Would you like for an NPC to be able to betray your PC?

[Pshaw 187]

I do like these moments. I enjoyed them in both BG2 and in ME2.

 

I think NPCs should always have strong opinions of their own and if you work against what they think is right for too long they should no longer want deal with you. In some cases it might be fitting that they attack you or betray you. So I think that a few of these situations should be included with NPCs with particularly strong beliefs about how to do things.

[JallaAllah 4]

Yoshimo!!!!! >

 

R.I.P. Yoshimo ... we all loved you! We would have revived you 1000 times if possible ... God damn it, why am I listening to sad piano music at the moment!

[Naesh 30]

As an added bonus i want the possibility to betray a companion. In a *significant* manner.

[Malcador 7,003]

Yep, that would be interesting to have in the game, also part of NPCs reacting to you as a 'leader'. If they think you're a jackass they might just leave, rob you or try to slay you depending on how the NPC is. Think of some zealot NPC taking umbrage at you killing merchants.

[-Zin- 52]

Ehm... I feel this question is sort of "D'uh?"

 

Just do it like in Dragon Age Origins.

 

*Mild spoiler*

 

Zevran will betray you if you're not nice to him, but if you are cool with him, he'll value your friendship/relationship more than coin

[Dawn_ 25]

Actually thinking a bit more on the subject that could lead in a good quest.

 

After having your stronghold, your land (town) is getting intensively attacked and it is suspicious because it seems there is a leak from the inside (since they seemed really well informed on the stronghold weakness. It could lead to find your traitor among your rank (companions).

 

But on a more wide case. i think NPC should and *must* have their own motivations not only "react" to your character on how he is acting and their vision on his actions.

 

I do hope it won't be a system like DA: Origins where offering gift could make up for everything (stupid idea).

Edited October 25, 2012 by Dawn_

[eselle28 125]

Sure. Part of NPCs being reactive means that they should have breaking points. I can imagine that out of eight people, there might be someone who's strongly devoted to the PC or maybe just a bit of a doormat. There might be someone else who's focused enough on a larger goal (whether it be some sort of cause or just a desire to be with a profitable adventuring company) to put up with a party leader who treats them badly or who regularly does things they find disagreeable. But that leaves six people, and I think they should have some sticking points that would make them leave the party. Whether that means a quiet exit, a battle to the death, or a sneaky betrayal should depend on the character's personality.

[Super_Cat 16]

Only if I could curse their sudden but inevitable betrayal.

[nikolokolus 805]

I'm all for negative faction with an NPC leading to the possibility of betrayal. But in conjunction with this I'd prefer that the amount of their approval/disapproval be kept hidden to an extent- that is, no numbers visible to the player, but reflected in their conversation choices.

 

Probably more work for the developers, but it would help to keep players on their toes and remove some of the mini game, meta gaming aspects of having explicit numbers attached.

 

Come to think of it, New Vegas handled things pretty well.

[Jaesun 306]

If Obsidian feels they could pull this off very well, and in a new and interesting way, sure. Would be awesome.

[UncleBourbon 111]

I voted yes, but with caveats: I'd like it to be avoidable - maybe you can notice subtle changes in behavior, or suspicious circumstances. Maybe some class's danger class/speciality would realize - or maybe another companion will catch on and bring it up. I like the idea of it being influence based on the one hand, but I think there should also potentially be high-influence "sort-of" betrayals - that is, a party member is targetted for being seen frequently with you, so maybe their friends/family are taken hostage, or maybe they're blackmailed, or something - and the companion(s) do something nasty, but only because they have other priorities, too. Playing on some of the speculation about the cipher detective NPC, maybe a companion is arrested/suspected of a crime, and you have to investigate, determine guilt, and then decide on whether you turn them in/free them. Ideally, the sort of betrayal and the extent/trigger(s) would be different, or have a chance of being different, on subsequent playthroughs, but that would likely be a coding nightmare - and much of what I described probably would subtract developement attention from other things. Then again, I've rarely been disappointed with obsidian's handling of companions, with perhaps the exception of not having lasting acknowledgement of triggering an increased influence (I'm looking at you, F:NV with no/little change in basic dialog/banter).

