Teh BG2 Roleplay Question

[MetalCraze]

well we all know how shitty is BG2 in the roleplay department. basically it's very hard to play a villain guy and next to impossible to play a neutral character.
the problem is that you get most of exp only for good solution of quests - and my character is chaotic neutral and has such normal characters in the party like viconia and korgan. we know that if I will do too much goodie goodies they will leave. I don't want this - but otherwise I'm risking to be a 13-14 lvl character at the end of the game.

the question is for the true bg2 geeks - does Viconia's and Korgan's leaving is dependable on the -reputation- or is there some other stat responsible for that. In any case - how should I have my cake and eat it too? I mean get the most out of quests and still not loose these awesome characters. Like for example if it's dependable on reputation - I may just go and kill someone in the street to... balance it.

 

[Andhaira]

skyway you fuckhead, you're 8 years late for this game. Anyhow,

Viconia and Korgan will leave if your repute goes too high.

If you romance viconia you can keep her around for a long time, even if your repute goes too high.

Its very easy to keep them AND do all quests; just do all the quests in the game, and when you get to the point when you attain the slayer form (chapter 6-7 I think) you can use the slayer form and whenever you do your repute automatically drops one point.

If you ever need to drop repute by a point, just kill a random npc thats wandering around. That will bring you r repute down some.

be sure to do the harper quest (jaheria); its a good quest, yet it ALSO brings your repute down thus making both good adn evil npc's happy.

 

[dolio]

They leave if your reputation gets above 18. If your reputation is already above 18 when you get them (which is only possible with Korgan, I guess, not Viconia, since she lowers your reputation), they'll stay, though. Their leaving is only triggered by changes in reputation, too, so if you're at 20, you can do all the good reputation quests you want, because it won't go above 20 (although if you lose reputation and go to 19, they'll leave).

One strategy people recommend is having Viconia, and keeping your reputation at 18. Then, when you're about to do something that raises her reputation, kick her out of the party, which will put your reputation to 20 (not sure if that triggers Korgan leaving), then, complete the quest, and ask her back in the party, which resets it to 18. But, that won't work if you care about romancing her, of course (kicking her out kills the romance).

Personally, when I played, I just installed a mod that kept them from leaving no matter what, because I didn't feel like doing that sort of thing, and having a good reputation is easily better than not having one. Note, if you're really evil, you do get a never ending source of experience, with Amn sending packs of troops/mages after you whenever you're in the city. That's kind of annoying, though, and they'll beat the shit out of you if you're low level.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

I haven't played in a while but I thought most quests had a good and a evil way of completion (or at least a good way where you act like an asshole and just do it for the reward). I specifically remember the druid grove quest having a few different solutions but maybe it was just an exception.

 

[MetalCraze]

thanks guys for help
I already did 2 complete playthroughs of this game years ago, I just decided to play a really neutral character and it's quite messed up in bg2, also previously never cared about rep.

^most of quests can be solved only in a good way. no matter if you take money or not - the result is still good. sure there are some quests that can end up a bad way - but then again it's just only black and white choices.

 

[DraQ]

This Black VS White crap is one of the reasons I can't stomach BG.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

What's so wrong with black and white choices? I thought that was just how d&d was supposed to be with you having to pick an alignment and stuff. I just wish they had provided more black and white choices so I don't have to act like a psyco who steals every penny he can just to be evil.

 

[DraQ]

What's so wrong with black and white choices? I thought that was just how d&d was supposed to be with you having to pick an alignment and stuff.

And that's why D&D just plain out sucks.

 

[MetalCraze]

have you actually meant grey choices?
notice that dnd has no good or evil alignment. it has the whole 9 of them. including neutral alignment. neutral does not mean "I don't care". neutral means a diplomatic balanced choice - which is impossible in the world of bioware's extremes.
PS:T shows how it's done right.

@DraQ: the thing that keeps me playing BG2 is it's wide world. in the meaning that it has all those mountains, deserts, planes, underdark, that underwater city. And also because of party interactions. yes some of them are too emo sometimes, but at least npcs aren't some silent mules and trying to "have" their opinions which adds some life to the game.

 

[obediah]

What's so wrong with black and white choices? I thought that was just how d&d was supposed to be with you having to pick an alignment and stuff. I just wish they had provided more black and white choices so I don't have to act like a psyco who steals every penny he can just to be evil.

Yay, another newbie fucktard.

If D&D was about forcing black&white choices, there would be 2 alignments rather than 9. The 9 alignments serveas rough guides for where a character will stands morally. There is no requirement that any solution to a problem must cleanly fit into one and only alignment.

Idiot.

 

[DraQ]

PS:T shows how it's done right.

But it does it right by successfully shoving this whole pretentious and one, ok, two dimensional alignment crap under the carpet most of the time, which is admittedly quite a feat considering that it's a foundation of Planescape multiverse.

PS:T is good in spite of being D&D, rather than because of it.

@DraQ: the thing that keeps me playing BG2 is it's wide world. in the meaning that it's mountains, deserts, planes, underdark, that underwater city. And also because of party interactions. yes some of them are too emo sometimes, but at least npcs aren't some silent mules and trying to "have" their opinions which adds some life to the game.

