What should be the proper reaction responses of NPCs according to alignment?
Bhryaen
Member Posts: 2,874
Prefatorily, this is not a referendum on the Reputation system... which clearly could use an overhaul of its own. It's just a poll regarding the best structure for the Rep system already in place.
When your Rep drops or raises, NPCs have a reaction- or they can. They don't always. As it is there are three possible voiced/text reactions available in BG: 1. happy about it, 2. unhappy about it, 3. extremely unhappy about it... and then you could add, of course, the break-up reaction. So there's not much variety to happy reactions. So given the limitation of game resources, that's what we've got to work with. And that's all we're addressing here: the ambiance of NPC reactions to player actions. Powergamers will be disappointed. ;-)
At present the Vanilla BG NPC reaction system is set up for NPCs to react primarily to the Rep score you end up at. Evil NPCs voice unhappiness if a Rep change ends up in a high Rep situation even if you drop in Rep from, say, 19 to 18. Good NPCs are unhappy if you change to something in a low Rep range, even if you, say, gain from rescuing a dead kitten from Rep 3 to Rep 4. Conversely if the party is at Rep 20 and kills a peasant or something to drop to Rep 16, Good NPCs give happy approval because you still landed in their Happy Rep range. And if you save the Cloakwood miners from the flooding and jump from Rep 2 to Rep 4, Evil NPCs get all chipper and complimentary because your good deed nevertheless was still in the range. In other words, it's entirely counter-intuitive how the NPCs are reacting. And Neutrals, well, when they speak at all, tend to just follow the Good reactions.
This is at once two questions:
1. how should the Good and Evil NPCs react- obviously diametrically opposite one another?
2. how should Neutrals react?
For the latter question regarding Neutrals there have been a number of modded options offered to make them seem more... Neutral... But if you listen to the reactions built into the Neutral NPCs you'll hear that they voice approval and disapproval on ethical grounds and repugnance similar to the Good NPCs... similar but not exactly. None of them is an Ajantis...
And then there are the sorts of virtues they extol when happy mixed in: pride and strength (Branwen), depth of character and admirability (Faldorn), glory and good company (Garrick), capability and maturity (Jaheira), enlightenment and intelligence (Quayle), pleasantry and wise guidance (Safana), camaraderie and decency (Skie), sustainability and hope (Xan). None of those qualities tend to apply as well to Evil actions as to Good, though killing Lord Binky the Buffoon should really be part of Good behavior... Anyway, the NPC reaction system ought to reflect those actual NPC voiced reactions properly.
And to throw another wrench in the works comes the other aspect of Vanilla behavior: Neutrals get muted. As mentioned initially, there is an Unhappy and a Very Unhappy, but there is no Very Happy. Thus there's no way to structure the reactions for NPCs to react more happily to some things than others. Vanilla had it easy with Good and Evil by simply making them Happy at one range, Unhappy at another, Very Unhappy at the extremes. Neutrals end up Unhappy in the same range as Good, but Happy in a range smaller than good. This ends up making Neutrals simply voiceless at particular ranges. I don't know off-hand if Vanilla mutes it at high-range or mid-range, but the main thing it does is remove any reaction at all. So the player ends up not hearing Neutral NPC Happy sounds and thus misses out on that content. This is a consideration to factor into the equation.
From all that jibber-jabber can be delineated the approaches listed below. If you can think of one I didn't mention, do feel free to select the "None of the above" vote and describe an alternative. This is intended as a discussion.
1. Vanilla:
As I described, the only decisive factor is that Good and to some degree Neutral NPCs stay angry while at low Rep and happy at high Rep while Evil stays angry at high Rep and happy at low rep. This one gives rise to all the absurd situations mentioned above- i.e., being able to get approval and disapproval from Evils and Goods despite the nature of the acts themselves. Neutrals are muted for one part of the Rep scale.
2. Vanilla, but Neutrals happy in mid-range:
This is the same as Vanilla (1) for Good and Evil, but Neutrals express happiness when Rep falls or raises into a mid-range of maybe 7-15 (dunno) and then have disapproval reactions when your Rep climbs higher or drops lower than that mid-range Rep. This means that not only would you have the counter-intuitiveness of Vanilla's Good and Evil NPCs, but also would you have the Neutrals getting happy for murdering a Flame Fist because it drops from Rep 20 to Rep 10 but also unhappy- even seriously unhappy- for anything you do that wins a Rep above 15, altruistic or no, even so for Gorion's old pal, Jaheira, who has long been his friend and you can trust her. One advantage is that Neutrals do speak their lines as often as Good and Evil, but their lines are simply ridiculously incongruous at times. Neutrals will speak happy lines when you do evil things that put the party in the mid-range, and they'll be unhappy when you do good things if the Rep boosts you outside the mid-range.