[Sistergoldring 142]

I want NPCs with defined personalities and their own opinions and I want them to react to my PC's actions in individual ways. Therefore, I would prefer it if an NPC betrayed (left whatever) my PC if he/she acted in a way that was abhorent to them. I am also keen for the NPCs to be able to display a wide range of responses to my PC, all the way from hatred to affection. The more reactive NPC interaction I have the more the game world is brought to life for me.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Sistergoldring

[Badmojo 234]

I don't know, on one hand it would be cool, on the other hand it is an overused trope. "oh damn you inevitable betrayal that I saw a mile away!". Heh, as a joke an a evil path party, if you play it a certain evil way, at the end, ALL the party members should turn on the main character (and possible each other) at the end as a possible ending outcome.

[Jasede 427]

This being a Ziets/Avellone game you can count on there being betrayal that you won't see coming until it's too late but that makes sense in retrospect.

[SinoSamba 25]

I would like to see this implemented in a way that is not set in stone, like Yoshimo. Make it so the betrayal is linked to your relationship to the NPC or how your alignment compares to him/her.

[Shadeheart 16]

Absolutely. Part of making any world "real" is to have believable characters in it. A large part of this is to make said characters as fleshed out as possible. Emotional resonance is one of the many reasons Obsidian is so loved. Cant have that with companions that do not respond like actual people. Case in point, Neverwinter Nights 2. That game had some really good characters. (Why Neeshka? WHYYYYY?)

[curryinahurry 315]

Betrayal for the sake of having an interesting plot point isn't a particularly good reason. The idea that the PC is a black box that stuff just keeps happening to, is something I would hope Obsidian would try to avoid.

 

If its handled the way the Bishop betrayal was in NWN2, a character many players would rather not even have hanging around (imagine a selfish evil guy betraying me, who would thunk it?) if it was an option; well that would be awful. Also a character betraying the PC because you consistently offend their sensibilities wouldn't make much sense either; because I would fully expect said character & the PC to come to a boiling point long before that is a possibility. Also, if you think about it, would you really ever want a character you didn't get on with to be in any position to damage you?

 

If the betrayal is a la Mephistiopheles at the end of HOTU or with Neeshka & Sand/Qara in NWN2, then it could work, but would have to be much more convincing then what we got in those games; a speech and an influence check, blech.

 

If a character joins the party with the intent of betraying the PC, well that could be very interesting; but then we should also have the ability to uncover the subterfuge, and have options for how to deal with it.

[Wombat 80]

Depending on how the PC treated the NPCs, they may go against the PC. However, it should be done in a convincing way rather than in an abrupt way or in a way which encourages meta-gaming of influence points. Rather than random and thus (somehow mechanical) betrayals, I'd like the NPCs to have their own story arches interwoven into the main plot. They may betray together at a certain point of the main plot like being planned in KotoRII (and MotB, depending on the choices of the PC). However, they may turn against the PC independently at some point of the main plot as a part of the NPC story-arches like

Ignus

in PST. Unlike the example in PST, I'd like to have a few options to deal with the NPC, depending on how the PC treated the NPC. Some characters in AP are not honest to the PC and they may betray PC at a certain times (

Mina/Scarlet have their own secrets. Madison betrays if Thornton doesn't treat her well.

). So, I guess Obsidian have already done some homeworks.

 

BTW, talking of NPC reactions, how about the possibility of some little (or big) white lies? In PST, almost all lies are from selfish purpose but it's not the only intention which makes people lie. Depending on the implementation, there are archetypes of the PC characters ranging from misunderstood saint to hideous liar who is not totally corrupted. Just an idea, though.

[DimuthuK 11]

Betrayal is only one of the many different kinds of interactions the party can have.

