Reputation Modification in BG1 NPC

[cmorgan]

I will try to edit the above today, just popping by...

 

Jastey, I think that it would be great to add immediate Ajantis reaction, and I have no problem adding the checks for future use, but I think you may not have to worry about this as much as it appears. With the understanding that this is not the best way of dealing with this, what we have to work with sounds like this:

 

If a player drops his reputation to keep NPCs happy, Ajantis is going to react as a Paladin. Paladins are exemplars; image *is* action *is* deed *is* alignment. A player who modifies reputation this way is saying that "I'm a good person, but want to appear less good". Ajantis is not going to romance someone who is practicing this kind of deceipt. I always figured that was why Plaladin Orders didn't take over the world - they cannot bring themselves to make the kinds of "grey area" decisions necessary to govern a diverse population. I think that you are safe in simply telling people the reputation restrictions for the romance, and if a player uses the service to drop below the romance level, that is one dead romance

 

As for the tweak separation from other content, yes - if we put it in the tweak package, then it operates just like Wait at an Inn or moving Alora et al. Players can choose to install our core fixes, then any of the tweaks, and leave everything else out. As far as I can tell, the romances also work if they are the only thing installed (they certainly install successfuly that way, though I have not playtested). As far as I can tell, the original team request (every component is independently usable) has been honored; a minimum install of just Required Files and Ajantis' Romance should work, or Required Files and Move locations (though why someone wouldn't just use SCS in that case escapes me ). All we need to do is make sure that any reactions we want are tied into the component, and do not rely/refer to other things unless we set them up separately, just like TOTSC content additions.

(Anyone of us less experienced modders please note that it is fine to call on non-existent variables if yu want. I added Ghreyfain's Sirene's Call variables the internal beta and it works fine without SC installed. You just can't include stuff that refers to dialogue files that don't exist, or it won't install. To do that, you need a separate ection of the tp2 that loads the special banters separately if someone is installed:

In tp2:

ACTION_IF FILE_EXISTS_IN_GAME ~override\B!Bgavin.cre~ THEN BEGIN
COMPILE ~BG1NPC\Phase3\DLG\B!BGAVINREP.D~
EXTEND_BOTTOM ~B!BGAVIN.BCS~ ~BG1NPC\Phase3\BAF\B!BGAVINREP.D~
END

ACTION_IF FILE_EXISTS_IN_GAME ~override\A!MURNETH.cre~ THEN BEGIN
COMPILE ~BG1NPC\Phase3\DLG\A!MURNETH.D~
EXTEND_BOTTOM ~A!MURNETH.BCS~ ~BG1NPC\Phase3\BAF\A!MURNETHREP.D~
END

(boy I hope I got the syntax correct )

 

 

EDIT: Info on variables to manipulate, not yet correctly coded:

 

NumTimesTalkedTo(0) = initial talk for each Bard.

NumTimesTalkedToGT(0) = additional visits to the same Bard.

Global("X#TroubadorRep","GLOBAL",0) = talked to any bard, set to 1 so player response is added "I have heard this kind of talk before"

 

Global("X#TroubadorRepGood","GLOBAL",0) = incremented each time service is used to increase reputation, 1 increment per reputation point change.

 

Global("X#TroubadorRepBad","GLOBAL",0) = incremented each time service is used to decrease reputation, 1 increment per reputation point change.

 

 

 

GlobalGT("X#TroubadorRep","GLOBAL",1)

[jastey]

I thought about it and came to the conclusion: I would strongly suggest implementing the rep servide only for decreasing repuation.

Why? Because increase can be bought at temples already. This makes, to some extend, sense in the way of "spending is doing something good and gives you the blessing of that god".

 

Introducing a possibility that leads to rep increase only by cheating would break all reputation reactions (to high rep!) that are implemented for the NPCs (of yourse I am having Ajantis in mind before all).

Ajantis: You are a forge of good and righteousness, <CHARNAME>.

PC: Yes, because I bought 8 rep points after killing that innocent.

 

[Alboy]

Hi

 

I am fairly new here and don't mod myself.

I was wondering if this rep. loss you are talking about could be combined with the selling of stolen goods as BG2. If this is not possible feel free to ignore this post.

 

Alan

[Miloch]

Hi

 

I am fairly new here and don't mod myself.

I was wondering if this rep. loss you are talking about could be combined with the selling of stolen goods as BG2. If this is not possible feel free to ignore this post.

 

Alan

Hi and welcome to the forum.