3. NPCs react to the direction of the Rep change, not the actual Rep score, Neutrals stay happy at mid-range Rep:
This means that now even though you're at Rep 2, if you rescue the dead kitten, Good NPCs will express happiness about the party's actions while Evil will express repugnance. And if you're at Rep 19 and drop a single Rep point to 18 for innocently telling an Amnish Guard to "DIEEE, POND SCUM," you will get angry reactions from Good NPCs and happy reactions from Evil NPCs. It bypasses the Rep score requirement for the most part, at least when Rep is already out of the "UNHAPPY_SERIOUS" Rep range (1-7 for Good, 15-20 for Evil, or whatever it is). The final Rep score does still count, however, because if you drop from 3 to 2 in Rep, a Good NPC will give their very disapproving reaction. And if you rescue the dead kitten when you're at Rep 18, Evil NPCs will give their own extra angry threats and disapproval. And a move to 1 or 20 will still bring the expected Vanilla break-off behavior for Goods and Evils respectively anyway.
Neutrals still end up doing as in #2, reacting most happily to mid-range Rep with all the incongruity mentioned above. So if you save the Cloakwood miners and go to Rep 18 or so, Skie will interject that she doesn't think it's morally right, Xan may say that keeping up such evil will make your inevitable doom deserved, etc.
4. Same as #3 but now Neutral NPCs simply have the same reaction type as the Good NPCs:
This has the drawback that Neutral and Good reactions are indistinguishable, making Neutrals seems less unique as an alignment at least as far as voiced reactions go, though as mentioned above their actual voiced reactions don't differ much from Good reactions anyway. On the other hand, it has the advantage that Neutrals will speak just as often as Evil and Good when the party makes actions, so the player never misses out on voiced content, and, of course, this approach avoids the incongruity of Neutral voiced lines with actions taken. It's at once the least imaginitive but the most inclusive.
5. Same as #4, but Neutral NPCs are silent up to if/ when you increase in Rep to high-range (15-20ish):
The advantage of regular Neutral voiced lines is sacrificed for giving Neutral NPCs a unique reaction that differs from Good NPCs. In fact, this approach makes Neutrals not speak Happy lines at all unless and until the party Rep reaches a high level, and then it's all the time. The idea behind this approach is that Neutrals are "hard to please" and are less likely to react happily if you're not giving them all they want. Neutrality is equated with high-maintenance personalities with apparently higher expectations for reputation than Good NPCs, unable to be happy unless they're considered heroes of the Sword Coast.
6. Same as #4, but Neutral NPCs are silent when you increase in Rep to a high-range (15-20ish):
Again, the advantage of regular Neutral voiced lines is sacrificed for giving Neutral NPCs a unique reaction that differs from Good NPCs. In this case Neutral NPCs will speak their Happy lines contentedly until you reach high Rep scores, effectively cutting off their Happy speech for the remainder of the time you're a big hero. The idea behind this approach is that Neutral NPCs prefer the good, but also prefer not to be extremists. They want the glory, and yet they not only lack high expectations of acclaim, but also feel less comfortable with it since they're not paladins and rangers, just non-evil adventurers with their own agenda.
When your Rep drops or raises, NPCs have a reaction- or they can. They don't always. As it is there are three possible voiced/text reactions available in BG: 1. happy about it, 2. unhappy about it, 3. extremely unhappy about it... and then you could add, of course, the break-up reaction. So there's not much variety to happy reactions. So given the limitation of game resources, that's what we've got to work with. And that's all we're addressing here: the ambiance of NPC reactions to player actions. Powergamers will be disappointed. ;-)
At present the Vanilla BG NPC reaction system is set up for NPCs to react primarily to the Rep score you end up at. Evil NPCs voice unhappiness if a Rep change ends up in a high Rep situation even if you drop in Rep from, say, 19 to 18. Good NPCs are unhappy if you change to something in a low Rep range, even if you, say, gain from rescuing a dead kitten from Rep 3 to Rep 4. Conversely if the party is at Rep 20 and kills a peasant or something to drop to Rep 16, Good NPCs give happy approval because you still landed in their Happy Rep range. And if you save the Cloakwood miners from the flooding and jump from Rep 2 to Rep 4, Evil NPCs get all chipper and complimentary because your good deed nevertheless was still in the range. In other words, it's entirely counter-intuitive how the NPCs are reacting. And Neutrals, well, when they speak at all, tend to just follow the Good reactions.
