Search the Community

Description: This is a guess at a bug, but when completing Ferry Floatsam the hero LOSES minor reputation with Defiance Bay. This seems to be a mistake. Description: Screenshot 1 Screenshot 2

Read the description for The Pink Slip rifle - "No need to go to HR." Does this weapon prevent reputation loss by killing enemies of that faction with this gun? I tried looking for info to the best of my ability, but everyone just talks about the stats. I even found a nugget of information that compared to the Dead Eye AR II, the Pink Slip has a 100% armor damage multiplier or something like that, whereas the DEARII has 15%. This also confuses me, because I'm assuming they're getting the 15% bit from the mod that's automatically on these guns that - on the DEARII - you can remove, but on the PS you can't remove it. Also, on the PS, the scope mod still says 15%. Is this something else?

My ongoing peeve with Reputation gain (i.e. the pre-defined meaning and intention of conversation options) vs what I actually intended the option to mean. Currently, in PoE(2), the reputation system is, as in most (all?) other games, static. You choose Conversation Option A, and it has already been given a meaning by the writers/devs, no matter what meaning you and your PC may put in it. Example: In BoW, I convinced Neriscyrlas to find respite and release herself to the Void. My PC (paladin, dimplomatic, good) took this direction with the best intentions, since there's no option to release Neris to the Wheel (that I could find). But after playing the same dialogue sequence with Reptutations in conversations turned on, I found that this was in fact the "Cruel" option! Why? Why would this me more cruel than killing her? Well, sure, you're telling her that she's already dead and have been living an utter pointless existence for centuries, but is that really cruel? It wasn't for me, until I played it with the pre-set meaning of conversation options releaved. What I think would solve this problem, is a way to change the Reputation, i.e. the intention of conversation opotions. The example I just gave could just as well have been Honest, or even Benevolent (a peaceful solution), which was the way "I" meant it. These static "choices" breaks the immersion, restricts your ability to RP the character the way you envisioned it. You want to RP? Well, I as my character would have said this, but according to the rep-gain my character must say that in order to be aligned with the reputation-mechanic-RP aspect, if you catch my drift. You'll end up with having to pick choices just to align with the "correct" rep gains, or choose the "wrong" convo/rep options to align with what you would say, thus ending up with an ingame-personality that does not reflect your RP. Am I making sense? So, please, in PoE3, look into the possibility of being able to change the Reputation, i.e. intention/meaning of certain conversation options. E.g. dropdown for [chose your intention], where it makes sense, where you can select between a few options. I think that this would make the RP aspects of the game a whole lot more rewarding, since you can be much more dynamic in the way you approach conversations. Again, this is not something particular to PoE2, but PoE 1 and 2 are the RPGs I've spent the most time playing and enjoyed. Also, I do think that the PoE devs are more receptible to suggestions than, say, Dragon Age devs would be (simply due to the more corporate, top-down nature of how Bioware/DA is managed).

During Seeker, Slayer, Survivor, the vendors in the temple (Caretta, Cook Corrin, Winge, and Neale) should offer a series of discounts based on the player's reputation with either of the Seeker/Slayer/Survivor factions - 5% for Good1, 10% for Good2, and 15% for Good3. However, the conditional logic for this in lax1_factions.gamedatabundle is such that the rate for first condition (5% discount depending on if the player has a Good 1 reputation with Seeker/Slayer/Survivor) will be selected even if the conditions that follow are met. This means that 5% is the highest discount achievable, regardless of if the player has a higher reputation to satisfy the conditions for a 10% or 15% discount. I assume fixing this is as simple as reversing the order of the ConditionalRates under each of the vendors in the above gamedatabundle, so that the logic can cascade correctly (first checking if the reputation is >= Good3, then Good2, then Good1). Testing with this change seems to cause the discounts to apply correctly based on reputation.

End-game spoilers ahead, but nonetheless important for the developers to see I think. I'm in Byzantium at the moment, and for whatever reason the Early Retirement quest dipped my reputation with the Board over the edge. Now everyone guard in Byzantium wants to kill me and every citizen runs from me. This is unacceptable, as the end-game necessitates that you be in Byzantium. My enjoyment is almost ruined by this, since I couldn't take my way in or out of situations as I've done the entire game. The impact of being hated by a reputation you are forced to interact with shouldn't be shoot on sight - quite frankly, it's nearly game-breaking. Obsidian, I hope you find some way to fix this, because I don't want to experience, say, DLC, where everyone hates me. It would be really unfortunate.