 

I've actually tossed around that idea, along with a number of other thievery-related reputation modifiers and enhancements (see this thread). Although I would've preferred the reputation loss to be triggered when *stealing* the item in the first place, around the same time the "Someone has noticed you!" alarm would go off. Though rep could also go down if you attempt to fence the goods to the wrong person. Let's face it, if you go around thieving all the time, your reputation should go down, whether or not you run into the guards. There is a Virtue mod for BG2 that implements a separate variable to track similar sorts of activities, but according to its creator SimDing0, the code doesn't allow him to exploit it in terms of stealing. I hold out hope that some hitherto unexplored avenue can be opened up here though (I don't mod myself either, at least not presently, so it could be a vain hope )

 

I think the scope of the add-on discussed in this thread is:

a) introduce an NPC who allows you to modify reputation for a price (probably just lower it - you can already raise it at temples)

b) ultimately, perhaps expand on this idea to make it more attractive in terms of a quest

[berelinde]

Although I second this request, just thinking about what this means to Ajantis' reactions, especially in the romance LT, makes me feeling sick. There is reputation checks everywhere. I refuse to include an "rep is low but because of PC decreased rep by paying but actually behaves good" check.

 

I define: Ajantis will disapprove of the service, if used for decreasing, same as if the PC would have done something bad. But he should be quite shocked if the PC uses this service. I guess I have to write some interjections if PC is using the service.

 

 

Sorry I haven't had a chance to respond to this until now. Just got home from work--too much traffic.

 

This post is mostly pointed at Jastey and other Tutu modders of good characters with reputation requirements, and cmorgan, who is going to have to implement whatever the general consensus turns out to be. So feel free to skip it.

 

I'm not even sure I should really comment at all, since my involvement in the project has been peripheral. But I'm hoping that some of my ideas might be helpful to others.

 

This is what I was planning on doing with Gavin.

 

If cmorgan will do me a huge favor, and include a Gavin line with the appropriate code that Grim Squeaker suggested for referencing resources that might or might not exist in the game, Gavin will express astonishment and dismay that the pc would do that. He seems to think that reputation should be earned.

 

After a transaction is concluded, Gavin will do a standard scripted banter, depending on which way the pc moves the rep.

 

He will not understand why the pc would intentionally seek to reduce his/her reputation, but if the pc explains that it's just to keep the peace and it is most certainly better than actually earning the reduced reputation, he'll let it drop. Because it *is* better than earning the rep reduction, at least to him.

 

In the case of a Gavin romance, he will not care how the reputation was lowered below 15. Too much of a headache, and unnecessary as the break for evil characters is set above that. If the pc wants to keep Gavin and evil characters in the party, it will take a bit of reputation juggling, and possibly use of the bards.

 

In the case of a reputation increase, Gavin will strongly urge the pc to use a conventional route next time, like a temple. Temples, he thinks, will at least *do* something with the money. As with the reputation decrease, he will comment, then let it drop.

 

The short version, for those that got lost: his reaction to lowering rep is positive, his reaction to raising rep is negative. Seems counterintuitive, but it makes sense to me.

 

I'm with Jastey on this one. Makes sense to limit the service to lowering the rep.

[berelinde]

Just to make sure this is clear:

 

If this is going to become a part of BG1 NPC Project, I would like to make sure that its recommended place in the installation order *follows* other NPC mods. Because of the way interjections call on specific state *numbers*, it would be impossible for a mod npc to interject into the banter of another mod. Or maybe not. Hmmm. The lake poets don't exist in a regular Tutu game, do they?

 

But if it is installed as a separate component, what happens if you refer to a specific state that doesn't exist?

[cmorgan]

Well, the variable can exist without being called, so it is more possible to have NPC mods follow BG1 NPC and then have them install banters that reference regular NPCs, just like BG1 NPC does itself. In this case, it would be a banter/response triggered by GlobalGT("X#TroubadorRepBad","GLOBAL",#), etc.

 

I suggested using

ACTION_IF FILE_EXISTS_IN_GAME ~override\B!Bgavin.cre~ THEN BEGIN
COMPILE ~BG1NPC\Phase3\DLG\B!BGAVINREP.D~
EXTEND_BOTTOM ~B!BGAVIN.BCS~ ~BG1NPC\Phase3\BAF\B!BGAVINREP.D~
END

because I was thinking of ease of use from other modder's standpoints. Most folks are busy with their own projects and may not add just a single reaction or banter to their older mod, but they might be pursuaded to write a single banter and let us include it.

 

Reading your post, berelinde, reminded me that this won't work. Rather, it would work if Indira, et al were installed first, but we don't want that. I forgot the chicken-egg problem with banter files! The safest thing to do is to create the variables and have the NPC modders add the banters. Interjections won't work either - there has to be a trigger in BCS to a respective state on the J-file.

 

In Gavin's BCS

IF
GlobalGT("X#TroubadorRepBad","GLOBAL",#)
Global("B!GavinRepLoss","GLOBAL",0)
THEN
RESPONSE #100
SetGlobal("B!GavinRepLoss","GLOBAL",1)
StartDialogueNoSet(Player1)

 

CHAIN to Gavin's J file.