This is at once two questions:
1. how should the Good and Evil NPCs react- obviously diametrically opposite one another?
2. how should Neutrals react?
For the latter question regarding Neutrals there have been a number of modded options offered to make them seem more... Neutral... But if you listen to the reactions built into the Neutral NPCs you'll hear that they voice approval and disapproval on ethical grounds and repugnance similar to the Good NPCs... similar but not exactly. None of them is an Ajantis...
BRANWEN: (TRUE NEUTRAL)As I said, that is what we have to work with, and it should affect how the Neutral reactions should be structured because otherwise the wrong setup can involve NPCs speaking contrary to how you'd intuitively anticipate it. In some cases the Neutrals express repugnance to evil outright (Quayle, Xan). In others they hint at it- such as Skie's sense of what's "morally right" and Garrick being unable to "stand by" for or "stomach" party behavior. Surely it's incongruous for Skie to state in an innocent voice, "I don't think what we're doing is morally right," when you save the boy in the lighthouse. Garrick too isn't inclined to puke for saving the lighthouse boy as much as by murdering people in the street... as he reacted with horror to Silke's entreaty to kill the bards. Jaheira, Branwen, Faldorn, and Safana don't have such clearcut anti-evil reactions, but, well, Jaheira is married to Good NPC Khalid. She's a Harper. It's difficult to assume she would be just as comfortable with killing a Dryad as with saving the Dryad of the Cloudpeaks' tree. It begs the question of druids having to be True Neutral, but, well, 2E DnD and all that... Branwen mostly emphasizes warriorhood, honor and glory and stuff, but you'd have to really stretch that to consider her feeling just as "proud" and "honorable" when you're killing kids and getting caught stealing ("What kind of cowards are we?") as when you're getting accolades for clearing the Nashkel Mines. If Faldorn is anything like the other Shadow Druids met in the Cloakwood Forest she's more intent on killing anyone not polite enough while passing through the woods, but her voiced lines are a bit less rabid and her own reaction to killing or rescuing the Dryad of the Cloudpeaks is clearly the non-evil one. Safana really has the most neutral reactions of all of them, so it's harder to see how she aligns with either evil or good, but does the "right direction" she prefers for the party extend to low Rep lawlessness and treachery?
HAPPY: I am proud to stand among such strong warriors.
UNHAPPY: Our actions are not those of warrior born.
VERY UNHAPPY: What sort of craven cowards are we?
BREAK: I can no longer honorably work with such as you.
FALDORN: (TRUE NEUTRAL)
HAPPY: We have pleased Oak Father, I sense it.
UNHAPPY: Oak Father would frown on us now.
VERY UNHAPPY: I cannot stand by people of such little character.
BREAK: I will have nothing more to do with your lot.
GARRICK: (CHAOTIC NEUTRAL)
HAPPY: If man is known by the company he keeps, I shall be thought of gloriously.
UNHAPPY: Why did we just do that?
VERY UNHAPPY: I can't stand by and just let this happen.
BREAK: I'm sorry, but I have to leave, I can't stomach what we do any more.
JAHEIRA: (TRUE NEUTRAL)
HAPPY: Perhaps this group needs not quite as much help as I thought.
UNHAPPY: I don't like the way this group is turning out. Better leadership might help.
VERY UNHAPPY: Decide you well your next move! I'll not allow this to continue!
BREAK: You have shown your true nature, and we are henceforth enemies!
QUAYLE: (CHAOTIC NEUTRAL)
HAPPY: This group may be capable of learning after all!
UNHAPPY: 'Tis a wonder your brains can keep you breathing! Try to behave!
VERY UNHAPPY: Only the truly inept would resort to such evil as this! I'll not stand much more!
BREAK: I am getting stupid just being near you! You are unteachable! Goodbye!
SAFANA (CHAOTIC NEUTRAL)
HAPPY: Mm. I keep very pleasant company.
