Skip to content

Reputation- needs a fixing (post your thoughts)

Ok I made an evil character, the ranger who talks to you on the next area map before you go to friendly arm inn I kill. reputation decreases by three. Now I want to know why it should even decrease since you are in the middle of the wilderness with no witnesses to your actions.

Anyway thaughts? I would say the same applies to drizzt as well since he is alone.

Comments

  • NifftNifft Member Posts: 1,065

    Ok I made an evil character, the ranger who talks to you on the next area map before you go to friendly arm inn I kill. reputation decreases by three. Now I want to know why it should even decrease since you are in the middle of the wilderness with no witnesses to your actions.

    Anyway thaughts? I would say the same applies to drizzt as well since he is alone.

    Druids ask trees.

    Trees are immortal in the BG series so you can't fight Mother Nature.
  • CoutelierCoutelier Member Posts: 1,282
    edited February 2013
    Gentlemen, you are about to enter the most fascinating sphere of arcane power... the world of forensic magic... DAA-DI-DI-DA-DAAA...

    Or not. I agree; ideally there should be separate stats for your reputation in town and for your companions. Town/World reputation should only decrease if you're caught doing something bad, whereas your companions would be harder to fool. But I don't know what it would take to implement that.
  • MathmickMathmick Member Posts: 326
    The problem with reputation, as I've said in other threads, is that it's trying to take multiple actions and condense them down to one slider. Both morality and public views of you are affected. Murdering someone reduces the first, while taking in Viconia reduces the second. Helping someone with a simple task increases the first, while clearing out the Nashkel Mines regardless of your intentions increases the second.

    To be honest it doesn't need to be revised for this game, because the way it works now, if broken as anything, is a core mechanic of the role-playing side of the game. If Overhaul goes on to create another RPG with a similar gameplay style, a morality-tracking system is something that would need to be considered carefully, over the reputation we have now.
    ErgSirK8The_New_RomanceJTM
  • BeowulfBeowulf Member Posts: 236
    Well there would be a EYE rep ala Helm the All seeing Eye... so klling someone in the wilderness gets you a negative rep just as killing someone in town where their are human watchers... but then there should be like a Human Society Rep - this would increase for things like saving the mines and decrease when you killed farmer's cows and also killed townsfolk... however in you killed wilderness message boys or lone rangers no one would know and you would not get a reputation hit for that... The eye of helm rep would make you more good/lawful/evil/chaotic / the human society rep thing would effect your sales and your wanted attacks by Flamer fist Enforcers with hot pants and hand bag attacks...

    anyhow that of course would be about 1 years worth of recoding besides which the enhanced edtion guys might not be able to legally change the game that way too...
  • Jackkel_DragonJackkel_Dragon Member Posts: 103
    I doubt this is a system that can be messed with by Overhaul (it would be a massive undertaking even if it was something they were allowed to do). That said, there's always mods. There happens to be a mod for BG2 that separates Reputation (public image) and "Virtue" (party and moral image). If someone were to take that idea and apply it to BG1/BGEE, that could help here.

    Link: http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/index.php?option=content&task=blogcategory&id=107&Itemid=82
    Xavioria
  • kingthrallkingthrall Member Posts: 76
    yeh I doubt it to, but it could be easily remove all the reputation points from all the lone characters you meet in the wilderness through script editing.
  • NifftNifft Member Posts: 1,065

    yeh I doubt it to, but it could be easily remove all the reputation points from all the lone characters you meet in the wilderness through script editing.

    Yep. Just change their faction variable.

  • ScytheKnightScytheKnight Member Posts: 220
    Honestly as much as I love the BG series, the reputation system is the one thing I simply and frankly despise. The entire thing is set up for rewarding a single type of play(good), ignoring another style (neutral) and massively punishing a third (evil)

    And yes, Neutral IS ignored... a druid isn't going to commit alternately good and evil acts they are going to commit acts that restore balance towards neutrality.
    AntonKidCarnivalAristillius
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited February 2013
    Evil NPCs are generally stronger than good NPCs to make up for the added difficulty in playing an evil party. Neutral has the advantage of being able to inculde the widest range of NPCs in the party.

