The benefit of being despised (evil) reputation 1
2hellwBg2
Member Posts: 19
DELETED
Post edited by 2hellwBg2 on
3
Comments
I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. Being good, or at least high-reputation, is easier than being evil/low reputation in these games. And the rewards are better.
Killing a poor bloke under a geas to get his boots of speed, not respecting ankheg kill quota, looting houses right under the nose of peasants who are pretty explicit about you forcing your way in, stealing Algernon's cloak, getting early Plate Mail from tricking Flaming Fist to attack near Beregost, killing Drizzt, killing Shandalar's daughters, killing Shandalar, killing one of the Dukes to get his Full Plate Mail when first arriving in Baldur's Gate, stealing the Kneecapper, never giving back a few items we're asked to retrieve, killing the mage that was a Nymph's former lover when a peaceful outcome is available, taking back items or coin by murdering quest givers that won't be needed any more, etc, etc, etc.
As for reputation, clearly it's advantageous to have it high, but that isn't incompatible with an evil or neutral playthrough. Reputation isn't talking about where the party stands on the good-evil axis, but about how popular the party is. (e.g. there are multiple ways to reach Reputation <4 by playing Lawful Neutral, no killing, no threats, no stealing)
But if the party has bad reputation, the shop price issue can be alleviated much more easily by playing neutral or evil, if only because mass shoplifting allows to sell items at much higher prices to the poor merchant that has no stock.