Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Remove/change high reputation level causing evil party members to leave

This has probably been said before, but it's annoying when Viconia leaves, despite gaining a ton olf gold/magic items/success, because you saved some farmer's cow from some xvarts. Like, what's she thinking, omg, that's the last straw CHARNAME. You saved that cow and I will stand no more, fool!

And it's not like Jaheria, a druid, and Kivan, a ranger, get bent out of shape if I go about systematically slaughtering every squirrel, cow, and horse in the game for the lulz. And yet, Viconia cares about saving a cow?!

I get a low reputation level causing good party members to leave. They have consciences and morals niggling at them. Evil party members don't and should be selfish enough not to care what CHARNAME is up to so long as it benefits them, because they're selfish by nature. I mean, don't the evil characters enjoy being able to buy items from shopkeepers at a discount?

If anything, please institute a bribe system. Have the evil character demand gold or something to remain with the party. If you don't want to pay or can't afford the bribe, the evil character leaves. That should be simple to implement, right?

If you think this cheapens the roleplay experience or the spirit of the game, then impose an experience penalty on the bribed evil character or something. I mean, evil characters get to bribe churches to magically keep their reputations up without having to do legitimate "good" acts, so why should my paladin be force to quietly murder townsfolk so Viconia doesn't walk off because I saved a friggin cow? Or why should I need to make poor Imoen intentionally botch a pickpocket attempt so I can stick my tongue out at some guards and run away?

Seriously, the reputation system in general is pretty nonsensical and one of the weakest systems in both games. You get the same bonus for saving a cow as you do for saving the livelyhoods of an entire town. You cap out at 20, even though you go on to do greater and greater things. Like, once you save a few cows and recover a few corpses for people, you're reputation is as good as it ever will be, despite some of the epic things you do over the course of the two games. It's just aggravating.

MadhaxIllustairKirkorJalilyaerefrygtPantalionJorkanItomonNihilus

Comments

  • MadhaxMadhax Member Posts: 1,416
    Agreed, I wish they had tackled this in the enhanced edition. Unless you're roleplaying "stupid evil", it rarely makes sense to commit acts that reduce your reputation. There are very few quests with evil options that reward you as much as the good option while lowering your reputation. There are a few in BG2, but it's still an issue.

    You make a good point about evil party members, too. I recently had Kagain in my party, an evil mercenary motivated entirely by greed and lust for money. Returning a bounty for several thousand gold should appease him, but it raised my reputation, so he quit. It makes no sense, and is extremely aggravating.

    Kirkor
  • KirkorKirkor Member Posts: 700
    I totally agree with OP, and it always bugged me. Why would evil guys leave, if they get tons of gold and profit? Because you are good? So what?
    I understand, they would whine about it, but leaving?

  • IllustairIllustair Member Posts: 817
    I actually like this idea, honestly. But the game wants balance, that's why they made the "not so good" ones more powerful than those that are not. I haven't roleplayed as evil, but I think at the end of the day, the game is more intended for party of good alignment, that's why you'd more benefit from it I believe...and to my understanding, it's the reason why Edwin, Viconia, etc are so buffed as compared to others to balance things out. A new feature to make party members stay must be able to accommodate both alignment types. Maybe an influence system, just like in NWN-2? Then again, maybe it'd just be "reputation" under another name.

  • bigdogchrisbigdogchris Member Posts: 1,336
    edited December 2012
    If it's being suggested so that Evil characters will be content in a in party committing good deeds, I disagree with a change like that. An evil character is not going to sit there content and quiet while a Paladin saves lives, the evil character will be upset that they did not take advantage of the dead or the situation.

    The closest change I would think may be acceptable is to remove breaking at 19 or 20 reputation for Evil and change that to angry. That said, why would a Lawful Good character allow a Chaotic Evil character in the party?

    I do think that the reputation system as a whole is poor though. Since when is reputation automatically defined as good? You could be vile and still be very reputable.

    Riolathelaerefrygtelminster
  • DivergentZenDivergentZen Member Posts: 7
    That's another problem. The reputation system is divorced from the alignment system.

    As far as evil characters being upset over a good character doing good things, it really depends on the motivation of the individual party member. A character motivated by greed isn't going to care so long as the gold keeps coming in. Edwin craves power, so as long as he keeps gaining power he shouldn't care if you turn in an insane evil clerics holy symbol.

    And considering that your collecting a fat bounty by killing someone, why is it considered a "good" action. I get that it would add to your characters fame, but it shouldn't be something that would tick Dorn off. He got to murder someone for gold and got thanked for it.

    Also, chaotic evil characters are problematic. By all rights, half the time you camp with one in your party you should get an automatic game over for when your PC's throat gets cut in the middle of the night. They do bad things randomly and without reason.