    And it's entirely appropiate for a druid to commit an evil act if they think their actions have pushed the cosmic balance too much towards good.

    But everyone, including the developers, knows the reputation system is highly flawed. However, changing it would not only be a fudemental change to the game beyond the scope of the EE, it would also be against the terms of the contract.

    I.e: won't happen, can't happen.
  • kingthrallkingthrall Member Posts: 76
    Fardragon said:

    Evil NPCs are generally stronger than good NPCs to make up for the added difficulty in playing an evil party. Neutral has the advantage of being able to inculde the widest range of NPCs in the party.

    And it's entirely appropiate for a druid to commit an evil act if they think their actions have pushed the cosmic balance too much towards good.

    But everyone, including the developers, knows the reputation system is highly flawed. However, changing it would not only be a fudemental change to the game beyond the scope of the EE, it would also be against the terms of the contract.

    I.e: won't happen, can't happen.

    Really I just hope the people who forced the contract know what a bunch of assholes they are for making the consumer suffer.

  • ScytheKnightScytheKnight Member Posts: 220
    Fardragon said:

    And it's entirely appropiate for a druid to commit an evil act if they think their actions have pushed the cosmic balance too much towards good.

    It' entirely appropriate for a druid to act in a way that restores balance if their actions and pushed the cosmic balance out of whack.

    Balance is its own bath, not just getting splinters in your ass from fence sitting.
  • ErgErg Member Posts: 1,756
    Mathmick said:

    To be honest it doesn't need to be revised for this game, because the way it works now, if broken as anything, is a core mechanic of the role-playing side of the game.

    This!
  • mjsmjs Member Posts: 742
    i'd just like it, if as an evil PC, i wasn't spanked by the law every time i enter a new city.

    if the game was being fair to all alignment paths, surely the goody goods would be ambushed by evil lovers that have an interest in seeing a powerful good force being quashed
  • baaddarebaaddare Member Posts: 145
    Well lets see people can cast a spell to know your alignment. It is like seeing someones aura which would be effected even if no one is around when you do an evil act. Additionally, the gods know all
  • KidCarnivalKidCarnival Member Posts: 3,747
    And if I just "am" evil, sitting idly in a tavern? Should that give guards a reason to attack me? If I'm caught while committing a crime, or when attempting to leave a crime scene or something, yes. But just enterting a city? There are evil aligned people living in Baldur's Gate. No-one attacks them (except, my party does, but that's different).

    "God knows all"? Absolutely, and Talos approves of my deeds. There is a balance between good and evil among the many deities, too. "God" is many gods, and they come in all alignments. They don't favor a good party or an evil party.
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511

    Fardragon said:

    Evil NPCs are generally stronger than good NPCs to make up for the added difficulty in playing an evil party. Neutral has the advantage of being able to inculde the widest range of NPCs in the party.

    And it's entirely appropiate for a druid to commit an evil act if they think their actions have pushed the cosmic balance too much towards good.

    But everyone, including the developers, knows the reputation system is highly flawed. However, changing it would not only be a fudemental change to the game beyond the scope of the EE, it would also be against the terms of the contract.

    I.e: won't happen, can't happen.

    Really I just hope the people who forced the contract know what a bunch of assholes they are for making the consumer suffer.

    The gave what was asked for. The EE was never intended to make significant changes to basic gameplay. The reputation system might not be good, but it is a fundemental part of what made BG what it was.
  • BigfishBigfish Member Posts: 367
    The reputation system has always been clunky and one sided, offering rewards in one direction and punishment in the other, except when it comes to Reputation 19+, which has a bit of punishment as well.
  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    Another 'I don't like something about the game, so the developers are evil for not changing it for me' post? Seems a bit childish.

