I'm talking about a general solution to this reputation problem. I know that BG doesn't use values lower than one when changing rep.

If we're talking about classic titles from early 90's, then they didn't. BG series was probably the first RPG which introduced this kind of features. We have to remember that it's still a game that's 20 years old, so many of the design solutions it introduced were unique for it's time. Maybe you're expecting a little too much from this classic title.

You're wrong. Check the achievement percentages. Most of the people don't even finish the main story, especially in RPG's which take more than 20 hours to end. It's even worse when it comes for side quests and bonus content.

Probably not, but it's still applying too much logic to a fantasy setting in a 20 year old game is not a good thing.

Try to think your own example of a neutral path in Forgotten Realms setting. That's what I meant. Not raising reputation when demanding more reward is an option, but it's more like a prosthesis for me. I was thinking about a true neutral plot and quests. It's not easy to implement this in FR setting because the setting relies on a clash between good and evil and it rarely explores areas that are morally grey. I brought KOTOR2 not because it has a good morality system, but because it breaches the standard distinction between the dark and light side of the force. It's something that was never done before in Star Wars setting. To implement a true neutral path in FR, you have to do the same and break scheme on which the setting was based in its foundation.

You're arguing with somebody who wants to be contrary for arguments sake.

"If we're talking about classic titles from early 90's, then they didn't."

So why are you even refering to them in the first place? You tried to make a comparison between these and BG but I don't see your point.

"You're wrong. Check the achievement percentages. Most of the people don't even finish the main story, especially in RPG's which take more than 20 hours to end. It's even worse when it comes for side quests and bonus content. "

What is the point in that statement? It's not even related to what I said and doesn't disprove it either. Whether people complete the game or not doesn't change anything to the fact that bad morality is poorly handled and unsatisfying in most cases, which naturally pushes people toward the good path. When I say people want to experience most of the content I mean those who actually care about the game, there is no point in accounting those who don't.

"Probably not, but it's still applying too much logic to a fantasy setting in a 20 year old game is not a good thing."

Having a fantasy setting does not prevent from having companions with coherent thoughts. The fantasy part of BG lies in the lore and creatures, for the rest everything is meant to be normal and credible with the exception of eccentric companions. Edwin and Korgan might be evil but they are far from stupid enough to try to face the Nine Hells on their own.

"I was thinking about a true neutral plot and quests."

That's pretty easy, mercenaries who work for gold and nothing else.

"It's not easy to implement this in FR setting because the setting relies on a clash between good and evil and it rarely explores areas that are morally grey."

Except that there isn't much of a clash when companion just leave the party. It would have been easy to implement a bribe system where companions ask for cash to put up with alignment conflicts.

" I brought KOTOR2 not because it has a good morality system, but because it breaches the standard distinction between the dark and light side of the force."

By making you an evil looking person just for having a foul mouth and rough attitude? Yeah sure...

@Hickory "You're arguing with somebody who wants to be contrary for arguments sake."

Actually everything I have posted here has already been expressed in other BG/RPG forums. There are many others who think like me. If anything it's everyone here who is trying to rationalize this nonsense for the sake of being contrary.

Proof with alacrity. Commendable.

The ability to see the logic comes from experience. You clearly do not posses that feature. Instead of insulting others, you should try to open your mind to other possibilities and opinions. Failing to do that, you should at least stop replying. It is only making you look worse and worse with your every reply.

Lol what are you talking about, I haven't insulted anyone in this thread. Seems like you want to argue for the sake of arguing so bad that you end up imagining things and projecting as well. You have some issues my dude.

Please do tell me where is the logic in having a companion ditch his party to face the Nine Hells alone? So far I have debunked all of your attempts at rationalizing. You're the one who is looking worse by ignoring that and continuing to argue with a stuck-up attitude

I made this thread to share some objective criticism and point at a serious immersion-breaking flaw and you guys chose to start an argument by trying to argue against the facts.

If a number of people disagree with your criticism then, probably, it is not "objective."

Disagreeing =/= disproving.

Even if a number of people disagree that cigarettes are unhealthy it doesn't change anything to facts.

Do you even know what "Objective" means?

Objective: "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."



What cigarettes does to human body is a fact. You can take pictures of it. Document it. However your claim can not be proved, can not be documented. It is an opinion, your opinion and opinions can not be objective. It is influenced by you and you alone. Descartes showed that 400 years ago.

Have you been in an army? Have you seen war?

Or maybe you have seen engineering? Creating something out of dust?

My personal and thus subjective opinion is that team mentality, its wholeness places a major factor when creating something or surviving a fight. Forget about everything you saw on movies. When creating teams, they choose people who get along together. Because you need to be able to trust each other in HELL.

You are not arguing facts, you are suggesting that your own personal opinions are the "facts". They are not.

You want facts? Here are some factual facts;

The player holds the key to exit the Nine Hells, the companions cannot ever leave without our help, they are bound to rot and die down there should they ditch us. The cutscene after defeating Irenicus is very explicit about the fate that awaits our companions.

The companions are mere mortals in a divine realm, they are naturally inferior. The player is the only one with divine essence.

Basic knowledge is psychology is enough to understand that survival instinct would prevent anyone from choosing danger over safety for such trivial issues.

Alignment differences are common in D&D games where each player has his own morality.

Real life evil entities tend to prefer having a positive reputation, they don't want bad rep.

Source of your facts please. You need to learn to differentiate facts with opinions in some point in your life.

Quoting a cutscene as a 'fact'. Interesting. Simply wrong. Nothing about basic psychology can be regarded as 'fact'. Morality is not written in stone. I'd love to know your source and how you come to this conclusion.

lulz. The cutscene shows Irenicus' fate, who was evil and thus bound for one of the infernal realms upon death. CHARNAME's party kills him, so he goes to hell more-or-less permanently.

The evil characters could simply have waited until either CHARNAME or Irenicus won, collapsing the pocket plane and sending everyone back to the mortal realm.
Basic knowledge of real life is enough to demonstrate that people will routinely choose life threatening activities if it suits them.

Again, basic knowledge of real life provides easily found counter examples.