UNHAPPY: I really think this party needs new leadership.
VERY UNHAPPY: To lead this party, we need someone intelligent, preferably female, and most likely me.
BREAK: I've tried to guide this group in the right direction, but I'm tired of trying. Goodbye.
SKIE: (TRUE NEUTRAL)
HAPPY: You're the finest group of friends I've ever had.
UNHAPPY: I don't think what we're doing is morally right.
VERY UNHAPPY: All of you are such pigs.
BREAK: I can't take this any more, I'm going back home.
XAN: (LAWFUL NEUTRAL)
HAPPY: Perhaps we'll survive longer than I had originally thought.
UNHAPPY: This group is especially hopeless today!
VERY UNHAPPY: Keep up this evil, and we're deservedly doomed.
BREAK: I cannot abide by these actions! I must take my leave from this barbaric fellowship.
And then there are the sorts of virtues they extol when happy mixed in: pride and strength (Branwen), depth of character and admirability (Faldorn), glory and good company (Garrick), capability and maturity (Jaheira), enlightenment and intelligence (Quayle), pleasantry and wise guidance (Safana), camaraderie and decency (Skie), sustainability and hope (Xan). None of those qualities tend to apply as well to Evil actions as to Good, though killing Lord Binky the Buffoon should really be part of Good behavior... Anyway, the NPC reaction system ought to reflect those actual NPC voiced reactions properly.
And to throw another wrench in the works comes the other aspect of Vanilla behavior: Neutrals get muted. As mentioned initially, there is an Unhappy and a Very Unhappy, but there is no Very Happy. Thus there's no way to structure the reactions for NPCs to react more happily to some things than others. Vanilla had it easy with Good and Evil by simply making them Happy at one range, Unhappy at another, Very Unhappy at the extremes. Neutrals end up Unhappy in the same range as Good, but Happy in a range smaller than good. This ends up making Neutrals simply voiceless at particular ranges. I don't know off-hand if Vanilla mutes it at high-range or mid-range, but the main thing it does is remove any reaction at all. So the player ends up not hearing Neutral NPC Happy sounds and thus misses out on that content. This is a consideration to factor into the equation.
From all that jibber-jabber can be delineated the approaches listed below. If you can think of one I didn't mention, do feel free to select the "None of the above" vote and describe an alternative. This is intended as a discussion.
1. Vanilla:
As I described, the only decisive factor is that Good and to some degree Neutral NPCs stay angry while at low Rep and happy at high Rep while Evil stays angry at high Rep and happy at low rep. This one gives rise to all the absurd situations mentioned above- i.e., being able to get approval and disapproval from Evils and Goods despite the nature of the acts themselves. Neutrals are muted for one part of the Rep scale.
2. Vanilla, but Neutrals happy in mid-range:
This is the same as Vanilla (1) for Good and Evil, but Neutrals express happiness when Rep falls or raises into a mid-range of maybe 7-15 (dunno) and then have disapproval reactions when your Rep climbs higher or drops lower than that mid-range Rep. This means that not only would you have the counter-intuitiveness of Vanilla's Good and Evil NPCs, but also would you have the Neutrals getting happy for murdering a Flame Fist because it drops from Rep 20 to Rep 10 but also unhappy- even seriously unhappy- for anything you do that wins a Rep above 15, altruistic or no, even so for Gorion's old pal, Jaheira, who has long been his friend and you can trust her. One advantage is that Neutrals do speak their lines as often as Good and Evil, but their lines are simply ridiculously incongruous at times. Neutrals will speak happy lines when you do evil things that put the party in the mid-range, and they'll be unhappy when you do good things if the Rep boosts you outside the mid-range.
3. NPCs react to the direction of the Rep change, not the actual Rep score, Neutrals stay happy at mid-range Rep:
This means that now even though you're at Rep 2, if you rescue the dead kitten, Good NPCs will express happiness about the party's actions while Evil will express repugnance. And if you're at Rep 19 and drop a single Rep point to 18 for innocently telling an Amnish Guard to "DIEEE, POND SCUM," you will get angry reactions from Good NPCs and happy reactions from Evil NPCs. It bypasses the Rep score requirement for the most part, at least when Rep is already out of the "UNHAPPY_SERIOUS" Rep range (1-7 for Good, 15-20 for Evil, or whatever it is). The final Rep score does still count, however, because if you drop from 3 to 2 in Rep, a Good NPC will give their very disapproving reaction. And if you rescue the dead kitten when you're at Rep 18, Evil NPCs will give their own extra angry threats and disapproval. And a move to 1 or 20 will still bring the expected Vanilla break-off behavior for Goods and Evils respectively anyway.