    I'm not a NWN fan, but I think BioWare did reputation a lot better there in that actions affected character alignment. Anyway, for BG:EE, the only thing I wish were different is Viconia's actions - it doesn't make sense to me that she splits from the party. Maybe she should permanently reduce your reputation (capping it at 18) because, regardless of good deeds, there is only so much that the people of the Sword Coast can trust your party.
  • KidCarnivalKidCarnival Member Posts: 3,747
    Agreed about NWN, though I was really really pissed when my druid suddenly wasn't a druid anymore and I had no idea why. Looking back, I think "wow, awesome, my choices actually meant something". But - we won't get that in BG2EE, and the next best thing would be balancing quest rewards (not adding mini quests that ONLY give + rep, but also have the option for - rep with an evil choice), to end "killing random commoner so EvilNPCofChoice doesn't leave" management.
  • CorianderCoriander Member Posts: 1,667
    Well how many non-player caused deaths are there along the Sword Coast? I mean you're not the only one with the Murder genes but you're probably the most prolific. Random body found in the woods? Clearly the work of Charname.
    TJ_HookerEudaemonium
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    So to start off with, I 100% agree that Overhaul games isn't going to change the system. And I don't think we should reasonably expect them to do so. As broken as the system is, it is part of the game. Much in the same way that the Devouring mechanic of Mask of the Betrayer wasn't ideal or liked by some people, it is part of the game. Period. Accept it.

    So, in a fantasy realm where we could have another game with a different mechanic, I personally think that the "Reputation" should be three (maybe four) fold system.

    Like - how nice, reasonable, helpful, charismatic and even tempered you are. This would be a slider based on your responses to interactions with people. Even interactions where no one else sees you would translate because it is a record of the type of demeanor you put off. If you are mean, even in private, it probably gives off in waves in public.

    Respect - a measure of your good (or bad) deeds as seen by the general public. If you save the miners, you get good and positive respect. if no, you lose points. if you complete a lot of the side 'Fed Ex' quests, you get a reputation for being helpful. If you take more of the 'Kill that guy for me' quests, people respect you less. But also, if you are good and successful in combat, people will respect you.

    Fear - a measure of how terrifying you are. The more people you kill, the greater this aspect. Also, based on the allegiances that you forge. If you side with Tazok, people will fear you more. If you join the thieves guild, same effect. And level will also have an impact on this.

    The fourth factor I was considering would be morality. This is new to my model, but it could be used. The more positive action quests you undertake, the higher your morality goes. The more negative ones take it down. This would work kind of like the current reputation, but would not have as much impact on the game space. And some of the things like taking Viconia on board wouldn't impact this. Other things like letting the miners die would greatly impact it. And it would still drive the dreams.

    The point is that these combination of factors, except morality, could be applied to any alignment, but would still impact how NPCs interact with the PC. And the Morality would still drive the dreams.

    All fantasy and in my opinion. By no means am I suggesting a change in either BG:EE or BG2:EE. Just idle fantasy.
  • baaddarebaaddare Member Posts: 145
    edited February 2013

    And if I just "am" evil, sitting idly in a tavern? Should that give guards a reason to attack me? If I'm caught while committing a crime, or when attempting to leave a crime scene or something, yes. But just enterting a city? There are evil aligned people living in Baldur's Gate. No-one attacks them (except, my party does, but that's different).

    "God knows all"? Absolutely, and Talos approves of my deeds. There is a balance between good and evil among the many deities, too. "God" is many gods, and they come in all alignments. They don't favor a good party or an evil party.

    Oh I agree i was just postulating the logic used to develop the system that was used in the game. It would work better in a larger world where there are "good" and "evil" cities and guards. As an example ( and I know this is not an mmo but the example game used a similar system) the original EQ. You not only had cities with areas controlled by good but parts controlled by evil along with "planes" where different gods lived. So a good ranger who worshiped on god would be treated fine by good gaurds in parts of say Freeport but the guards in a different part of the city would react totally different to them. They could walk around on their gods plane without a care in the world but even a good who worshiped another good guard would have problems. It worked there becasue they game was so large when compared to an RPG like BG.