    So maybe reputation should be treated as fame and the more you have the better? So even evil actions can gain fame, with the exception of openly stealing from a murdering townsfolk.

    aerefrygtKirkor
  • HexHammerHexHammer Member Posts: 288
    I've always considerd this the most foolish part of BG, it's totally devoid of irl multi world corps that exploits 3rd world countries, have slave labour and pollutes, all these evil coprs like nothing better than having a good rep.

    It's moronic and glaringly ignorent of irl!

  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,867
    edited December 2012
    Actually...it's not. The sword coast ISN'T the whole world. The sword coast is primarily run by good or at least neutral leadership and thus things like slavery and the like aren't tolerated as much (Though some places like Mularond practice slavery and still have LG leadership, slavery is just a deeply ingrained part of their culture). The Zhentarim for which Xzar and Monty work however has no problems with slavery and actually run slave-catching groups that snatch people off the road and sell them to Zhentil Keep or ship them towards Thay (Edwin's homeland), Mularond, or Unther, all practice slavery (there's several other smaller places, as well).

    Also, what do you think the Iron Throne is? They're a legitimate trade corporation, that also has it's hands in under the table dealings with bandits to cause the iron shortage so they can profit off their slave labor mines that produce the only usable iron in the entire sword coast, and to maintain that monopoly by having bandits seize caravans attempting to import iron from other regions.

    [Deleted User]
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    Especially in the case of Viconia, who is relying on your 'goodness' to protect her. It's symbiotic for her own purposes. Anyway, it's frustrating in that particular case. The rest of them, I don't know - I don't generally work with evil characters.

    I also agree that reputation ≠ alignment in a bad way. For instance, a LG fighter can do evil and have low rep, but this has no impact on alignment. It's a limitation of the game that they made a little (they being BioWare) better in NwN. I sort of see this as a game limitation and deal with it.

    Kurumi
  • dreambleddreambled Member Posts: 48
    edited December 2012
    I agree with the general consensus that it does not make sense for an evil character (besides the stupid or chaotic ones) to want to leave a party that has a high reputation. I really do not think they would care that you are helping people so long as you are getting something out of it so as not to be a waste of time. And yes, in Viconia's case, this is safety in numbers, comfort, and at least up front people will treat her with respect due to association (she even mentions that in BG2 she dropped the PCs name when she saw it would benefit her).

  • KurumiKurumi Member Posts: 520

    Especially in the case of Viconia, who is relying on your 'goodness' to protect her. It's symbiotic for her own purposes. Anyway, it's frustrating in that particular case. The rest of them, I don't know - I don't generally work with evil characters.

    I also agree that reputation ≠ alignment in a bad way. For instance, a LG fighter can do evil and have low rep, but this has no impact on alignment. It's a limitation of the game that they made a little (they being BioWare) better in NwN. I sort of see this as a game limitation and deal with it.

    This!

    Not to mention that the work-around (removing Vic from your party before getting the rep. increase) is really cheesy/annoying, too.

  • WooWoo Member Posts: 135
    Being Infamous is still famous~ high rep doesn't mean good rep, high rep means well known. What if you are known for murdering babies? Thats pretty evil huh? That also seems like it would be a 20 on the rep scale because people would be like "WTF YOU KILLED BABIES!!"

  • typo_tillytypo_tilly Member Posts: 5,686
    This is the main thing that has bothered me.

    I can see an evil character getting upset if the party takes a 2 day side tour to save someone dying from poison. Why save the weak? Why waste 2 days to do it?!

    On the other hand, I can't see why most of the evil characters would care about high reputation. I'd imagine most would be indifferent overall.

    Shar-Teel would probably be happy enough being with a group that kills hundreds of men, despite putting up with occasional goody two shoes rubbish.

    Dorn too would probably enjoy the opportunity to kill many people and claim their souls.

  • The_UnitThe_Unit Member Posts: 7
    Remembering again we are talking about a 14 year old game, enhanced or not, the reputation system has always had many holes... I also believe that the game is skewed to prefer something like a chaotic good alignment from a roleplay perspective, from the reputation system to the canonic party, to the advantages/disadvantages of good and evil. It makes the most sense for the CHARNAME to believe in good, but HIS/HER good (from a gameplay perspective allowing one to justify raiding houses and other less reputable activities for the greater good as percieved by the CHARNAME) how many people have completed a completely *lawful* playthrough... no raiding, stealing, murder (self defence/under legitimate orders only)? etc.