Every time I tried to complete the quest By His Bootstraps, Jameson is dead when I show up. I have reloaded and tried several times and he is always dead. I read on a forum that this may be tied to using the computer terminal to unlock the door before going upstairs, so I tried it without using the terminal and he was still dead. When I turned the quest in, I had a reputation loss with Auntie Cleo. This seems like a bug. This quest was given at the last minute by the quest giver as if an afterthought. That, to me, does not signal high priority. Because of this, I ended up doing this one after a few others, just because I ended up in that area later. Quests in these kinds of games are not usually *actually* tied to time, or if that is a factor it seems to typically be made pretty explicit upfront because we are not expecting it in an RPG. Besides, it is certainly not the fault of the strange space captain and crew, who show up in town voluntarily to risk our lives rescuing everybody, that this guy got eaten by dangerous monsters, which the quest giver was responsible for importing to this planet in order to torture them (even if inadvertently) and experiment on them. It seems that other people are having the same experience. I could not find anything online about how to do the quest in a way that does not involve Jameson dying. Either way, even if we fail to save him, it does not seem reasonable to give us negative reputation with the faction. Ok, reduce or take away the faction reputation increase if you need to, although really we still all risked our lives to go try to save this guy and kill all the raptidons and bring back news to his boss. If it were me, I would at least appreciate the effort. Please let me know if there is a way to make this work and please consider taking a second look at how this one plays out. I put so many hours into the gameplay here and I can only do it over so many times before it isn’t fun anymore. I am a completionist but I really don’t want to redo the whole Roseway section. I really appreciate any help you can give, and thank you so much for making a great game for us! I have always thought New Vegas was the best of the Fallout series.

Okay, so I kind of stole everything out of Gladys' safe. And now every time I go to Groundbreaker, they shoot me on site. But, my reputation with them is Agreeable. So how do I fix this? I've tried leaving and coming back, I've done a few of their quests, but can't turn them in because everyone shoots me when I get off the Unreliable. How do I solve this?

When I first started the game, I was under the impression that there could be a variety of combinations when it came to the companion's reputations with each other. Like one playthrough could have Aloth /Eder as friends and another as enemies. Or I suppose, to use a more extreme example, having Xoti/Pallegina as friends and another playthrough as enemies. However, as time goes on, it seems to be that their relationships with each other are mostly set in stone. There will always be a Xoti/Pallegina rivalry, Aloth will always dislike Tekehu and Serafen, etc. The only ones that seem to have a good potential of going either way so far are Eder/Aloth and Eder/Xoti. I'm curious at the amount of variations others have seen in their playthroughs with this system. So, is the game rigged?

My main character does not appear to be gaining any reputation points with party members at all. On multiple occasions, with several different companions, I've had the prompt appear indicating that someone approved of what I just said but yet when I check the reputation page on my character sheet it states I have zero points and not a single "quadrant" around their portraits are filled. On the other hand, when a companion approves of another companion's actions they appear to be gaining points and "quadrants" with each other. Edér and Xoti reached a full 1 point after their first interaction. I've only left Port Maje recently and had a chat with everyone on my ship so it's relatively early in the game but that's why I want to know whether my game is working or not before proceeding any further.

So after waiting for 1.1 I started up a new game. According to notes, they changed how reputation values were calculated. However, after doing the event at Ilonet's Fork, recruiting Xoti, and gaining the Dawnstar Blessing at Port Maje, I am at max positive reputation (2 minor, 1 moderate, 1 major positive changes in total I think). Is it supposed to rise that fast, or do some factions have different point thresholds?