I might try to complete the BG saga one day, but I feel no inclination to do so now, as all it managed to do so far is bore me to tears.

 

[Jasede]

What's so wrong with black and white choices? I thought that was just how d&d was supposed to be with you having to pick an alignment and stuff.

And that's why D&D just plain out sucks.

Okay, you're starting to piss me off with your dumbass "I want to fit in" comments in every second thread, especially when it's as retarded a comment as this one.

Edit: You suck.

 

[MetalCraze]

BG1 is boring yes. BG2 is much more interesting because you actually have many things to do and some things depends even on your character class in the game.
like if you play a fighter class you will get a castle, mage - sphere, druid - grove, ranger - ranger hut etc. also some npcs in the game also notices your class and act accordingly which is actually a good thing. if only the C&C were on a par with that.

 

[DraQ]

Okay, you're starting to piss me off with your dumbass "I want to fit in" comments in every second thread, especially when it's as retarded a comment as this one.

I want? Do tell.

 

[Jasede]

I do not see why C&C should be important in a linear RPG like BG. It's supposed to be old-school, and in this regard at least, it is. C&C is a modern abomination, though not a terribly bad one. But it's by no means important or mandatory to make an RPG good, it's just the frosting on the cake.

That said, the cake wasn't all that good in BG1/2 either so it wouldn't help all that much.

I am really starting to despite C&C more by the day. People start to pretend something as unimportant as C&C - something old games could do well without - is more important than a good combat system. Fallout really is overrated. (Still better than everything being released these days, of course.)

 

[Lesifoere]

While I'm not a "C&C" chanting uberfan by any means, I... have to say I see roughly no appeal in the "old school" RPGs. Like, none at all. Aren't they mostly just glorified dungeon crawlers?

 

[Jasede]

Yes!

That said, I'd love a 16th, 17th century low-fantasy low-magic RPG with furries and male-male Bioware romances and a romantic, heart-warming story written for lonely housewives.

 

[abstract]

Is this your new crusade Jasede? After "piracy is wrong" and "sex is wrong" will you be ranting about how "c&c is wrong" in every thread?

 

[Jasede]

Sex isn't wrong at all when it's a genuine expression of the affection between two loving souls.

No, I am just reminding people that C&C isn't mandatory for a game to be an RPG. Or at least it didn't use to be. But of course it's only reasonable to expect it in modern times, but still, I consider myself a terrible warning of a grim past.

 

[DraQ]

I do not see why C&C should be important in a linear RPG like BG. It's supposed to be old-school, and in this regard at least, it is. C&C is a modern abomination, though not a terribly bad one. But it's by no means important or mandatory to make an RPG good, it's just the frosting on the cake.

That said, the cake wasn't all that good in BG1/2 either so it wouldn't help all that much.

I am really starting to despite C&C more by the day. People start to pretend something as unimportant as C&C - something old games could do well without - is more important than a good combat system. Fallout really is overrated. (Still better than everything being released these days, of course.)

Sigh.

In old RPGs players were interacting with each other which constituted most of the RolePlaying. Then out came early computer adptations, that rather obviously didn't do a good job at simulating any in- or out-party character interaction. Then, because cRPGs, unlike the PnPs are singleplayer at core, some developers seen fit to enrich the gameplay with actual character interactions and consequences resulting from player's choices which a GM in PnP games would be capable to accomodate into the game.

And that's what differentiates proper cRPGs from dungeon crawls and diablo clones of varying complexity.

 

[Jasede]

No, you're wrong and obviously never played early P&P RPGs, else you couldn't say this with a straight face.

 

[Naked Ninja]

I played a good character throught BG2 and had Viconia most of the time. It was tricky keeping her and Keldorn from each others throats but I did it. Totally possible to be good and keep her. Never tried Korgan though.

 

[MetalCraze]

While I'm not a "C&C" chanting uberfan by any means, I... have to say I see roughly no appeal in the "old school" RPGs. Like, none at all. Aren't they mostly just glorified dungeon crawlers?

almost. though it would depend on what you would expect from them. Ultima 7 is a pretty good old-school rpg with all that living world and exploration stuff plus the basic form of dialogues. have you tried it?
also some dungeon crawlers may have pretty interesting combat - again that depends on what you want.

also Jasede, I must disagree with you. C&C adds many good things to rpgs. especially to the replayability. would you be interested in completing the game the very same way again and again? I doubt that. However when you actually have a shitload of stuff to do and a lots of ways to affect the world and npcs it adds much difference and that actual roleplaying.

 

[DraQ]

No, you're wrong and obviously never played early P&P RPGs, else you couldn't say this with a straight face.

You might have mistunderstood what I said.

Compare:

In old RPGs players were creating bioware-ish drama which constituted most of the RolePlaying.

In old RPGs players were interacting with each other which constituted most of the RolePlaying.

PnP RPGs are a sort of social experience and yes, having players react to each other's characters and actions while staying in-character themselves and observing others' reactions to the adventure itself justifies my use of the term "character interaction".

 

[Lumpy]

NPCs leaving based on reputation is fucking retarded. If you want party members to leave, would an influence system be that hard to implement?