    Having said that i never expected that the enhanced edition would overhaul the mechanics to that extent, nor do i expect any such changes in any BG2:EE. Our best bet would be for a completely revamped system if BG3 ever makes it off the ground. Personally i would much prefer the greater freedom of a Planescape:Torment or Arcanum when it comes to alignment. By this i mean an actual balanced world in which there are cities or strongholds where reviled characters would be held in high esteem and heroes attacked on sight, where a shady reputation opens some quests, many alignment-specific items, training that actually has to be sought after in the real world, the ability to change alignment based on cumulative actions rather than an arbitrary decision at games beginning (for better and worse depending on class/companions etc), and a greater emphasis on alternate outcomes and paths, especially non-violent (or non-traditional combat) solutions to situations based on certain stats thereby increasing their importance depending on how you would prefer to roleplay. i.e the nameless one using dexterity to break someones neck before they sound an alarm, intelligence unlocking more preferred conversation options, and charisma allowing you to increase you party or sweet-talk your own way.

    Im not asking for a different game or feel, in my opinion the entire bhaalspawn saga already allows for a perfect opportunity to explore the many shades the struggle between good and evil and the freedom to roleplay in different ways ideologically as well as from a mechanical viewpoint would even further increase the re-playability of the game. It would take nothing away from those who want to play the game as an evolved hack n slash but it would greatly enhance the experience of the story/roleplay driven crowd. (for the record i can play BG either way, completely powergamer or completely roleplayed and enjoy both equally.)

    Sorry for the slight derail, it is only because i believe a new alignment and reputation system is a key component to increasing the scope of the game and creating a new benchmark for the genre or gaming as a whole...

  • typo_tillytypo_tilly Member Posts: 5,686
    The_Unit said:

    (from a gameplay perspective allowing one to justify raiding houses and other less reputable activities for the greater good as percieved by the CHARNAME)

    Yeah, that's where I wonder if this should be a reputation system or a karma system. You may be right, too, in that we should wait for a BG3 to introduce a better system. :)

    Obviously if you loot all houses, it's not an act of a good aligned character at all*... but no one saw you do it. :/

    *With the exception of ultra cute Alora who just wants to see what's in them locked containers, gosh darn it. :p

    The_Unit
  • DarkcloudDarkcloud Member Posts: 302
    The_Unit said:

    Remembering again we are talking about a 14 year old game, enhanced or not, the reputation system has always had many holes... I also believe that the game is skewed to prefer something like a chaotic good alignment from a roleplay perspective, from the reputation system to the canonic party, to the advantages/disadvantages of good and evil. It makes the most sense for the CHARNAME to believe in good, but HIS/HER good (from a gameplay perspective allowing one to justify raiding houses and other less reputable activities for the greater good as percieved by the CHARNAME) how many people have completed a completely *lawful* playthrough... no raiding, stealing, murder (self defence/under legitimate orders only)? etc.

    How is "the game is 14 years old" an excuse for that system? Fallout 2 is slightly older and has one of the most detailed and best reputation systems. Besides no one asks for making it better because that would be a hell lot of work but to remove the effect of the reputation on party members leaving. I prefer it that way too but I will use BG2 Fixpack now anyway on any play-through now that it is available.

  • moopymoopy Member Posts: 938
    Why would someone who was playing a good aligned character have an evil aligned npc in their party?

    Why would someone who was playing an evil aligned character have a good aligned npc in their party?

    Why would someone who was playing a neutral aligned character have any problems staying between 2-18 reputation?

    Seriously,... I am super lawful good knight I save everyone and even stop to help an old lady cross the street.. WHAAA EVIL DROW WHO WORSHIPS SHAR NO LIKEY? I R CONFUSED!!!

    Evil people want to be famous for being bad, not for being heroic. Think about it.

    I mean, I'm ok with making it optional for people who want to play a lawful good paladin CHARNAME and have dorn in the party, but that makes no sense.

  • DivergentZenDivergentZen Member Posts: 7
    Well, some good people believe they can save the evil people by being a good example. And some evil people get their LOLs by corrupting good people.

    Anyway, there are tons of reasons why this could happen. See literature and film.

    But my main problem is this arbitrary point system. At 18, evil npcs are fine. At 19, things are suddenly unbearable.

    Impose an XP penalty if you must or have a bribe system, but don't have Shar-Teel leave if you save a cow.

    Kurumi
  • dreambleddreambled Member Posts: 48
    edited December 2012
    moopy said:

    Why would someone who was playing a good aligned character have an evil aligned npc in their party?

    Why would someone who was playing an evil aligned character have a good aligned npc in their party?

    Why would someone who was playing a neutral aligned character have any problems staying between 2-18 reputation?

    Seriously,... I am super lawful good knight I save everyone and even stop to help an old lady cross the street.. WHAAA EVIL DROW WHO WORSHIPS SHAR NO LIKEY? I R CONFUSED!!!

    Evil people want to be famous for being bad, not for being heroic. Think about it.