Planesape Torment spoiler:

 

Remember Vhailor from Planescape Torment? If he found out you were the one he was hunting all this time, he would try and kill you. I quite liked that. Actually, all the characters in that game had neat twists to them and in the end, you find out you were the betrayer of all of them. Awesome!

 

 

I suppose betrayal is a really good mechanism for creating interesting party dynamics. What about a character who's a bit ditsy and says something antagonising to the guild your trying to appease. As you come out of a cave a band of warriors are surrounding you. They look ready to kill you. Their leader says: "Halt! I would know who you are lest we slaughter you on this spot!" As you think of something to say Ralph jumps in ahead of you: " Why good sir! We are here to rob you of your pockets and chase your women folk." As Ralph starts laughing the leader shouts: "Right, then. Chaaarge!!" Obviously he missed the joke. Later you can talk to Ralph about when and where it is appropriate to talk, or tell him to leave or kill him. Or something better. Just something interesting and new would be good for PE, I think.

[Wombat 80]

I like to figure out some mysteries but, personally, I don't like to be asked for the responsibility of what the pre-set characters had done without any choices about it. In PST, I felt the previous incarnations are more of NPCs rather than the PC, removing the sense of TNO being my character, to some extent. More varieties of the PC archetypes might have mitigated this but, ultimately, it's the issue of pre-set character(s): I think the designers can put the outcomes to the players' face in a more effective way when the PC has been judged by his/her own doing. Of course, I admit that pre-set characters have their own merits but, in PE, the PC seems to be more of a "blank-state" character, according to the information so far and I'd like the designer to design the possible story and role-playing possibility in that way.*

 

The same thing goes to "talkative" NPCs. It may be realistic for the NPCs to talk before the PC, especially they find the PC has obvious defects in his/her INT/CHA or conversation skills but it may take some control from the players. As NPCs are under the control of the designers, the PCs should be under the control of the players. Mixing these things can produce unwanted results, which may fail to counterbalance the novelty. This may sound a bit control-freakish but, ultimately, what differentiate dialogues in role-playing games from interactive novels and even just novels?

 

Indeed, Boone in Fallout: New Vegas tries to kill any legionaries he spots but, considering the number of NPCs and that the game seems to require many more party members than FONV format, such characterization may not be a wise choice...wonder if there can be better compromises.

 

*To be fair, I think KotORII made some interesting attempts on the pre-set character by letting the players to choose what the PC did in the past by letting the NPCs ask questions about a key factors as a part of relatively natural dialogues. A nice usage of dialogue and, indeed, the story doesn't need to be tracked in chronological order. I cannot remember if even some flashbacks are affected by these dialogues, though. These constant efforts in dialogues is one of the reasons which have kept me following Obsidian despite of some flaws in their works.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Wombat

[Vandoon 7]

I would love to see this kind of interaction however this should be more PC actioned based than scripted. It should also be based off more than one approval rating.

[Darkpriest 692]

PS:T had some nice touches, also NWN2 had some creativity with the ending. I wish they would put more time into those things back in NWN2

[quantum_freak 3]

Hell yeah! It would suck when an NPC betrays you, but it would make a great drama. Plus, I take any excuse to shake my fists to the sky an yell "NOOOOOO" at my monitor!

[Tychoxi 80]

if it works organically given my actions and the NPC's personality I wouldn't mind this one bit! (well, I'd probably mind it if he steals a "quest item" and we never see 'em again, but I'm otherwise cool with it).

[Coincidence 36]

Yes, but not because the NPC is a Paladin like character and you kicked a puppy once. If you continue to always act against what a character thinks is right or do something EXTREMELY heinous (like P:T bad) that would cause even someone like a thief to go "Wait a minute..." then I'd say the NPC in question should try to stop you, and if you refuse perhaps storm off and return with a group of "good guys." If you act goody goody all the time a more morally questionable character could betray you at an extremely inconvenient moment. It should be rare and only in extreme cases though.