Neutrals still end up doing as in #2, reacting most happily to mid-range Rep with all the incongruity mentioned above. So if you save the Cloakwood miners and go to Rep 18 or so, Skie will interject that she doesn't think it's morally right, Xan may say that keeping up such evil will make your inevitable doom deserved, etc.
4. Same as #3 but now Neutral NPCs simply have the same reaction type as the Good NPCs:
This has the drawback that Neutral and Good reactions are indistinguishable, making Neutrals seems less unique as an alignment at least as far as voiced reactions go, though as mentioned above their actual voiced reactions don't differ much from Good reactions anyway. On the other hand, it has the advantage that Neutrals will speak just as often as Evil and Good when the party makes actions, so the player never misses out on voiced content, and, of course, this approach avoids the incongruity of Neutral voiced lines with actions taken. It's at once the least imaginitive but the most inclusive.
5. Same as #4, but Neutral NPCs are silent up to if/ when you increase in Rep to high-range (15-20ish):
The advantage of regular Neutral voiced lines is sacrificed for giving Neutral NPCs a unique reaction that differs from Good NPCs. In fact, this approach makes Neutrals not speak Happy lines at all unless and until the party Rep reaches a high level, and then it's all the time. The idea behind this approach is that Neutrals are "hard to please" and are less likely to react happily if you're not giving them all they want. Neutrality is equated with high-maintenance personalities with apparently higher expectations for reputation than Good NPCs, unable to be happy unless they're considered heroes of the Sword Coast.
6. Same as #4, but Neutral NPCs are silent when you increase in Rep to a high-range (15-20ish):
Again, the advantage of regular Neutral voiced lines is sacrificed for giving Neutral NPCs a unique reaction that differs from Good NPCs. In this case Neutral NPCs will speak their Happy lines contentedly until you reach high Rep scores, effectively cutting off their Happy speech for the remainder of the time you're a big hero. The idea behind this approach is that Neutral NPCs prefer the good, but also prefer not to be extremists. They want the glory, and yet they not only lack high expectations of acclaim, but also feel less comfortable with it since they're not paladins and rangers, just non-evil adventurers with their own agenda.
- What should be the proper reaction responses of NPCs according to alignment?51 votes
- Vanilla: NPC reaction based on Rep score, Neutrals resemble Good or are silent.5.88%
- Vanilla, modded: NPC reaction based on Rep score, Neutrals happy in mid-range Rep.13.73%
- New: Good/Evil NPCs react to direction of change. Neutrals happy in mid-range Rep.35.29%
- New: All NPCs react to direction of change. Neutrals follow Good.17.65%
- New: All NPCs react to direction of change. Neutrals folllow Good, silent mid-Rep.1.96%
- New: All NPCs react to direction of change. Neutrals follow Good, silent high-Rep.21.57%
- None of the above: There's an inventive alternative!3.92%
Post edited by Bhryaen on
5
Comments
There's no way to tweak the incongruous lines of Neutrals with some clever scripting? That's what I would most prefer.
It would let this world become more reality~
Good point... And text walls tend to look like obstacles... Not sure if everyone voting is reading it all either...
@Lemernis
That sort of rework is far more elaborate, alas. Plus it's more of a tampering with the NPCs than I believe we're allowed...
@g314
There's #5 for that one as well- Neutrals are silent unless you become heroes due to them wanting the acclaim more than the satisfaction of doing good things... though there is another case to make that neutrals prefer not to get the spotlight that heroism entails- i.e., #6. What Neutrals really are is open to discussion...
@Hoebagger
The problem is that the only arguably Neutral voiceset is Safana... so she'd be the only Neutral in the game. :-/
@Zeckul
You're aware that that Approach #2 and #3 lets folks like Xan, Quayle, and Skie speak lines about you doing things that are evil and "not right" when you've just done something good? That is, if you help the Dryad of the Cloudpeaks and your Rep reaches 19, Jaheira will say, "Decide you well your next move! I'll not allow this to continue!" and Faldorn will say, "I cannot stand by people of such low character!" So the druid NPCs get upset for helping a dryad! But if you were at 16 and kill the Dryad for a couple Rep points down into the mid-range, the two druids start praising you, Jaheira complimenting your leadership and Faldorn saying you've "pleased Oak father." (???!!)