So, I was hoping that I'd be able to make this thread after finishing the actual game, but the issues with my computer are worse than expected (i.e. there's always a worse scenario than the worst case scenario) and so I doubt I'll get to finish it in some time. Likewise I've only been able to skim the boards of late so if this is all already being discussed elsewhere and people feel it comes across as spam or the likes, feel free to merge it with that other thread. For the most part I hope I can add something worthwhile to the discussion regarding the two titular topics and present some possibilities that could potentially help improve the same. So, I'll go ahead and reiterate that I have not finished the game so I would appreciate spoiler tags being used when appropriate and so on, and also that my assessments below are based on what I have experienced so far of the game, which I would still say is over 100 hours or the same. With that out of the way, I'll start off with the more contentious subject based on what opinions I've read, which is the companion relationship/reputation system. Right off the bat I would say that in general I dislike relationship systems based on a reputation scale the likes we've seen in previous games like Neverwinter Nights 2 and Dragon Age: Origins, and to me this is no exception to the rule. I feel that the more transparent these systems are, the more they invite the player to play to their companions' ego and "game" their way to a max relationship, and the more unnatural and mechanical the relationships feel; Deadfire seems to exasperate this further by adding a very clear set of traits that each companion likes and dislikes, and making them respond with stock reactions to every instance where either the player or another companion acts in a way that they like (leading to many strange reactions the likes we've seen many times in other threads already). In turn I also know that if I am to respond to a certain interaction in a specific manner, the rest of the party will inevitably "like" or "dislike" that response because that's what they're very broadly and obviously programmed to do - which is odd because even if someone is "light-hearted" for example, that same person won't necessarily find every joke amusing or every situation ideal for the same. Personally I would have liked a more invisible system myself which kept track in the background of what each liked and disliked and where we'd see only the results of these opinions more so than the ticking of every instance where we say something or do something that increases a character's disposition towards us; but what's done is done and for what it's worth I think the idea of keeping track of companion-companion relationships is an interesting one which I'm glad is to some extent or other being worked on, as it would seem a good way in which to make the party feel a little more dynamic and reactive and all that jazz. But still, even if the system can't be torn down and reworked from the ground, there's a few things I reckon could improve it going further in Deadfire's development. For example, one thing I would love to see looked at is the effect that certain actions we take have on characters regardless of whether they match with their "traits" or not. For example, I am of the opinion that there's things that very likely have a deeper effect on a relationship than whether or not you are one way or abscribe to a certain philosophy. I feel that in cases like these for each character, having a reputation change unaffiliated to companion likes/dislikes would do a lot of good towards making the relationship system feel a lot more natural and less "gamey" or jumpy than it does currently. I feel the like/dislike system is fine but it should really be relegated to very minor shifts, with maybe some big swings at very determined situations when things do get very personal, in either a positive or negative sense (e.g. Serafen helping Xoti out with her nightmares, or Aloth not being able to stand Tekehu's vanity anymore). Likewise it wouldn't be an entirely bad idea to have certain "critical" situations affect a companion's disposition to the *whole* party and not just the Watcher (to use Pallegina's example above, she'd probably be appreciative towards all who helped out with her personal quest and not just the Watcher). Also something that I've noted is that at the beginning of the game, when we were first shown the relationship system via the tutorial, the tutorial section mentioned that companions could lead to forging deeper and more unique bonds and these same would be detailed through the "relationship" box right next to the reputation compass and so on… But has anyone actually seen this box get updated with new content between companions? Or even between companions and the Watcher themselves? I reckoned it was a bit early in my playthrough at first, but as the game moved on, and having reached the point I have most recently, it seems very odd that I should see no update to the same, not even to indicate the ongoing relationship between Maia and my Watcher for example. This would be worth looking into, I think, whether it is working as intended or not. Moving onto the crew now… I for one will say I really liked the crew system, a heck of a lot more than the hirelings back in the first Pillars for certain. I liked the many vignettes involving them, I liked being able to collect them all across the Deadfire almost as if I were filling out my own little Eoradex, I liked how you could get an idea to their individual personalities through many of their introductory interactions and quests and so on. I also reckon that their personalities also determine the role they'd take in the vignettes out at sea, so I liked how Eld Engrim often played the pious character, Emeini the more combative type, and so on. However, I do feel that I would like to see a few situations more appropriately tailored to either the events of the game or to individual crewmembers, which I'll expand upon next. Likewise, and this is a minor addition but and important one I feel: when we look into our journal for information on the mechanics to crewmembers, be it the way they level up on their positions or what advantage does each position and experience in the same bring, these are either not present or very scarcely explained, with all that's said about them is that they're a "motley assortment of neerdowells" and so on. I don't think it's ever mentioned that crewmembers can earn four overall stars across all ranks before they max out either, and I only learned it once I looked at the wiki or a subreddit discussion about it. A more detailed clarification within the game itself that we could access at any time would be appreciated, I think. These are some aspects which I feel could improve both systems over how they presently are, which I also feel would be feasible to do for a future patch or something. What do you guys think? Anything else you would like to add, or would disagree with, or any changes you would propose yourselves?