  • baaddarebaaddare Member Posts: 145

    Agreed about NWN, though I was really really pissed when my druid suddenly wasn't a druid anymore and I had no idea why. Looking back, I think "wow, awesome, my choices actually meant something". But - we won't get that in BG2EE, and the next best thing would be balancing quest rewards (not adding mini quests that ONLY give + rep, but also have the option for - rep with an evil choice), to end "killing random commoner so EvilNPCofChoice doesn't leave" management.

    did a small area for a PW for NWN it was set up so your moral decisions had a real effect. All we had were people who played Paladins screaming because they were not longer paladins after a while because of their unpaladin acts. Things like saving themselves instead of trying to save the damsel in distress. Stealing from people houses killing nice people for their gear helping someone clearly evil complete a clearly evil quest.
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

    And if I just "am" evil, sitting idly in a tavern? Should that give guards a reason to attack me? If I'm caught while committing a crime, or when attempting to leave a crime scene or something, yes. But just enterting a city? There are evil aligned people living in Baldur's Gate. No-one attacks them (except, my party does, but that's different).

    "God knows all"? Absolutely, and Talos approves of my deeds. There is a balance between good and evil among the many deities, too. "God" is many gods, and they come in all alignments. They don't favor a good party or an evil party.

    A low reputation (below 5) is akin to being on the wanted list. Since the Fist are basically mercenaries, if your rep drops low enough, someone take a contract out on your head. Hence, you become KOS. Remember, The Fist aren't "The Police". They are Mercs, pure and simple.

  • KirkorKirkor Member Posts: 700
    Fallout 2 had quite decent "reputation" system.
    You had Karma - which was some hybrid between virtue and reputation. But it had very little "reputation" hit.
    And you had separate reputation for each faction/region/town

    But it is probably too big change to do it. It would just be hard to implement and contract limitations wouldn't let to do such changes.
  • kingthrallkingthrall Member Posts: 76
    like I said, removing the reputation aspects from lone NPC's in the wilderness should be enough to merit a realistic approach to reputation.
  • BeowulfBeowulf Member Posts: 236
    My fav part of the game is slaughtering all those evil fat merchants who say- "I love money, Yes I do" in the Iron Throne Bar and library... They must be using gold made from murder and banditry to supply the evil mercenaries... thus it is an act of goodness to have Danieria the fragile whosey Whitney Wizard on Crack to chase them about the library and bash them about with her generic staff.... they know they deserve to die so they just run about screaming... Owww ooo oh... and then say Ohhhh... wen they die... but of course in real life I do not recommend chasing about organized crime money launderers with big staffs and beating them since we have a justice system that relies on perfectly Neutral and Lawful commoners who rarely take bribes unless they are actually not lawful and evil...
  • forbjokforbjok Member Posts: 31
    Coriander said:

    Well how many non-player caused deaths are there along the Sword Coast? I mean you're not the only one with the Murder genes but you're probably the most prolific. Random body found in the woods? Clearly the work of Charname.

    Considering all the supposed bandit activity taking place, I would imagine quite many.

    However, while I agree that the way reputation is handled is flawed, I don't think it should be changed.
    For a future game, it might make more sense to let each party member have their own opinion of your reputation based on what they've seen you do.

    I did a playthrough yesterday with a chaotic evil character, and maintaining a reputation of 1 for most of the game (except right after turning in quests that caused it to go up). I even killed Winthrop _twice_ - once before leaving Candlekeep for the first time, and then again during my return later. Aside from the obvious spawning of Flaming Fist people in cities and towns, which were a non-issue as long as I stayed hidden in shadows, the game really doesn't seem to care about your reputation. All the main story-related NPCs treat you exactly the same as if you had a reputation of 20 as far as I could tell, and you can even enter the Flaming Fist HQ (to talk to Scar and Eltan) without getting any reaction from the guards inside.
    baaddare
Sign In or Register to comment.