But I'm confused by the vote options here..
I think Neutrals should be happy with good characters. "A good neighbour is better than an evil one" as cited from 3.5. There is nothing wrong with a positive reputation anyway. People will walk up to you and give you cake! "You live by da cake you die by da cake!" Besides, following a good person doesn't make them entirely good. They just need to follow the leader, and when they leave, they can be neutral again. No harm done.
So I want Neutrals to give approval as long as we're in the mid-high rep. They can stick with evil people too with low rep, but only to a point where it's still beneficial. They might at some point go: "Alright. I'm pretty sure killing Baby Jesus isn't very beneficial for our group, leader. People will get angry."
I feel people walking the path of evil are setting themselves up to be betrayed, so only the evilest of evil will stick with a very evil man. I have a friend who loves playing evil characters (He's a good guy in real life), but he generally feels a good villain is when no one is truly happy.. except for him, though sometimes he'll go the extra mile to p**s off everyone and not be happy himself. :P
So, what do I vote based from this?
Sounds from your description that Neutrals would be the most likely to express happiness- both at high rep and even dropping into low rep- only expressing anger when 1. rep drops within a mid or high Rep range, or 2. rep drops into a range that's just too low. This corresponds most closely with Approach #4, but it adds happiness statements to, say, Jaheira or Faldorn if you drop from Rep 8 to Rep 6 for killing the Dryad... which isn't so congruous... It sort of works for other Neutral NPCs though, but again, killing a commoner and dropping from mid-Rep to Rep 4 would get statements complimenting leadership, gloriousness, making fine friends, wisdom, and even (from Safana) pleasure. Safana's Neutral, not a sadist. :-P
Your description doesn't mention anything about Neutrals going quiet either, so #5 and #6 aren't as close to your position as #4...
@Hoebagger
Since there's not much to BG1 personalities except for their voiced lines (not all NPCs really have much in the way of quests), I tend to just base my sense of them from that. As it is, it makes Garrick's lines funnier that he speaks highly of glory but is the NPC who is the quickest to lose morale and run. hehehe Just because they say lines doesn't mean they necessarily believe them. ;-)
It's a tough question to be sure.
Hmm, I do like the idea behind 5, but I'm a fan of uncomplicated ideas.
I think 5 works if that description is included into the game though!
Promise that description will make it into the game and I will vote 5. If not, 4, because it's most intuitive, and you don't have to guess if people are happy or not.
Actually @Tanthalas and I were finding the opposite: if you change the system so that the happiness or unhappiness is based on the direction of the Rep change (not the ultimate Rep score), all the voices work perfectly and there are no oddball reactions like the ones I've mentioned. So that makes #4, #5 and #6 work for matching NPC reactions to party actions.
It's only when the NPC reaction is based solely on the Rep score that you end up with that the resulting reaction is incongruous- i.e., #2 and #3. So there is a fix for the incongruity.
The problem then becomes whether or not it's important to distinguish Neutral from Good and how so. Whereas #4, #5, and #6 will give sensible reactions, #5 and #6 end up with no reaction at all in some cases. Again, that's a result of there being two unhappy reactions and only one happy one to draw from. Best IMO would be #5 or #6 if there were a Mild Happy and a Very Happy to be assigned given the Rep range an increase or decrease lands in. This way you don't have to sacrifice spoken content just to make Neutrals sound right. But... not happening unless we get the original voice actors in to do a single Mild Happy sound... so... not happening...
Most of the voiced lines only make sense if Neutrals like high rep and dislike low rep.
EDIT: Voted 5, but 4 looks better to me. At least that way NPC will all react to changes in rep.
But seriously, great commitment. I'm sure what you find out ultimately will work
While the idea of npcs reacting to the direction of reputation change rather than absolute reputation level may on the face of it seem an improvement, it really isn't in some ways. For example, suppose you save that kitten and your rep goes up from 3 to 4, does it really make sense for good npcs to now start singing the praises of a party that is still at such a low reputation? A single good act is unlikely to change their overall view of what the party has been up to. It's a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough for them to feel comfortable with where the party is at morally.
The vanilla happy/unhappy/very unhappy statements by npcs upon rep change do (sort of) make sense if seen not as a reaction to the immediate rep changing event, but a statement of where the npcs see the party’s overall moral standing.