I have seen many posts praising new factions and there is a lot to like in there. All four of them are well developed, with detailed backstory and with multiple representations throughout the Deadfire. Each of them have a companion to represent them and have a lengthy chain of well designed quests. How Deadfire handles its factions is in many ways similar to New Vegas. The political scene of Deadifire makes up the majority of games content and choosing with whom the player will ally with (if at all) is probably the most important choice in the game. Who will become your antagonist depends on that choice. That’s right, while Eothas might be the one who starts you on your journey, it is the fight before you confront him, which is the true resolution of this games conflict. It is a big deal – you face a major faction representative, with whom, most likely, you interacted for the big chunk of the game and you will have to kill one of the companions who traveled with you for tenths of hours (or from what I understand: you should have to. In my personal playthrough I managed to not kill said companion by now talking to her after making my faction choice, From what I have heard others a just as easy to exploit). Unfortunately, it doesn’t feel nearly as impactful as I am making it sound like and, as I believe, it should be. While there is a pretty elaborate combat sequence before reaching Ukaizo it isn’t quite the same as charging the enemy in the battle for the Hoover Dam in New Vegas. The final confrontation with the faction leader feels more like an afterthought, rather than a climax – perhaps it might be redeemed with a better difficulty, but personally I feel there is just not enough buildup to really allow this moment to properly pay off. However, I think that the weakness of this finale comes from fairly inconsequential faction and relationship system. In New Vegas the conflict between factions was active and present everywhere you went and you were part of it. The choices you made throughout the game – both following certain quest paths and by making mechanical choices (like killing members of certain faction) influenced your standing with various faction in both story and gameplay. This lead to said faction responding: either granting you access to their hideouts and helping you in wilderness or becoming unfriendly and later hostile and even sending bounties after you. Choices you made throughout the game actively allied you with certain faction, making the finale the result of your entire journey, rather than a single choice. While Deadfire has means to achieve a similar effect, it never utilizes it. While many of the quests will force you to favour one faction over the other, I didn’t notice my choices being reflected in the faction system. The following screenshot is taken from my “on the crossroads save” – all of the sidecontent completed with only the final choice and Ukaizo left to complete. How is my standing with all of the factions so high, in spite of my actions hurting some of them? I made a lot of choices against Royal Deadfire Company and yet, none of it is reflected. Only Principi ended up at “mixed” though outside one or two token reactivity in conversations it had little effect on my interactions with them. Even better, here is my standing after making the choice: allying with Valians, blowing up RDC’s powder reserves and lying to the Queen (while RDC might have been unaware of my actions, queen wasn’t). Nothing has changed. While hand crafted content might not support such flexibility, a worldmap is a perfect space to react to your choices – unsatisfied faction trying to raid your ship, you raiding faction ships affecting their reputation, friendly ships coming to your aid, ambushes in the city etc. Unfortunately, world map is static and shares no connection with the rest of the game, even though many ship claim to represent one of the four factions. Similar problems can be seen among companions – before and after the choice: I didn’t go out of my way to appease all of my companions. And yet as a character who didn’t respect the Gods, was fairly unsupportive to RTC and vocally supportive of Valians, trade and animancy I didn’t step on anyones toes. As a matter of fact, I was pairing companions with opposite worldviews (Pallegina+Maia, Takehu+Maia, Serafim+Pallegina) and yet I didn’t see any disagreement there. Your choice of faction should have repercussions earlier in the game and get reactions from both companions and factions. The final choice should be a natural extension of the previous adventure and not artificial “which ending slide do you prefer” choice, it is right now. It is probably unrealistic as expansions are planned already, but what I would much like to see is an expansion which would focus on core mechanics of the game. I feel that the way faction and companions interact with each other is in need of a major overhaul to make the story that is already in the game effective.

I have a lot of maxed dispositions and a lot of them have gone up despite me playing super good (I'm Cruel:1 for some reason) meanwhile my companions struggle to go up in reputation. A lot of them are stuck at 1 despite me pleasing them in every other conversation option. Is there some bug I'm unaware of or is the system just a bit flawed?