 

I am fine with raising or lowering via Bard, as the implementation for me is designed around light in-game adjustment for people wanting to complete quests - if someone abuses it, I figure they could always use CLUA, or SK, or something else to get the same result. I don't see the temple donations as being true "good acts" either, as evil characters can buy indulgences from gods they don't follow. I always figured reputation was public perception, because if I were truly roleplaying evil the only donations I would make would be splashy public relations ones anyhow. Evil gods tend to have some rather... interesting ... ways of dealing with followers who actuallly are trying to work their way out of the fold. Most of all, why would Temple O donations do the same thing as Temple W, unless it is about perception rather than conversion?

[Miloch]

I am fine with raising or lowering via Bard, as the implementation for me is designed around light in-game adjustment for people wanting to complete quests - if someone abuses it, I figure they could always use CLUA, or SK, or something else to get the same result.

Very true. How about leave the existing "donate at good temple to increase rep" system, and add the bard to *potentially* increase or lower rep (but add a random factor - if you don't pay him enough, he does the *opposite* of what you want - bards can be fickle about "donations" that way ). And eventually, to complete the balance, implement the evil temple system (and before someone starts to protest, I'm not suggesting this be added necessarily to BG1 NPC ).

 

I don't see the temple donations as being true "good acts" either, as evil characters can buy indulgences from gods they don't follow. I always figured reputation was public perception, because if I were truly roleplaying evil the only donations I would make would be splashy public relations ones anyhow... Most of all, why would Temple O donations do the same thing as Temple W, unless it is about perception rather than conversion?

True, reputation is about perception. That's why I like the Virtue mod idea, which implements a separate attribute for what you *actually do* not how people see you. Just as in real life, if a hypocrite gives a lot to a noble cause, he might be seen as "good" by the masses, though individuals might know better. Which is kinda why I like jastey's idea of Ajantis seeing through the b.s. of trying to "buy" a good rep.

 

Evil gods tend to have some rather... interesting ... ways of dealing with followers who actuallly are trying to work their way out of the fold.

Heh heh heh. Sounds like a quest idea in the making... *rubs hands together greedily*

[jastey]

I would rather spare the work it would take to write the Ajantis reactions if high rep is gained due to buying the bards' services. I am kind of busy lately. This is no reason not to include the rep increase via bards, of course, but the discussion started with the idea to give the player a tool to be able to reduce the rep, to balance reputation to be able to make the neutral NPCs happy. The game already offers a possibility to increase the reputation, so offering another possibility is redundant in my opinion.

 

Just to explain why I am stressing my interest in this like I do:

-Ajantis would comment on the first time the PC either buys a rep increase or decrease (shocked disbelief): at least two interjections needed.

-He would give a talk if he notices several steps in one direction (four times rep increase was bought, for example): at least two extra dialogues called via scipt needed.

-Then I would have to work my way through the whole Ajantis romance and change all the reputation checks for high rep (as I stated earlier, Ajantis would treat rep decrease same as if the PC did something bad, but for obvious reasons this does not work for the increased reputation!): A lot of reading, editing, testing, including tearing at my hair needed.

-Then I have to change the whole - damn complex! - reputation reaction system where Ajantis comments on the current rep, comments about increase and decrease, and calls the PC a force of good and righteous if rep hits 18: same as above.

Without these changes, Ajanis' (paladin!) reputation reactions would be a laughing stock.

 

Honestly, I am feeling sick at the thought of that all.

[Miloch]

I would rather spare the work it would take to write the Ajantis reactions if high rep is gained due to buying the bards' services... <snip> Honestly, I am feeling sick at the thought of that all.

Hmm.... Yeah. I don't blame you. I can visualize the amount of code (without the benefit of being able to visualize the code itself ). Bottom line: too much work, not worth it. It would be great to have reputation be that realistic but it's a game, you can't expect that.

 

I always laugh when I run around stealing things without being caught and Khalid, Kivan and the like praise me, "Gorion would be proud of your actions!" etc. I guess the part where Gorion taught me how to charm innocents and pick their locks while they watch and that this is a "good deed" didn't make it into my biography.

 

So how does Ajantis react when you buy a good rep at a temple? Seems to me, if he does react at all to either "buying" a good/bad rep, it should be negatively, with a simple comment like "You cannot buy virtue, <CHARNAME>." for each "purchase" and leave it at that. If it comes to a point where the decrease in rep will make him unhappy or leave the party, let the rep table do its work. And like you say, keep this simple to start with - the game allows for purchasing rep increases, so allow for a way of purchasing decreases.

[Rabain]

Perhaps the price it costs to buy rep should go up?

