Reputation for Neutral Characters
Nadroir
Member Posts: 50
I was reading the new manual and I couldn't help but notice that neutral characters seem much more good aligned than actually neutral. For example from 6-15 they are neutral, but from 16-20 they are happy, 5 and 4 they are unhappy, 3 and 2 they are angry, on 1 they break.
The original manual has the following: On 1 they break, 2 and 3 they're angry, 4 and 5 they're unhappy, 6-18 they're neutral and 19-20 they're unhappy. I always found it kind of weird that they weren't happy from 8-12.
I was actually kind of hoping they'd make it so that neutral characters broke at both 19-20 and 1-2. Now it just seems really odd to have neutral characters happy at max rep but neutral from 6-15.
The original manual has the following: On 1 they break, 2 and 3 they're angry, 4 and 5 they're unhappy, 6-18 they're neutral and 19-20 they're unhappy. I always found it kind of weird that they weren't happy from 8-12.
I was actually kind of hoping they'd make it so that neutral characters broke at both 19-20 and 1-2. Now it just seems really odd to have neutral characters happy at max rep but neutral from 6-15.
2
Comments
1. With the old system Neutral characters were never happy, so you never got to hear their "happy" reactions to reputation shifts.
2. If you go hear their "happy" and "unhappy" soundfiles, for the most part, it seems that they prefer high reputations anyway.
Here is what each Neutral NPC says when they're happy:
Jaheira: "Perhaps this group needs not quite as much help as I thought." (I guess it could work for Neutral reputation, but its more good for me).
Garrick: "If man is known by the company he keeps, I shall be thought of gloriously." (This one clearly fits better with high rep).
Xan: "Perhaps we'll survive longer than I had originally thought." (Ambiguous I guess)
Branwen: "I am proud to stand among such strong warriors." (This line only really makes sense for high rep)
Quayle: "This group may be capable of learning after all!" (Ambiguous)
Faldorn: "We have pleased Oak Father, I sense it." (Ambiguous)
Safana: "Mmmmm. I keep very pleasant company." (Ambiguous)
Skie: "You're the finest group of friends I've ever had." (Clearly leans towards high reputation).
Sure, several of them are ambiguous, but the tendency to be happy with a good reputation is even more evident if you consider what they say when they're unhappy.
Im kinda pissed that they've ruined this, i dont think they realise that this change also ruins Jaheria's harper side story in BG2 as now the quest will only trigger if your evil as opposed to triggering when your unbalanced like it was suppose to.
I've never heard about Jaheira's BG2 quest only triggering when she's "unbalanced".
EDIT: Actually, from what I've read, her Harper's Hold quests actually work better if you have a high reputation.
From what i understand the harpers believe in a balance of good & evil and dont like it when things favour one side or the other. So if your doing too much good she would normally recognise this & seek to rectify it.
Harpers. Faerun's superheroes.
From what I've read, she only leaves your party in the Harper's Hold if you have a negative reputation.
Having a high reputation actually helps you more in more than one part of that questline from what I've researched.
I even take issue to (some) evil party members hating your good reputation. If I were evil, I would still like everyone respecting me so I could more easily take advantage of them if needed. I see no reason for neutral character, especially, to leave when you're at high rep. Branwen, for example, extols the virtues of Valor and Honor, so why should she leave you right after you give money to one too many beggars?
Neutral doesn't have to mean your worldview is neutrality/balance is best. It can mean you think you're a good person, but lack the convictions to actually do anything. It can also mean you're rather ambivalent about morals and ethics, but not opposed to either. Occasionally, yes, it can mean you strive for a balance between the two, but that's relatively rare (especially in real life), and mostly the domain of druids.
Personally, I'd prefer that the happy/unhappy tables depended on the individual, not on their alignment. Imoen, for example, is unique in that she will not leave the party at low rep, since she's your sister.
Lawful Neutral characters wouldnt care at all about reputation so long as the law is being obeyed by their actions. They wouldnt complain about low or high reputation, nor desert groups that they are contracted to serve because this would break their lawful oath of service.
True Neutral characters seek balance. They would be happiest at a reputation of 10-15. Any lower or higher and they would complain. They wouldnt leave a group with high reputation because they see the good in the actions of their companions, but they would be upset with the lack of balance (e.g. smiting down evil in the name of righteousness or lawfulness if the evil creatures have done nothing to deserve it). They will leave groups if reputation falls too low because this would break their belief of balance too strongly, and they would be far much more unhappy with such actions while they would still gain satisfaction for good and compassionate actions in a high reputation group.
Chaotic Neutrals (like Garrick's quote above) strive for personal glory and satisfaction above all else. Being in a high reputation good group would make them very happy, because they also get a share of the great reputation their actions will lead to. Similarly, if a Chaotic Neutral person manages to find profit, happiness and / or satisfaction of any kind (more pleasure seeking here than recognition), they will enjoy the company of evil people to the point of of it not damaging their reputation. Similary to TNs, CNs might abandon groups if the reputation falls too low as this would not be beneficial to them and would only damage their reputation. However, they would make an exception if their low reputation companions are exceedingly powerful, and offer them wealth and protection for their service. If remaining in the evil group would be more beneficial than leaving, they will stay, particularly more if they are bribed to remain, or severely threatened with their lives at stake if they leave (or the lives of their loved ones). Basically CNs are driven entirely by their own emotions, greed, and personal well being / safety more than anything else.
