neutral alignments have nearly as much coverage or power as the good and evil alignments when it comes to cosmology and "being a force in the universe."
Neutrality isn't the alignment of choice any more than any other alignment. Good, Neutral, and Evil characters always have to make choices, those choices typically follow a trend based on what alignment they are and therefore what their world view is. If they like doing good and can't fathom letting something bad happen to someone or the thought of doing something bad then they're good. If they don't particularly care about good or evil and want to live their lives the way they want without outside forces governing their actions they're typically neutral. If they don't care if bad things happen to people, or don't mind doing those bad things themselves as long as it is to their own benefit than they are evil. Each of these dumbed down summaries obviously becomes more expansive as you flesh out your character and see where they land on the law/chaos axis, but that's the gist of the alignments as they pertain to people. If we're talking the mystical forces of each, as governed by alien beings from other planes, it takes on a stranger and more indepth meaning. Should this have anything to do with 99.9% of people walking the face or Faerun? No, not really.
Neutral priests are the same as Good or Evil priests. they follow the dogma of their deity. That dogma might be skewed towards law, good, evil, chaos, neutrality, or a combination thereof. A Neutral priest does choose sides, he chooses the side of his deity, whatever side that might be. If you're a cleric of Silvanus, and the evil clergy of Malar is trying to destroy your own, as Malar attempts to wrest Silvanus' portfolio from him, you would choose a side. Your deities side. Just because you are now killing Malarites and thus ridding the world of an evil pressence doesn't mean you're doing it to be "good," you're doing it because it falls into your duties as a cleric of Silvanus. The only time a neutral priest should have the world view of "I will choose no sides in good, evil, law or chaos, for the ptrinciple of being neutral" is if that is a part of your deities dogma... as far as I can tell no deities really represent that worldview in FR.
Beyond that, alignment is so hotly debated and so nebulously defined, I am not prepared to get into a major discussion on the topic. You are entitled to your opinion or interpretation. For me, I have seen far to many PLAYERS who think that neutrality is merely "If you don't want to choose an alignment, choose Neutral". I don't personally believe that is the intent. But that is merely my personal definition.
Each player should play as they choose and have fun with. Nuff said.
I'm not saying there doesn't exist the odd person who thinks that killing off all of the 'X' people in the world will make the world a better place. Therefore trying to justify their actions as good, that person exists and they're insane. But the sheer amount of people willing to rob a liquor store and shoot the clerk so they can't be identified far far outnumbers them. You might rob a liquor store because you're poor, and need the money to buy medicine for your baby, which some people might try and construe into a "good" act. But people who do so know that it is wrong. They take precautions not to get caught because they know it's against the laws of man and (if we want to get biblical up in here) god. Killing a witness so you wont be caught is evil, and anyone who does it knows it is evil, unless of course they're insane. Taking someone's life to protect yourself from facing the consequnces of your actions is an evil act, people know this and still do it all the time. They're not "kicking babies for the fun of it" they're taking someones life so they can get away with doing something wrong. They think that their own well being is more important than that of someone else, and either don't consider or don't care about the lives they're ruining so that their life wont be any worse for wear.
Darwinism says that whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. From that perspective, the strongest deserve everything and the weak SHOULD die out. Or more simply, if you want it bad enough, you should defend it. If you don't, that's YOUR problem.
I don't for one second believe that "Evil" characters dress all in black and twist their vaudeville mustaches while they tie young women to train tracks "for no other reason than they are EVIL". Yeah, I needed the money more than the other guy. He was gonna do a bad thing and RAT on me. So I shot him. It might be twisted and wrong to us, but to the guy doing it, they have some rationalization that makes it 'Right' in their minds. Otherwise why do it at all?
All of those examples you've given are justifications on why someone would do something. They're saying "He was gonna do a bad thing and RAT on me. So I shot him." as the reasoning behind what they did. Do you honestly think someone says this to a cop or jury and expects them to say "Oh, ok. It's fine then... you killed them for a good reason." No. They killed them for a reason that was important to them, but I doubt it is something they would hold in high moral regard alongisde buying your sister her first communion dress. They might feel justified in what they did but to call it a "good" act, not likely.