 

As i understood it buying rep is only a side effect of your "donation" to the temple. Of course the temple will praise you for donating large amounts of money to them and possibly publicly hence the increase in rep.

 

Its purely the players fault that this is abused and is now "buying rep" rather than donating to the temple.

[jastey]

As i understood it buying rep is only a side effect of your "donation" to the temple. Of course the temple will praise you for donating large amounts of money to them and possibly publicly hence the increase in rep.

That is exactly how I see it and the huge difference between the "raise the reputation in temples" already implemented in the game and a "buy reputation increase" by a false praising bard as it was discussed here. It is also the reason why Ajantis won't see the former one as false (to answer your question, Miloch).

 

Any statements concerning my plea?

[cmorgan]

Last call on discussions tonight, folks - our 1 week deadline is tomorrow pm (although I may not get a chance to code for a few days, and the ikki is always open - if anyone can adjust stuff, please do!).

 

We have the following, so far, going by "most conservative interpretation for bugfix and everything else is an expansion" -

 

For BG1 NPC Project materials going in as a bugfix:

1. 3 bards in 3 areas with displaystringhead, perhaps with an "agent" who appears and lets players know there are services available for decreasing reputation.

2.the CHAINs listed on the wikki, with NPC reaction to the offer but no raction to availing of the offer. This is split between all 3 bards, as best we can.

3. "tag" variables not called on by BG1 NPC that allow modders to manipulate banters based on use/nonuse of the bards.

4. placed as a Tweak with player choice to install/not install.

 

 

Please discuss further; anything else in this thread is set up as fair game for an expansion mod. That way if someone would like to change things outside of the project, they can (no restrictions on taking these ideas and using them ).

[berelinde]

What's the word on using this tool to raise rep. For or against?

 

When Jastey wrote it, she was looking for a convenient tool to raise and lower rep to test Ajantis' romance requirements, and never really meant for it to go mainstream.

 

When I expanded it a bit, all I did was take what she already had and add dialog and pricing.

 

If you're looking for a vote, I say:

 

Bards lower rep: YES

Bards raise rep: NO

 

Temples will raise rep cheaper and easier than this will, and it does save the headache of wondering whether or not the pc is doing the right thing.

 

The way I see it, the NPCs who require a good reputation have a very good reason for wanting it: reputation is a measurement of good deeds. "Buying" it isn't the same. Evil NPCs are, well, evil, and are less concerned with how the rep got where it did.

 

I'll have a look at the wiki. Is there a wish list?

 

Out of curiosity, why didn't we set this up as a poll? It would have been easier to gauge opinion.

[Miloch]

The existing idea sounds good so far but I think you should leave the option open for an add-in mod to hook into this eventually. It will probably go beyond the realm of a bugfix or tweak to BG1 NPC.

 

Why? It makes sense you could plausibly pay a bard or similar character to "publicise" your deeds for good or bad. Happens all the time IRL under several names - public relations, marketing, spin-doctoring, etc. *But* this doesn't always work as planned. Regardless of how much money you spend, your efforts can fizzle (have no effect) or even backfire completely (look at recent US election campaigns ).

 

One of the reasons for this is - no matter how much publicising you do, people will see through it if there aren't actual deeds to back it up. You could try to justify a "good deed" by saying you vanquished a foe who was in possession of powerful evil artifacts (let's call them "weapons of mass destruction" ). Initially, people think this sounds great and your rep goes up! *But* after no evil artifacts turn up, your rep starts to slide as people get wise to the ploy. (Any similarity to real-life events here is entirely coincidental. )

 

So if your deadline is tomorrow, maybe just run with the existing idea (certain bards will modify your rep for a price). Maybe in the next version (or in an add-in, wherever it fits), introduce a random factor where the desired action might have no effect or an opposite effect, or might simply wear off with time.

 

To get back to my original statement, this would be the hook in to the quest mod: The party might eventually get fed up with the spindoctor's efforts not working correctly and the bard will say "Look. If you want *permanently* spread tales of your infamy, you have to actually *do* something bad. Go fetch the Talisman of Ill Accord from its well-guarded refuge with the gibberling shaman overlords and bring it to the High Priestess of Lolth to assist in opening a portal to bring more of Her minions from the demonweb plane." Or something like that... wouldn't really have to be that complex . Could work in reverse too obviously - bring said evil artifact to the Seer atop the Mountain so he can destroy it - actually any number of quests could hook into this. But the idea of *permanently* modifying reputation via bard/spindoctor, well, lacks a bit of realism.

 

And there's always the "evil temple" idea itself, to counterbalance the fact you can donate at good temples to increase rep. In its first incarnation, this could be as simple as putting in a store at a temple to decrease reputation accordingly via donation, or changing an existing "good" temple to become evil. Ultimately, this too could hook in to a full-blown quest expansion, but that would take some doing in probably a separate mod.