You're making me leave? Then I want my cut of the treasure!

[Hormalakh]

Say you've had a companion that has been traveling with you for a big part of the game. Say it's been since the beginning of the game and now you've met a better companion that would totally complete your party. But, when you tell your ex-companion that it was no longer meant to be, he doesn't take it too kindly. In fact, he thinks that he's been working with you all this time, and that it really isn't fair for you to leave him at the tavern and go pick up that "hot new elf chick" to be in your party. In fact, he thinks that he deserves a fair share of all that loot you've been hoarding to yourself this whole time.

 

He's leaving alright, but not without his cut of the loot. You'll have to kill him or pay him. And if it's in a lawful town, you can't kill him without answering to the law.

 

What do you guys think? Would you like to see your party members force a cut of the loot or no, when you leave them?

Edited October 23, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Gurkog]

Depends on the character your are leaving behind. If they are the mentor type you could lose some synergy skill they had with your abilities, daring roguish might take a shiny bauble, mercenary would collect coin, etc...

 

EDIT: would be awesome if some religious companion would put a curse on you when you disband them.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Gurkog

[AgentOrange]

They had this in ToEE. When you recruited a companion they would say they would be taking a cut of the gold if they were a mercenary type, or if they were a mage/priest they might just want any scrolls that you found. When I played though I think it was bugged because they didn't end up taking anything. Still, it's a neat idea to have the different companions asking for different forms of payment.

[Hormalakh]

They had this in ToEE. When you recruited a companion they would say they would be taking a cut of the gold if they were a mercenary type, or if they were a mage/priest they might just want any scrolls that you found. When I played though I think it was bugged because they didn't end up taking anything. Still, it's a neat idea to have the different companions asking for different forms of payment.

 

I should've known that any game Tim Cain makes would be awesome enough to think about this before me Very cool

[VixRaine]

It's also worth point out, I believe, that with the player house and stronghold, you may wind up having a place to put companions who are not currently 'Main Party' material without necessarily shunning them out of the group and having to give out a severance package or what have you.

[Tigranes]

I like the idea, though the obvious problem is people will get around it by deliberately getting the companion killed.

[AgentOrange]

I like the idea, though the obvious problem is people will get around it by deliberately getting the companion killed.

 

I don't see that as a problem

[eselle28]

I wouldn't it mind that being a trigger for characters who joined the party as mercenaries and who had assertive personalities, but that's not an appropriate response for all companions. Just using some BGII personalities, a Keldorn type who joined the quest because he thought it was the right thing to do would likely be too honorable to demand money from or attack someone who decided he wasn't the best man for the job. A weak character like Aerie would be more likely to cry. Someone like Nalia might be perfectly happy to leave as long as her own quest had been taken care of. As most characters in a party generally aren't there for pure profit, I don't think it's likely to be a common response.

 

As for a town's response, there are no lawful/chaotic divisions in the game. As the encounter would look like one of your companions attacking you, I think many towns might look the other way unless it was someone who was of their race or culture attacking and being killed by a bunch of outsiders.

 

(All that applies to gold and treasure. As far as experience goes, your companion leveled up by being with you. I'm not sure what justification there would be for one taking some allocated to the player character or the ones who weren't kicked from the party.)

Edited October 23, 2012 by eselle28

[nikolokolus]

I don't really care one way or the other, but it might be an interesting thing to have companions that require a certain amount of "upkeep" while they are in your employ? A certain amount of gold, or a certain cut of all treasure gets lopped off as a percentage at the time of discovery. This would remove the need to pay somebody off when you part ways, as they are no longer the responsibility of the main character at that point.

Edited October 23, 2012 by nikolokolus

[teknoman2]

this is what you do to useless companions

[Logos]

"Tough ****, this party is not a democracy. If you want fairness and equality you should've become a moral philosopher instead of a sellsword."

Edited October 23, 2012 by Logos

[pipboy2000]

I like the idea, though the obvious problem is people will get around it by deliberately getting the companion killed.