Nonetheless if a substantial change to npc reputation change reactions were to be implemented, a compromise between the vanilla and the proposed “direction of change” system could work as follows:
An npc says nothing in respect of a rep change that, while in the "right direction" for that npc, still leaves the party rep in the angry or unhappy range for that npc's alignment (the various ranges for break/angry/unhappy/neutral/happy are given in the game manual). However, once a rep change in the right direction leaves the party rep in the neutral range or better the npc would express happiness at the rep changing event [or as an alternative, the happy lines might only kick in once the change leaves the rep in the happy range]. This would make sense. If you have in the past acted in a way an npc disapproves of, it will take a while to convince them that you have changed (although they won’t criticise you for at least going in the right direction).
Where there is a rep changing event that is in the "wrong direction" for the npc in question but the change still leaves the party rep in the happy range for that npc's alignment, the npc would be silent. However, once a rep change in the wrong direction leaves the party rep in the neutral range or worse, the npc would voice the unhappy (and eventually very unhappy) lines [alternatively, the unhappy lines might only kick in once the change leaves the rep in the unhappy range]. Again this makes sense. If you have impressed an npc with your actions in the past, later actions they disagree with may not immediately lead to them voicing their disapproval (they may keep their own counsel or give you the benefit of the doubt). However, if such actions continue they would eventually say something about it.
Neutral npcs should be happy at middle values (and unhappy at the extremes – although as per the manual they should get unhappy earlier with low rep than high). Otherwise the same general rules set out above would apply to them, but the "right direction" for neutrals would be whatever takes them from where their rep currently is to a value closer to a rep of 10. In addition, they would not express a happy response for any single rep change in the right direction that is too large (perhaps 3 rep points or more- perhaps neutrals tend to be gradualists, against sudden change). This avoids a neutral npc expressing, for example, joy at a murder of an innocent that takes the party from a high rep into the mid rep happy range for neutrals.
Just some thoughts, which are probably junk.
[Edited for clarity]
I do see what you mean about the failings of the vanilla behaviour. I just don't think that moving to a system where direction of reputation change always determines npc reactions works either. Given a choice between two flawed approaches my natural instinct is to stick with what was originally in the vanilla game.
I've suggested an alternative approach in my above post. I'm not sure if it is workable though.
Actually one thing you said makes a lot of sense: why would a Good NPC shower the very same praises for raising from Rep 2 to Rep 3 as they would for raising from Rep 19 to Rep 20? Or why would an Evil NPC be ecstatic about one negative drop from Rep 18 to 17 when you've been courting heroism all along? Maybe the best thing would be for Good NPCs to voice their happy lines only when good deeds land party Rep in the mid to high range. Same with Evils- only happy when the Rep drop happens in the mix to low Rep range. This at once deals with the oddity of them happy despite a disagreeable total party Rep and makes pleasing all the alignments more of a challenge.
The problem would be one of then applying to Good and Evil NPCs the same treatment that Neutrals get in Approach 5 & 6: voiced content would be sacrificed in favor of creating a unique reaction. But it does appear like a robust system with fun possibilities. Then after you've killed Drizzt and are down to Rep 4, the Good NPCs essentially will be giving you the cold shoulder until you do something to redeem yourself. Or Evils would appreciate your ill-doings but wouldn't react until you'd stopped all that goody-two-shoes stuff that was making them look like sissies... or whatever.
What I'd like to avoid, however, are those moments when you hear the NPC react in a way that jars the senses. That's why #1, #2, & #3 just seem... meh... on the whole, particularly #2 which gives the worst of both worlds where you can save the Nashkel Mines but get threats to leave from Good NPCs because the increase happens when Rep is low while at higher Rep Neutrals get outright uppity and self-righteous or Garrick saying he's about to puke- while Nashkel is throwing a victory parade. I mean, there's only so much of that that the player can be reasonably asked to overlook. That's why #4 is probably the safest all 'round, but... dunno. I like this new element you brought up.
If only there were a lesser and greater Happy reaction it would mean no NPCs having to go silent...
Oh, and the idea of different reactions based on the degree of the drop has been mentioned elsewhere- a different reaction to a 10pt drop than a 1pt drop- but that idea more than the others requires more variety already in the available voicesets because of how much more complexity that would add to the reaction system...