    I mean, I'm ok with making it optional for people who want to play a lawful good paladin CHARNAME and have dorn in the party, but that makes no sense.

    Using Viconia as this example, lets take a look. Aligning herself with a good party with a high reputation will allow her to go comparatively unharassed, allow her to sleep at an inn, and gain higher security for being around a group of people that will protect her. Why would someone want Viconia, a drow, who worships Shar to be in their party? Maybe because they need a healer, and maybe because when they meet her in both games she's being pursued to be murdered simply because of her race and they know that's wrong.

    Also, lets take a look at that other statement of evil people want to be famous for being bad, not for being heroic. In Viconia's case her reputation proceeds her due to just her skin color, and she hates it. Only dumb people, chaotic people, or people with enough power to back up their reputation want infamy. A person like Viconia is just trying to survive and being in a party that does "good" things provides the benefits she needs to make the likely hood of her getting her throat slit in the middle of night or bounty hunters and guards jumping her more likely to not happen.

    [Deleted User]
  • WooWoo Member Posts: 135
    dreambled said:

    moopy said:

    Why would someone who was playing a good aligned character have an evil aligned npc in their party?

    Why would someone who was playing an evil aligned character have a good aligned npc in their party?

    Why would someone who was playing a neutral aligned character have any problems staying between 2-18 reputation?

    Seriously,... I am super lawful good knight I save everyone and even stop to help an old lady cross the street.. WHAAA EVIL DROW WHO WORSHIPS SHAR NO LIKEY? I R CONFUSED!!!

    Evil people want to be famous for being bad, not for being heroic. Think about it.

    I mean, I'm ok with making it optional for people who want to play a lawful good paladin CHARNAME and have dorn in the party, but that makes no sense.

    A person like Viconia is just trying to survive and being in a party that does "good" things provides the benefits she needs to make the likely hood of her getting her throat slit in the middle of night or bounty hunters and guards jumping her more likely to not happen.
    Pretty sure if she was just trying to survive, she wouldn't leave if you had 19 or 20 rep, but she does.

  • WooWoo Member Posts: 135
    moopy said:

    Why would someone who was playing a good aligned character have an evil aligned npc in their party?

    Why would someone who was playing an evil aligned character have a good aligned npc in their party?

    Why would someone who was playing a neutral aligned character have any problems staying between 2-18 reputation?

    Seriously,... I am super lawful good knight I save everyone and even stop to help an old lady cross the street.. WHAAA EVIL DROW WHO WORSHIPS SHAR NO LIKEY? I R CONFUSED!!!

    Evil people want to be famous for being bad, not for being heroic. Think about it.

    I mean, I'm ok with making it optional for people who want to play a lawful good paladin CHARNAME and have dorn in the party, but that makes no sense.

    Clearly you have never really played D&D? You never know anyones alignment. Not without magical means.
    Also in PnP D&D parties are made of whatever the participants there produce. 6people could have 6 different non matching alignments.

    A Lawful good party will want Viconia because they SAVE HER, THEY DON'T CARE IF SHES DROW, in addition a chaotic good person probably would have zero issues if that evil person could pull their weight,(Chaotic good people break laws all the time... they fallow their own codes of justice etc) Viconia IS the best cleric in BG1(and 2) and she certainly pulls her weight, A neutral good wouldn't care beyond sleeping with 1 eye open as long as it was a means to an end.

  • dreambleddreambled Member Posts: 48
    edited December 2012
    Woo said:


    Pretty sure if she was just trying to survive, she wouldn't leave if you had 19 or 20 rep, but she does.

    Which is the entire point of this topic. The reputation system in relation to characters' alignments don't make sense. Especially when you look at it from a character by character perspective.

  • KirkorKirkor Member Posts: 700
    moopy said:


    Why would someone who was playing a neutral aligned character have any problems staying between 2-18 reputation?

    Actually, this IS a problem.
    Reputation rarlely drops on quests. And even if it does, you have to be total douche, to get the rep drop.
    So the only option is murdering innocents. From Roleplaying point of view, a neutral character rather would not kill innocents without any reason (other than reputation drop, in order to keep his evil comrades - which is silly).

    I've noticed this long time ago, that in Baldur's Gate it's almost impossible to roleplay as neutral character. Either you are total saint Goodie O'Good, or murdering bastard Murderer McDouche. There are simply no options inbetween, not only in questlines, but even in dialogs. Sometimes you don't even have some decent evil answer - you get only "I'm a carebear, and love is the answer" type of response :)

    So yeah, having your rep somewhere between 6-18 is hard. And if you are hardcore roleplayer - maybe even impossible.


    Fallout2 is spot on, when it comes to reputation system AND dialog options AND impact to your dialogs with your Charisma, Intelligence and other stats.

Sign In or Register to comment.