 

Or if the companion would like to have an item, for example, people would empty their inventory (put everything in a chest) before kicking someone out of the party, etc., etc....

 

Though I like the idea!

If somebody shared so many adventures with you and stuck with you through thick and thin, he obviously would be deeply disappointed, if you leave him for someone else and there should be some way to illustrate this.

 

On the other hand, if you have your castle/house and the companion has traveled with you for a long time, there should be an option to say something friendly like: "XY, you have done so much, why don't you go to the castle/house and take some time to recover?" and not just kick him out of the party (forever)...

[Osvir]

Like someone said, this sounds like character specific. It all depends on the character, so this really addresses one companion (The Rogue/Thiefish one) and not all of them.

 

I like it though, I'd definitely want my party members demand stuff from me sometimes. Another companion could be distressed, scared. Depending on where you drop them off would give a different effect (Dropping someone off in the middle of the forest? He might not take that so kindly "But but, just here!? It's pitch dark middle of the night and there are monsters about, how can you do this to me!?" haha).

 

I'd love it for them to change depending on how they level up (Build order etc. etc.)... that'd be cool ^^

Edited October 23, 2012 by Osvir

[Addon]

I'd like to keep all my useless companions in my castle. But if they decide to leave on their own it would be really interesting if they ask for some part of gold and treasures. And then your charisma/influence/maybe some romance relationship will effect the ammount you have to pay them. And why not to lie to them? Promisse some gold and then run away?

[Shevek]

This poll is poorly crafted. The decisions are skewed as the ratio are positive responses out number the negative ones. Also, the negative response is made to sound "dumb." It should have been two questions.

 

Question 1: Should there be penalties for leaving behind party members? Yes/No

Question 2: If penalties are included, what should they be? Choices

 

I wish people would stop making push polls and then use them as evidence that others support their points.

 

As for my choice: I voted no penalties. This kinda stuff sounds good in theory and would be great fun in PnP with a DM directing traffic but it blows in a cRPG. Case in point: ToEE. In ToEE, they had joinable NPCs take a share of the loot. First thing people did was mod that out or reduce it significantly. Why? It was both implemented poorly and it rubbed most folks the wrong way.

 

I want to just play my game, pick up who I want to pick up and ditch who I want to ditch without the fear of paying alimony like I am 80 year old billionaire who just got divorced from some 20 year old gold digger.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Shevek

[Karkarov]

If they have been adventuring with me that long they already have a cut of the loot via the gear on their back and the levels they earned. Yes they should get to keep whatever they have in their inventory or on their person as gear. Yes systems should be in place that prevent you from "stripping" a companion, like you can't change their gear unless it is by equipping them with a new item of same or higher "level". They made it work so companions wouldn't put on lower level gear in fallout 3 and NV they can do it here. Just take it a step further.

 

And if you don't like it there is always the "Khalid" approach. Bears have to eat too you know.

[harhar!]

 

He's leaving alright, but not without his cut of the loot. You'll have to kill him or pay him. And if it's in a lawful town, you can't kill him without answering to the law.

 

 

What???

 

He attacks me and I don't have a right to defend myself? What kind of ****ty law is that?

[HereticSaint]

If there was no agreement beforehand that they'd be getting a cut of the loot, then like hell they'd extort me because we are going our separate ways. If they were supposed to get a cut, then it would make more sense that they got it as we found treasure, unless for some odd reason they explicitly stated they want their cut if and when they leave, then I'd give them there cut and be off.

 

If he attacked me to get something he wasn't owed I'd have no issue killing him or her and if the law saw issue with that, to hell with that law and to hell with that town then.