As for the cop or the jury, they probably think that cops and juries are all corrupt. They don't expect that the cop will let them off, but they see the cops as the evil. Not themselves.
Just to be clear, someone with an evil moral compass probably thinks that helping a little old lady across the road is 'Evil'. She is old and feeble and using up resources that could feed others. Let her die. That is their "Right" (even if it is our wrong). They don't (mostly) choose the bad choices. They choose the good ones that support their ethos.
And yes, it is a justification. But quite frankly some of the stuff good people do is a justification as well.
People do evil acts, knowing they are evil, all the time. Serial killers frequently say they knew what they were doing was horrible but they were compelled to do it from some urge or deep rooted feeling. People can do evil things, knowing they are evil, without tying the damsel to the train tracks or sacrificing babies to Cthulhu.
There are infinities of different philosophies out there in the world, most of which are perfectly sane and (within tolerances) valid. If you were to go up to a hundred random groups or organizations (including whatever religion you care to name), you will get a hundred different answers of what is 'Good' and what is 'Evil', some of them Extremely dispirit and even in direct conflict. What to one group is the definition of goodness and sanctity, another group will universally condemn. And then if you ask 100 people WITHIN any one of those groups, you will get a hundred different variations on interpretation on any given point.
Things are no where near as black and white as you appear to think it is my friend. And I think your understanding of what constitutes clinical insanity is a bit skewed by what we see in movies and on television. Proving mental incompetence due to not understanding the difference between right and wrong is not meant to be what you are describing. If it were, a WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE would be in mental institutions instead of prisons.
But again, I am not here to change the way you think or see the world. I respect your belief system and merely feel that mine is different than yours. Not better or worse, merely different. And nothing is wrong with different.
I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to argue at this point. I've conceded that there are people who do evil things, thinking that they are good a long time ago. I never said that things were "black and white" when it comes to morality and all I was defending was that there are people who do evil things, even while knowing that they are evil. These people DO exist. That's really all I'm trying to say, and I think it is baffling to argue that there are ZERO cases of this happening, anywhere, ever. Is that what you're trying to say?
Those few guys you know are actually jerks and I sincerely doubt that they think they're doing the world a service by stealing from people. Ask them whether they steal the things to "teach them how to defend themselves" (which they aren't because having something stolen doesn't make you suddenly a master at theft prevention) is more important than the feeling they get from stealing it and/or now owning the property. If they tell you it's to teach people a lesson then they're lying to you. Not to mention there are a hundred different ways to teach this lesson without stealing from someone. The "good act" is apparently teaching people to defend their property (which is unimportant to them as you said, they are just "things" afterall, so why would they care if you could defend your property or not) but they're going about it by being jerks. Why not start teaching classes on theft prevention? Why not knock on the door of one of their marks and inform them that 'X' thing is in a vulnerable spot, you should keep it in a safer place? Why? Because they want to steal it. They may try to rationalize it however they want but their true motivation is to steal the property, if it wasn't... they wouldn't. And they know stealing is wrong, it's something everyone wants to prevent because it hurts people. Why would they try and teach people how to defend their things if stealing doesn't hurt anybody? Why would people try to prevent it? Because it does hurt people and they know that. If they think that hurting people (not physically but financially/emotionally) is a "good" act then they're psychos.
Just a few caveats. If you get something stole, it doesn't magically make you a master at thievery, it's true. It DOES make you much more keenly aware of how vulnerable you are. That will, in most cases, cause you to re-examine your defense strategy. That's all I was saying.
And you are right, there are people who kick pigs because they think they are bad people and deserve no better. There are also bad people (by our definition) who truly and honestly think they are doing the good and right thing (and aren't insane), the point I was trying to make.
Not gonna argue the point any further.
Since this has now devolved to Reductio ad absurdum, I am out.
(In response to "yeah, like you wouldn't learn something from that" (paraphrasing) comment that was edited out)
And see above about Reductio ad absurdum.