I've got a bunch of different faction colors and was wondering... Does it matter which flag I use when attacking ships? Do flags have any impact on reputation with the attacked faction (like losing reputation attacking Vailian Trading Co ships with Watcher colors)? I know that a flag can be used early on for a quest and there may be more of those. What I'm curious about is the open world naval combat impact.

"Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." --Matthew 6:2 (KJV) In the most recent Q&A (and elsewhere), Sawyer mentions that they're changing some of the disposition dynamics to reflect only stuff your character has done that is knowable to others. The example given being that in Pillars 1, a character with Deceptive 4 was actually the lousiest liar around, because everybody knew that (s)he lied a lot. So they're re-naming "deceptive" to "shady" and, presumably, allowing masterful lies to pass without affecting Reputations. For the "reputation" element of the Disposition mechanic (i.e., what folks think about the Watcher), this makes sense. But that's not the only thing that Dispositions affect for some characters-- Priests and Paladins get game-mechanical benefits/penalties from these, too. The system in Pillars 1 tried to serve two masters in representing both your character's outward reputation and his/her inner values, and Josh is correct in pointing out some of the issues that this caused. But, I don't see the problem as being wholly solved so long as the Priest/Paladin favored/disfavored dispositions continue to rely on the same variables as the character's public reputation. Shouldn't the strength of a character's faith or devotion reflect what the character knows and does, rather than just what the outside world knows about his/her actions? Just to build on the Deception example, above, a Priest of Skaen or Wael has "deceptive" as a favored disposition, and this makes perfect sense as-implemented in the first game-- these deities value misdirection, tricks, and secrets. However, the ideal deceptions practiced by Skaenites and Waelites would be effective ones, no? A masterful act of deception to conceal a revolutionary plot or obscure some hidden point of knowledge seems like the kind of action that the game should reward for such a Priest. Conversely, for a Priest of Eothas, deceptive acts should reflect negatively on the character's devotion, even if nobody ever learns of them.

So, I've completed the quest "Blood Legacy." Beside being disappointed at the very limited options as to what to do with The entire point of reputation is (believed) knowledge of actions performed. Even though I actually performed an action, no one knows about it, thus effectively rendering my actions (to others) as unknown.

I encountered a potential bug, though it's possible that it's a design choice that I just don't fully understand. Behavior: Convincing Delem he doesn't need to eat birds leads to reputation loss. Expected: I don't believe this path should cause you to lose reputation—at least using the Survival-based chat option. I would expect it to give a reputation gain, or at least be reputation neutral. Details: In Oldsong (Twin Elms), Delem offers you a quest to collect three birds, which he'll eat to gain greater powers of song. If you go ask people about his request, they will all tell you that this is a superstition. I found two different ways to talk him out of his quest: The first is to tell him that it's just a superstition and that all previous singers were just looking for an easy way out. It makes sense that this dialog option might lead to a reputation loss, as it indicates a misalignment with the traditions of the local culture. The second is to make an argument based on a minimum level of survival, that leads Delem to conclude on his own that it's not a practice that makes sense. I think this should give a reputation gain, or at least be reputation neutral. With the survival approach, Delem is happy, nobody's bird was stolen, and we haven't disparaged any local traditions. This seems to me like it should be the maximum reputation gain, or at least a reputation-neutral solution. If we're role playing, it seems this would be at least as good for your local reputation as if you stole somebody's pet bird so a singer could eat it. I'm happy to accept it if this was an intentional design—either to reward the more difficult task of gathering all the birds, or based on some theory of Orlan culture that overrides my interpretations. In the former case, I would suggest that maybe an additional quest reward other than reputation would make more sense as a reward rather than taking away reputation for the harmless, survival-based solution.

In the game you see different amount of reputation gains. I was wondering what the stages are and which is more? For example: Minor Positive Moderate Positive Average Positive Major Positive ?? Does anyone also know the value of each. For example Minor + moderate = average?

So, I am completing quests in and around Defiance Bay, and it seems that nothing I do changes my reputation with the city. It's not showing up in the log, and it's not actually changing on my character sheet. I turned on the [show personality/reputation] option in, well, Options, and tried submitting Cinders of Faith and All Hands on Deck - they show in the dialogue that I should be gaining moderate and exceptional reputation, respectively, with Defiance Bay, but in neither case does the reputation change show in the log with the experience gain, nor does it change my reputation from Eccentric (Fairly Mixed). My last reputation change came from resolving the Aelyse quest in Dyrford Village, when I lost moderate rep for killing Lord H. That showed up in the log and changed the listing on my character sheet. Any ideas? Anyone else having this issue since the latest patch? Thanks!

So I understand that the various factions in Defiance Bay are at odds with each other and that choosing one will result in not being able to interact with the others. That makes sense to me, even if I messed it up in my most recent play through. However, I found that when aligning with one (the mafia-like one), I had already completed quests with both the dozens AND crucible knights. As such, the game has now locked me out of ALL factions, as I am at a "faintly good" reputation with each of them. Is this a bug or intended? I like the idea of exclusive faction quest-lines and such, but the execution here is baaaaad. It should be structured so that when you compete a quest for one of the factions, your reputation with the other factions drops considerably so that you are unable to complete any quests you currently have for the other factions but your aligned faction's quest-line stays intact. Currently I cannot do quests for any of them, and that's kind of a bummer. I hope that makes sense. Can anyone shed light on the topic for me?

As a lvl 4 Paladin of the Shieldbearers of St Elcga my favorite dispositions are Honest & Diplomatic. Disfavored are Cruel & Aggressive. I currently have a rank 1 in Honest, Diplomatic, Benevolent and Passionate. I recently also killed Raedric which gained me one point in Passionate. Is there anyway you can change or are there different ways you can take/handle a fight with an other result? How can I see which will be the outcome?

Record Keeper at the Ducal Palace, when speaking abou Eder problem I can just keep conversing about it, thus allowing to farm reputation like diplomacy. I used the [Resolve 17] option to continue and from there I can just repeat.

Please discuss your thoughts, ideas, complaints, suggestions etc. on Pillars of Eternity here.

This is in response to the many threads in disagreement over how XP rewards and quest objectives should be handled. There have been many good arguments from many different perspectives. I will summarize my own personal opinion on the matter, and leave the floor open for you to add constructive criticism. This isn't about right or wrong or an aversion to change. It's about creating a "balanced" system for all play styles that doesn't prevent certain behaviour, but rather reacts to it. Thankyou, and keep smiling. My thoughts on Cause and Effect (in a nutshell): - Cause should be controlled by the Core Mechanics. You can run around and hit things. It's your choice. - Effect should be evaluated by the Reputation System. If you hit things you shouldn't hit, there are consequences. - The Core Mechanics should only deal with numbers. - The Reputation System should adjudicate character behaviour. - If the numbers say your character has been a naughty boy, then your reputation influences the appropriate factions. - If you continue to be a good boy, you remain in good standing with the appropriate factions. Or it may even increase your standing. - If you continue to be a naughty boy, the appropriate factions react to you accordingly, i.e., If you go looking for trouble, you will find it. If a player's actions seem unlawful, or despicable, or grindy, or in bad taste, do not prevent it from happening by excluding it from the core mechanics or blatantly denying them XP. Add incentives or disincentives in the game content that allow the player to make a choice as to whether they continue that play style or change. The same goes for lawful behaviour. We need to treat players like adults and let them accept responsibility for their actions. I would like to play Project Eternity as a good guy, as a bad guy, as a good guy who turns bad, as a bad guy who turns good, and maybe the odd neutral play style too. I don't want to be pre-judged by the core mechanics, only judged by my actions that are then handled by the reputation system. Love, peace, and chicken grease. Some background threads to this post: - Degenerate Gameplay - Balancing Stealth vs Combat - Good vs Evil Roleplaying Rewards

Basically: High Profile (High Reputation) versus Low Profile (Low Reputation) How many chases after you as a "High Profile" character, how many wants autographs? How much ego stroking? Quests that you wouldn't find before? (Some old man trusting the White Knight wherein he doesn't trust the random Low Profile character). How many assassins go after you? How many who would've attacked you on one playthrough just don't because you have a high enough reputation, how many wants to challenge out of honor? As a "Low Profile" character, does that necessarily mean that you are a Rogue/Stealth/Non-Lethalist? No I don't think so. It just implies you don't leave any witnesses of your passing and are very adept at covering up your tracks. Might not get as many assassins after him, but could end up in fights where a "High Reputation" character does not. How does Reputation affect the game, on low's and high's? Is Mid-Reputation important? Does a Low Profile open up more possibility for more suburb Quests, thieves guild or whatnot, but locks out from some High Profile quests? Vice versa. Hugs, have a great day