 

(The option of, "Only if it was agree on beforehand" isn't an option so I'm not going to vote for now)

Edited October 23, 2012 by HereticSaint

[HereticSaint]

If they have been adventuring with me that long they already have a cut of the loot via the gear on their back and the levels they earned. Yes they should get to keep whatever they have in their inventory or on their person as gear. Yes systems should be in place that prevent you from "stripping" a companion, like you can't change their gear unless it is by equipping them with a new item of same or higher "level". They made it work so companions wouldn't put on lower level gear in fallout 3 and NV they can do it here. Just take it a step further.

 

And if you don't like it there is always the "Khalid" approach. Bears have to eat too you know.

 

I don't like this approach because, and this happens a lot in RPG's, sometimes there will be lower level loot that's better than higher level loot for a specific character archetype. Sure, that level 12 item with +3 Str might be okay for a Rogue to use, but that level 8 item with +2 Dex could easily be better.If they can find a way around that to still prevent stripping then alright.

[Jarmo]

What experience?

 

Would they be demanding an extra part of my experience, ie level drain me?

Or would I be demanding back the experience they've earned, ie level draining them instead?

 

Anyway, if someone joins me to get their ancestral sword from the tomb of evil leprechauns,

I'd expect them to want it as well. But then, if it's a nice enough sword we might have to part

ways in unfriendly fashion, leaving him bleeding at the floor of his family mausoleum.

[HereticSaint]

What experience?

 

Would they be demanding an extra part of my experience, ie level drain me?

Or would I be demanding back the experience they've earned, ie level draining them instead?

 

Anyway, if someone joins me to get their ancestral sword from the tomb of evil leprechauns,

I'd expect them to want it as well. But then, if it's a nice enough sword we might have to part

ways in unfriendly fashion, leaving him bleeding at the floor of his family mausoleum.

 

Something like this should definitely have an impact on any other non-evil characters in your party though, if this kind of thing does pop up.

[trulez]

Player response: "Choose, leave or die, which one is it ?"

[Hormalakh]

This poll is poorly crafted. The decisions are skewed as the ratio are positive responses out number the negative ones. Also, the negative response is made to sound "dumb." It should have been two questions.

 

Question 1: Should there be penalties for leaving behind party members? Yes/No

Question 2: If penalties are included, what should they be? Choices

 

I wish people would stop making push polls and then use them as evidence that others support their points.

 

As for my choice: I voted no penalties. This kinda stuff sounds good in theory and would be great fun in PnP with a DM directing traffic but it blows in a cRPG. Case in point: ToEE. In ToEE, they had joinable NPCs take a share of the loot. First thing people did was mod that out or reduce it significantly. Why? It was both implemented poorly and it rubbed most folks the wrong way.

 

I want to just play my game, pick up who I want to pick up and ditch who I want to ditch without the fear of paying alimony like I am 80 year old billionaire who just got divorced from some 20 year old gold digger.

 

Yeah I didn't like how I wrote the poll either. I didn't want it to be just yes/no though. Anyway, I'm not pushing anything. Just want to see what people think. Chris Avellone talked about interesting relationships in this game, and I thought this was an interesting mechanic which I don't usually see in games. I don't see why one or two companions can't be able to do this in game: it builds realism and makes the player actually care about what they do in-game and not be psychopaths to everyone they meet. If you don't like it, don't pick those companions. It isn't about "letting you play your game" (I don't understand what that means really) it's about making the game interesting. If you don't think this is interesting, fine.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Hormalakh]

He's leaving alright, but not without his cut of the loot. You'll have to kill him or pay him. And if it's in a lawful town, you can't kill him without answering to the law.

 

 

What???

 

He attacks me and I don't have a right to defend myself? What kind of ****ty law is that?

 

Some laws are quite ****ty. Laws aren't always fair. This was just a scenario in any case. The main point was whether you'd like to see some characters demand something before they leave, whatever it may be. You can kill them if you disagree, but you'd have to lose something in that process (other than a companion): a 5 on 1 is kind of over-kill isn't it?

[Gfted1]

Cut of the treasure? Hell no! If I replace someone I strip them to their shorts before I send them on their way.