In BG1 + 2, the games reputation reaction handles all neutral NPCs as having a TN view towards reputation.
It wouldnt be bothersome to a true Chaotic Neutral to be excessively good because this would be beneficial to their reputation. Reward seeking is a good way of explaining it, a CN would be seeking the rewards and fame from being excessively good, while also being willing to seek any personal pleasure and satisfaction from anything evil. The only moral line drawn by CNs is not to harm people unless their life depended on it, such as being mercenaries / assassins for wealth, or defending themselves in a life or death situation.
I understand CN the most because I am that myself.
I should know.
I play good aligned parties all the time, and I always take Xan along.
And as soon as my rep gets over 15, suddenly I am hearing "This group is ESPECIALLY hopeless today!" every five minutes. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
And I am just like dammit Xan would you shut up.
But now, hearing this...
I can only think about how WEIRD it'll be for him to be HAPPY once my rep gets higher in BGEE.
I know. That's why the last part is there. I'm just like. Wow. That is going to be weird. Xan being happy at higher reps, that is. Weird and awkward.
That being said, I really think that neutral characters' reactions to reputation should depend on the character, if we're going to be realistic here. Like, Garrick would enjoy being in the company of heroes. He's a bard. Heroic tales are much better material than villainous ones. Jaheira would lean toward higher reputations because we ALL know she is REALLY Neutral Good and is only True Neutral because she's a druid. She consistently ACTS Good-aligned. Xan would probably be much happier if you had a neutral reputation, because the less notorious you are in either direction, the fewer people you would have trying to KILL you, and the more likely it would become for you to be...slightly less doomed. Still doomed, mind you, but slightly less so. BG2 example-I seriously doubt Haer'Dalis would give two shits either way. He'd likely be more concerned with your place on the Law/Chaos scale, and how much you're contributing to the increase of entropy.
Oops sorry, I thought you thought I wrote that was how it was in the original.
I definitely agree that reputation should depend on the character. Although, it would probably be a bit annoying to go through each character... especially since they should somewhat be acting within their alignments. It'd make more sense just to change them. I've actually wondered why they didn't change it so druid could be a couple extra alignments. If I remember correctly wild mages are only suppose to be chaotic alignments... it seems weird that they would change that one but not druids.
No, Wild Mages could always be any alignment. In my very first playthrough of BG2+ToB I played a Neutral Good Wild Mage Bhaalspawn.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant it says they are only suppose to be chaotic in the edition rule book that they were added in. I could be crazy.
Interestingly, if you look at the reputation table in the original Tales of the Sword Coast manual (on page 35) it shows neutrals as being happy with a reputation between 8 and 12, but this was not implemented in the game itself. The reputation tables in the original game manuals for BG1 and BG2 show neutrals as never being happy, which is consistent with their behaviour in the vanilla games.
I've always thought that it was intended that Tales of the Sword Coast would fix the behaviour of neutrals in line with the table in the TotSC manual, but that for whatever reason this was not implemented. Instead the BG1 behaviour remained and was also carried over to BG2.
If BG:EE was going to change the reputation reactions for neutrals (and I can see a reason for doing so, given that "happy" lines exist for such characters and those lines were not being heard), it should have followed the reputation table in TotSC manual (since that apparently reflects original developer intent).
But I think the real problem here is that chars like Branwen and Jaheira should've been good-aligned (though in Jaheira's case, the makers were forced to make her neutral due to her druid class restrictions).
I can imagine a more textbook neutral char, like Safana, being genuinely unhappy if a party got "too good."
The logic we used was that it took more work to get Neutral characters responding to reputation shifts.
This is actually how the reputation shifts work now:
- Good aligned characters will always be happy with rep increases and will always be unhappy with rep decreases (in the old system, for example, if your rep dropped from 20 to 19, they'd chim in with their "I'm happy" lines, or if your rep increased from 3 to 4 they would complain).
- Vice-versa for evil aligned.
- Neutrals will stay silent in the neutral zone and only start chiming in once you reach reputation extremes.
Not so sure about Xan. See, the thing about him is, he really doesn't seem like the type who'd want to draw attention to himself or his group. After all, the more famous or infamous you are, the more likely you'll make enemies and get yourself killed. I'm sure he'd be all for doing good, but I really don't think he'd want to be recognized for it.
Neutrals should only be happy when neutral
Also, most neutrals are not the everything-in-balance True Neutral types, but people who don't go out of their way to do good or evil on principle, only when it benefits them, when they feel like it (CN), or when it's the law (LN). Being praised by your community and given discounts is something you can be happy about without being good.