GameBanshee Forums

people who leave your group

i was under the impression that neutral people did not leave your group ever

i god this impression because Jan, Jahiera and the likes never left when i got to a really high rep

however i have decided to play a really evil party and i though i'd have jan and when i got to one he left?

them so did yoshi

is there anyone who will not leave my evil ness apart fae Vicco, Mr Bloodaxe and Edwin?

also does Kelsey and sola leave?

Unbalanced isn't it. If neutrals leave a group with a really low rep why wouldn't they leave a group with a really high rep?

i know Jan buggered off with some the amulate of metaspell (thank god for Shadow keeper)

and Yosh was Ctrl Y'ed for his stuff

buggers

Originally posted by kopywrite
Unbalanced isn't it. If neutrals leave a group with a really low rep why wouldn't they leave a group with a really high rep?

I thought about this a while ago, and I think it's because the consequences of a v.low reputation (ie. v.evil) are bigger and more profound than that of having a v.high reputation. Thus, low rep upsets the balance and the neutral characters more (after all, they're being hunted by city police ) than a good shiny reputation could ever do.

Yes but neutral is just that....neutral. Inbetween good and evil, having a very high rep is surely upsetting the balance as much as a very low one. This was talked about a little while ago with regard to Jaheira and how she'd be better suited to being neutral good as a harper and general do gooder. Sadly, I think the game does tip neutral more towards the good side of things as is illustrated by the low rep party evacuation that occurs with Jan, Jaheira etc.

Tiny spoiler:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
If you play with the additional encounters part of the Sola mod and you have a very high rep, you end up being hunted on the streets of Athkatla by some Cyric worshipping baddies. A fine attempt to balance the game IMO.

True. I enjoyed the reputation scheme in BG2 though, simply because I hadn't encountered one like that before.
IMHO, I think reputation shouldn't be based on evil/good but rather on law/chaos. I've mentioned this already somewhere else but reputation should not be a measure of morals, but of image. Which is why an LE-type politician should be happy with a high reputation (he's fooling the masses) while a CG character couldn't care less what others thought of him - "Yes, I slayed the evil dragon, now back off!". What do you think?

yes that makes sense. i was always asking why edwin got mad when i had a high rep. wouldn't he want people to now who he is? also, if u turn into the slayer in hell, how can that affect ure rep? noone would no. bah, i guess it was easier to do it the way they did, than include all these different variables.

Look at the chart on page 240 of your manual (that's the page it's on in the U.S. version, anyway). Every character will break with the group at some point. Good characters will leave if your Reputation drops to 2, Neutral characters will leave if your Reputation drops to 1, and Evil characters will leave if your Reputation reaches 19. Every game has rules, and those are the rules of this game.

Look at it this way. If your Reputation drops to 0, your character is basically a monster (like a troll or something) as far as every NPC is concerned. Neutral characters will leave your group if you're one step away from being a monster. I can't explain why a Neutral character won't leave your group if your Reputation hits 20, where it can't go any higher, but I guess it isn't quite as "intolerable" or something. It's not really a question of balance (which seems to confuse the issue); it's more a question of, does the character want to be in your group?

I've thought of that before and the answer can when I read up on alignments in my 3E players guide. Neutral people don't always care about the balance, mostly druids. Neutral is undecided/good or evil but not to serious about either/just lazey. That is why the average human is considered neutral even though i've never met a person that cared about balance. When you don't care about stuff you can still see the benefits of a good rep. (people like you and will do stuff for you.) They don't want to be seen as monsters though, only truely evil people would want that.

As far as Edwin, yes he does want people to know him, just not as a goody-goody.

I dont understand why the reputations are seen as 9 different levels. It seems to be more like a three by three table with Good-evil on one side and Choatic-Lawful on the other.

Example Minsc will do what he thinks is good and proper and will do whatever he has to do to do it. Aerie as a lawful will do what she thinks is right and proper, but will obey the law to do it. Both are equally good, its just that Minsc thinks the ends justifies the means.

Originally posted by Lost One
IMHO, I think reputation shouldn't be based on evil/good but rather on law/chaos. I've mentioned this already somewhere else but reputation should not be a measure of morals, but of image. Which is why an LE-type politician should be happy with a high reputation (he's fooling the masses) while a CG character couldn't care less what others thought of him - "Yes, I slayed the evil dragon, now back off!". What do you think?

I agree, some villains would have high reputations, such as charismatic gangsters or even Bodhi who might be seen to be challenging the Shadow Thieves, whereas some good individuals would have low reps (think Strider at the start of LotR).

The reputation system, as implemented in the game, is really a sliding alignment indicator, with evil acts even commited in the privacy of your own dungeon or where ever (as DrSlikk says) causing your rep to sink.

I think reputation shouldn't be based on evil/good but rather on law/chaos. I've mentioned this already somewhere else but reputation should not be a measure of morals, but of image. Which is why an LE-type politician should be happy with a high reputation (he's fooling the masses) while a CG character couldn't care less what others thought of him - "Yes, I slayed the evil dragon, now back off!"

just what i was thinking

a CG player would kill a evil mayor if the mayor was evil enough but then he would be put in jail, but thats not how the game works

neutral should leave if you get high enough to

By the same token, if you kill a civilian and no-one sees it you shouldn't be penalised by reputation either, but you still are.

Maleous is right, the alignment is a three-by-three system, look at the way the Equaliser does damage.
If someone could post the way the Equaliser's damage changes according to alignment that would be much appreciated.

SPOILER - highlight the following for Equalizer stats according to the sword's discription:

• vs True Neutral: +0 to hit, +0 damage
• vs Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Neutral: +1 to hit, +2 damage
• vs Neutral Good, Neutral Evil: +2 to hit, +4 damage
• vs other alignments: +3 to hit, +6 damage