Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6830832" data-attributes="member: 4937"> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Ok, this gives you 'positive' reputation only if dueling is socially accepted in the society and you obeyed the rules and code of conduct that regulate it.  If it is, winning gives you positive renown (how well people know you) and 'lawful' reputation (and contrary loss of 'chaotic' reputation).   If it isn't or you didn't follow the code of conduct, you still get renown, but the reputation effects are reversed.   Note that I'm assuming D&D factions here for simplicity, but you could have as many different factions as you like, each with their own rules for what impressed them.   Presumably showing mercy on a foe might get you positive 'good' reputation but negative 'evil' reputation, and being merciless the reverse.    Here we get to one of the biggest difficulties running such a system.  If something isn't publically known, it doesn't effect your reputation at all.  Your reputation is only effected by what is known about you by the person in question.   So recovering the young widow's stolen jewels might give you a large boost to your reputation and standing with the young widow, but if she decided not to tell anyone about it, you get benefit of that act with no one else.   If you go into a hole somewhere and kill the triple headed red-dragon consort of Tiamat, in no one knows you did it or that such a beast was down in the hole, your renown doesn't change an iota except perhaps with Tiamat and her followers.   That's going to be true of all of this.   If you close the gate in the hidden wizard's tower that was allowing demons in, if no one knows it was you or no one believes it was you, your renown or reputation doesn't change a bit. On that note, unless you slay the dragon in the skies over the town, it's actually the act of taking a trophy - bringing in the dragon's head and hide, for example - that wins you the reputation change and not the act of slaying the dragon at all.   Bringing in a trophy that proves you slew a terrible monster is impressive.  Slaying the monster itself is something that usually doesn't happen publically. Whether he's evil or a tyrant doesn't really matter here.  What matters is whether he is unpopular.   Slaying a ruler doesn't make people admire you unless they really really hated the ruler.  It might well be that an evil tyrant has a huge number of admirers and fanatical followers who even believe that the tyrant is a living god.  You'll certainly earn reknown slaying a group's leader, but you won't gain positive reputation with that group.   And here comes another huge complication.  Hitherto, we've acted like we could easily divide factions into 'lawful' or 'good' or 'chaotic' or somewhat, and that works to some extent, but it doesn't help us exactly work out the numbers by which numbers should change and it doesn't help us deal with conflicts between members of the community with the same culture.   For example, in feudal Fooland, the Count of Overhill and the Count of Yonderwood might hold the exact same chivalric values and the exact same ambitions, and because of this also be hated rivals.  If you advance the cause of Count Overhill by defeating the troops of Count Yonderwood, that doesn't mean that Count Yonderwood will treat it as equally positive.   And you might win admiration from some likeminded third party, but not to the same degree you did with the Overhill family.  It's easy to see that things would quickly get out of hand if we wanted to make this actually work in any logical manner.  Consider for example the problem of a PC acting in a completely mercenary manner, changing his loyalties all the time and working for the highest bidder.  The whole time he might be doing 'deeds of reknown', but why should his reputation keep becoming more an more positive when objectively, the trust you should have for this person ought to be going down and down even if no one act committed was dishonorable.  Imagine for example changing sides in the middle of a battle.  What do you end up getting a reputation for?  If your table just says, "Helping to win a battle" or "Breaking a siege" is positive, you better have a big huge all caps disclaimer at the head of the table saying "DM IS ALWAYS THE FINAL SAY".  If you get bribed to open the gates, you definitely 'broke a siege' but not in a way that normally wins admiration and trust from either side. Again, what if the guy is popular?  What if the master thief is a folk hero who robs from a hated government?  Even if he's personally a bandit and rogue and self-interested, his reputation with the common folk is likely going up if they hate the ruler more, and likewise your reputation with them goes down even if he's not actually a nice guy.  That anti-paladin could be a national hero because he defeat the hated rival King of Foobar when he invaded in the dry summer.  That he is personally repulsive and likes to torture children in his basement might not be well known.  And the evil-wizard might be beloved for what he does for the community, enough to excuse all his personal failings and lust for power.  What's a few humans sacrifices compared to slaying the giants when they invaded or driving off the plague of werewolves?  In short, what actually matters here is the reputation of the person you kill.  If you kill someone with a highly negative reputation with a given faction, when people in that faction find out about it your reputation goes up.   But if your kill someone with a positive reputation, your reputation goes down as well.   And just as your reputation might vary from group to group, so two the reputation of the NPC might vary from group to group.  In a really nasty guy might enjoy the mutual love and admiration say his spouse and offspring.  Gains you a huge boost to reputation with the faction supporting that cause, but doesn't necessarily boost your reputation.  Indeed, I'd say on the whole using a treasure in this way drops your reputation with the majority of society.  Most will think you a fool, because they themselves wouldn't have done the same thing in your shoes.  Keeping a huge treasure and being publicly fabulously wealthy will gain you far more reputation with everyone who is 'Neutral' aligned than giving all of it away would.  The majority of people won't admire someone who is overly stingy, but they'll equally despise someone who is overly generous (unless it is to them personally). On that subject, "Building yourself an ostentatious palace" is more likely to improve your reknown and reputation than large charitable donations.  That's why people who care about fame do more to live wealthy and show they are wealthy than they do to be charitable.  Hell, for example?  Did the place want to be found?  Did people want to believe in it?  Did finding it bring a curse with it?  Did you just effectively open a Pandora's Box by finding the place? The effect of this is really complicated.  Having a bard sing your praises might work if the bard is good and the basic problem is people haven't heard of you.  In effect, what this does is spread your reputation - not change it.   It's the equivalent of bringing the dragon's head into town to let people know you killed the dragon.  Because of the bard, now people in Underhill know about you as well.   And assuming the Bard is really good, it might help change the way people who hear about your deeds think about your deeds.  But there is probably a limit to that if the actual deeds are well known through other sources.  Ironically this sort of thing works best when you are dead, few people remember you, and thus you can't complicate the conversation by being real and messy in the way real things are. I think I've shown how doing any of the above can also result in negative reputation, at least with someone or perhaps almost everyone.</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification