My Biggest Complaint - Scattered Dispositions

[Cyrus_Blackfeather]

I'm wondering if I'm not understanding the disposition system properly. 

 

So... I seem to run into this problem with every character I play where I get this weird smattering of dispositions across the board. So, I'll be going for an aggressive sort of pirate/barbarian character, but because of what the game determines an 'honest' response, I'll wind up with one fourth of my "Honest" bar filled in. Or I'll be almost done filling out Passionate, and have a few points in Stoic from when I picked "Say nothing" during one of the god conversations. 

 

Is this a common issue? Am I supposed to read this as "My character is woefully inconsistent" or see it as "Sometimes my character decides to be honest to certain people, otherwise he opts to lie," or "Sometimes my character decides to act with diplomacy and calm while other times he opts to act aggressively"? 

[Enoch]

Is this a common issue? Am I supposed to read this as "My character is woefully inconsistent" or see it as "Sometimes my character decides to be honest to certain people, otherwise he opts to lie," or "Sometimes my character decides to act with diplomacy and calm while other times he opts to act aggressively"? 

A)  Yes.

 

B)  Isn't that how most actual people are?  Virtually nobody is steadfastly devoted to being, say, "Passionate" or "Shady" in all circumstances. 

 

(That said, it is fairly arbitrary which responses get tagged with a Disposition and which ones are Disposition-neutral.  I don't fault anybody for turning the UI option to display them in advance on, at least until they have a very good sense of how Obsidian writes these things.) 

[Cyrus_Blackfeather]

 

Is this a common issue? Am I supposed to read this as "My character is woefully inconsistent" or see it as "Sometimes my character decides to be honest to certain people, otherwise he opts to lie," or "Sometimes my character decides to act with diplomacy and calm while other times he opts to act aggressively"? 

A)  Yes.

 

B)  Isn't that how most actual people are?  Virtually nobody is steadfastly devoted to being, say, "Passionate" or "Shady" in all circumstances. 

 

(That said, it is fairly arbitrary which responses get tagged with a Disposition and which ones are Disposition-neutral.  I don't fault anybody for turning the UI option to display them in advance on, at least until they have a very good sense of how Obsidian writes these things.) 

 

 

Says you. I'm going to dedicate myself to being as shady as possible ALL THE TIME so that no one will suspect a thing when I actually do something bad!

 

... Okay, maybe not. 

 

That said, I do think playing with that feature on would help, and also deciding on a sort of "Paladin-like" two dispositions to aim for at character creation, just to create a more focused narrative feel. 

[Tick]

The say nothing choice is almost *always* stoic.

 

I think if you lean a certain way it still shows in game, and it's pretty natural to not just be one thing or another. That said, if you're really dedicated to having all or nothing disposition levels, you can turn on the option that tells you the dialogue options' dispositions.

 

It sometimes used to throw me off too. I think at this point I pretty much know which one is which though. Anything that's strongly against something messed up or against inaction tends to be passionate, being blunt or open about situations makes you honest, saying nothing makes you stoic, wanting to help for nothing makes you benevolent, attacking or killing instead of talking makes you aggressive, etc.

[Cyrus_Blackfeather]

The say nothing choice is almost *always* stoic.

 

I think if you lean a certain way it still shows in game, and it's pretty natural to not just be one thing or another. That said, if you're really dedicated to having all or nothing disposition levels, you can turn on the option that tells you the dialogue options' dispositions.

 

It sometimes used to throw me off too. I think at this point I pretty much know which one is which though. Anything that's strongly against something messed up or against inaction tends to be passionate, being blunt or open about situations makes you honest, saying nothing makes you stoic, wanting to help for nothing makes you benevolent, attacking or killing instead of talking makes you aggressive, etc.

 

Making random jokes and sometimes acting in a way that's not entirely appropriate to the situation makes you "Clever."

 

Yeah, and you're right - it doesn't always necessarily HAVE to be all or nothing. For instance, when I handled Rinco, I wound up giving him his money, because - assuming he was being honest, and with his wife probably dead I had no reason to believe otherwise - his son would be just as homeless as he was without it. And my Watcher, despite being aggressive, isn't about to let a child be homeless just because his father's a postenago. 

[Hawke64]

Is this a common issue?

I'd say, yes. My issue with it that dispositions are not bound to factions/NPCs (Tyranny didn't have dispositions at all, only reputations with factions/characters). As it is, they look too similar to D&D alignments, where you tried to guess what the developers thought the dialogue options meant. Is it a lawfully good (well?) to choose to fight bandits (thus preventing them from attacking anyone else) or is it more LG-ly to convince them to let you pass without violence? (From an encounter in PoEII, by the way. At least one option to attack was disposition-neutral).

[Cyrus_Blackfeather]

 

Is this a common issue?

I'd say, yes. My issue with it that dispositions are not bound to factions/NPCs (Tyranny didn't have dispositions at all, only reputations with factions/characters). As it is, they look too similar to D&D alignments, where you tried to guess what the developers thought the dialogue options meant. Is it a lawfully good (well?) to choose to fight bandits (thus preventing them from attacking anyone else) or is it more LG-ly to convince them to let you pass without violence? (From an encounter in PoEII, by the way. At least one option to attack was disposition-neutral).

 

 

Yeah, I actually really liked how the disposition system was handled in Tyranny (Now if only the companions didn't make me want to chuck most of them off of the Spire. Especially Kills-in-Shadow). I'm looking at playing a Paladin now so that I can have a bit more of a focused experience with the disposition system. 

[Vitalis]

 

 

Is this a common issue?

I'd say, yes. My issue with it that dispositions are not bound to factions/NPCs (Tyranny didn't have dispositions at all, only reputations with factions/characters). As it is, they look too similar to D&D alignments, where you tried to guess what the developers thought the dialogue options meant. Is it a lawfully good (well?) to choose to fight bandits (thus preventing them from attacking anyone else) or is it more LG-ly to convince them to let you pass without violence? (From an encounter in PoEII, by the way. At least one option to attack was disposition-neutral).

Yeah, I actually really liked how the disposition system was handled in Tyranny (Now if only the companions didn't make me want to chuck most of them off of the Spire. Especially Kills-in-Shadow). I'm looking at playing a Paladin now so that I can have a bit more of a focused experience with the disposition system.

Play a Templar so then you have four dis/favored dispositions. I'm currently playing a Bleak Walker Priest of Magran, which is Aggressive/Clever/Cruel with Passionate/Benevolent/Diplomatic as negatives.

 

The in game description says that Bleak Walkers generally are not sadists, they just employ cruelty as a tool to force conflict to end. If paired with a priest of Magran, perhaps with a bit of Durance added in, the character can see themselves as a forge to put people to the test.

 

For example, the character wouldn't necessarily decide to brutally murder the Bardatto's and/or the Valera's unless they advanced the plot far enough to get to that point; they could instead, try to get a deal going between the families, perhaps with a bit of minor head canon going on. With a high enough resolve there's even an option following the intimidates "ENOUGH" that goes "I think you are forgetting who I am. I went out of my way to arrange this meeting. State. Your. Terms." which accomplishes the same as the diplomatic response, with it being diplomatic. It also fits with something a Bleak Walker would say without it being a class response, I'd actually argue that forcing the two to compromise based on being a Bleak Walker should be an actual dialogue choice in it's own right.

 

This character can also be Stoic and Rational as well. I find Stoic kind of goes with a Bleak Walker given the orders preference for never giving up on a job regardless of the employer changing their minds, a la the White March Part 2.

 

Shady and Honest is a bit situational as there are times that are best served by either of them.

 

This turned into a mini rant about why Bleak Walkers don't have to be Chaotic Evil, so I hope it gets the point across on dispositions.

 

I have no issue with disposition points being spread out, but the game doesn't and can't recognize the details of why such a disposition spread exists.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Vitalis

[InsaneCommander]

For example, the character wouldn't necessarily decide to brutally murder the Bardatto's and/or the Valera's unless they advanced the plot far enough to get to that point; they could instead, try to get a deal going between the families, perhaps with a bit of minor head canon going on. With a high enough resolve there's even an option following the intimidates "ENOUGH" that goes "I think you are forgetting who I am. I went out of my way to arrange this meeting. State. Your. Terms." which accomplishes the same as the diplomatic response, with it being diplomatic. It also fits with something a Bleak Walker would say without it being a class response, I'd actually argue that forcing the two to compromise based on being a Bleak Walker should be an actual dialogue choice in it's own right.

 

Have you done this quest already? Can you end it "diplomatically" without getting the diplomatic disposition?

[Vitalis]

 

For example, the character wouldn't necessarily decide to brutally murder the Bardatto's and/or the Valera's unless they advanced the plot far enough to get to that point; they could instead, try to get a deal going between the families, perhaps with a bit of minor head canon going on. With a high enough resolve there's even an option following the intimidates "ENOUGH" that goes "I think you are forgetting who I am. I went out of my way to arrange this meeting. State. Your. Terms." which accomplishes the same as the diplomatic response, with it being diplomatic. It also fits with something a Bleak Walker would say without it being a class response, I'd actually argue that forcing the two to compromise based on being a Bleak Walker should be an actual dialogue choice in it's own right.

Have you done this quest already? Can you end it "diplomatically" without getting the diplomatic disposition?

Yes, I just noticed I made a typo that wasn't fixes. It should be without it being diplomatic.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Vitalis

[Guest Blutwurstritter]

Does a high disposition matter in any way ?

[Cyrus_Blackfeather]

Does a high disposition matter in any way ?

 

There's disposition checks. I know there's one where if you have a high enough Aggression, you can convince someone to give up a potent weapon, but if it's not high enough he calls your bluff and attacks you. 

[Hawke64]

Does a high disposition matter in any way ?

Yes, there are checks, but they aren't shown unless you pass them. Usually 2 levels are required.

[Guest]

The system is the same as Pillars 1. Deadfire uses a graphical representation rather than a numeric one. You still max out at 4, etc.

[Verde]

Playing a Paladin or Priest is so hard in this game. I tried a Priest of Wael and it didn't work!

[Vitalis]

Playing a Paladin or Priest is so hard in this game. I tried a Priest of Wael and it didn't work!

That sounds more like a player problem than a game problem.

[Verde]

 

Playing a Paladin or Priest is so hard in this game. I tried a Priest of Wael and it didn't work!

That sounds more like a player problem than a game problem.

Maybe. But it's damn near impossible never selecting Honest or Rational decisions. Maybe you'd do better with Shady.

[Vitalis]

 

 

Playing a Paladin or Priest is so hard in this game. I tried a Priest of Wael and it didn't work!

That sounds more like a player problem than a game problem.

Maybe. But it's damn near impossible never selecting Honest or Rational decisions. Maybe you'd do better with Shady.

Then don't play a variant that restricts using those options.

[Zap Gun For Hire]

The say nothing choice is almost *always* stoic.

Given how often "Say nothing" shows up, I feel it was a missed opportunity for the Watcher to pull a "Glare Silently" and have a path where the Watcher "Says nothing" enough times that people start commenting on it/expecting it ala Tyranny.  Sort of a super easter egg above and beyond the normal reactions to being Stoic.

 

...

 

Come to think of it, makes me wonder what Atsura would make of a Glare Silently Watcher.

[Zaris]

 

The say nothing choice is almost *always* stoic.

Given how often "Say nothing" shows up, I feel it was a missed opportunity for the Watcher to pull a "Glare Silently" and have a path where the Watcher "Says nothing" enough times that people start commenting on it/expecting it ala Tyranny. Sort of a super easter egg above and beyond the normal reactions to being Stoic.

 

...

 

Come to think of it, makes me wonder what Atsura would make of a Glare Silently Watcher.

 

Great idea; „glare silently” was awesome : D And I was really pleasantly suprised when characters started to notice that and it even came up during final trial with Tunon.

[quaggan]

 

The say nothing choice is almost *always* stoic.

Given how often "Say nothing" shows up, I feel it was a missed opportunity for the Watcher to pull a "Glare Silently" and have a path where the Watcher "Says nothing" enough times that people start commenting on it/expecting it ala Tyranny.  Sort of a super easter egg above and beyond the normal reactions to being Stoic.

 

...

 

Come to think of it, makes me wonder what Atsura would make of a Glare Silently Watcher.

 

 

 Now I imagine the Watcher and Atsura just glaring silently at each other for the duration of the whole convo, and still nonverbally communicating enough to progress the necessary quests.

 

 My feelings on the problem described in this thread are... ambivalent. I turned the option to show disposition gain on, and find it most helpful, but it also means I frequently experience dissonance between what I think a line is, and what the game classifies it as. Of course, this is quite realistic - I frequently encounter difference of interpretation between the one saying something and the person hearing it. The more cynical part of me appreciates it, but it's also quite inconvenient.

[Guest]

There’s a “say nothing” option at Ashen Maw that Eothas comments on

[Hawke64]

I tried to say nothing to Rynhaedr (Rymrgand's temple guardian; BoW DLC). Unsuccessfully.

[Tick]

There’s a “say nothing” option at Ashen Maw that Eothas comments on

That's fantastic. I love the Eothas conversations.

[yoyolll]

Here's my issue with it... I'm playing a selfish, evil character who just wants money and won't let morals get in the way. Somehow I've managed to get 4 stoic, 4 shady, 4 rational, 2 passionate, 2 honest, 3 diplomatic, 4 cruel, 4 clever, 3 benevolent, and 4 aggressive, just by roleplaying a fairly common character archetype without worrying about disposition points.  The disposition system loses its meaning when it's this easy to pick up traits in everything just by playing the game regularly.