NPC Paladin Faith and Conviction Fix

[bbogovich@gmail.com]

I've produced a fix that allows non-Watcher paladins to pick up the effects of party dispositions when applying Faith and Conviction (using Bester et. al's fantastic PoE Modding Framework).  (As a side-effect, non-Watcher priests will also be affected by party reputation, though I could easily code around this and limit the change to paladins only.)  The only remaining issue is that since Obsidian did not intend for this to be in the game, Pallegina's custom order (Frermas Mes Canc Suolias, aka Brotherhood of the Five Suns) does not have favored and disfavored dispositions assigned to it, and my primary motivation for this fix is to (potentially) fix Pallegina's defenses.  I could always just assign whatever I feel is appropriate to the order, but in the spirit of the development of PoE (and to avoid the need to make a decision myself), I thought I'd ask the community here what they feel would be appropriate for the order - especially since I feel that I haven't played far enough through the game to have a solid handle on either the Brotherhood's background or Pallegina's personality, assuming she is an exemplar of the order.  Let me know what you think.

 

For reference, the available dispositions are:

Benevolent,
Cruel,
Clever,
Stoic,
Aggressive,
Diplomatic,
Passionate,
Rational,
Honest,
Deceptive

[gkathellar]

Nice!

 

As for Pallegina:

 

Favored - Diplomatic/Aggressive

Opposed - Clever/(?)

[Luckmann]

I wouldn't see the fact that Priests are also affected as a con - quite the opposite, that just means that it's a fix for both Paladins and Priests, no?

Anyway, it was briefly discussed the other day:
 

 

 

 

 

Two of my active playthroughs are with less-than-good protagonists. One is amoral, the other is outright evil. So far, I haven't had any problem getting the npcs they have chosen to accompany them to happily support their amoral or evil actions. So, I'm not really clear on why this thread exists. Are players asking for an npc option that is evil-only, and won't stay with a good pc? If so, I'm not sure of the point. I think I prefer npcs whose morality flexes to match the morality of the pc, so that the player is not restricted with regard to which companions they can play with.

The OP (and others) are expressing a desire for companions who are a better natural fit for such evil PCs, and/or a cynically disapproving complement to their good PCst. Characters the like of Korgan, Edwin, or Viconia - all perfectly believable characters, with less-than-kindly inclinations.

Or, as the kids put it: jerkwads.

 

Well I have a mild spoiler about Pallegina that I think most (sane) persons have missed.

Remember that kid I keep bringing up? The one with the knife? The one I can pick up, force the truth out of, and then hurl to the ground with an audible crack from his bones?

Pallegina approves.

Grieving Mother does not.

 

 

... I am surprised, but not shocked. In her rare moments of characterization, Pallegina comes across as entirely devoted to her country, and little else. Even when we first meet her, it's pretty clear from the way she's ...

... willing to leave her countryman to die ...

... that she is impressively merciless.

Brotherhood of Five Suns ... Diplomatic/Aggressive, anyone?

 

<inser obligatory quip about Sawyer's Snowflake and female passive-aggressiveness>

...but yeah, that sounds about right. Favoured Diplomatic/Aggressive, Disfavoured Clever/Honest?

 

And I'm going to stick to that. Favoured Diplomatic/Aggressive, Disfavoured Clever/Honest. Pallegina may not be the best very best representative, but the Frermàs appears to be partly ambassadorial, and partly a blunt object of the ducal congress.

 

And when I say Clever as Disfavoured, I don't mean "smart", I mean Clever as it is used in the game, "annoying smartass". They seem to be goal-oriented and no-nonsense in their duties (or seem supposed to be). Honest, because, well, look at the introductury quest of Pallegina, and have in mind that she's actually supposed to not fit into the Frermàs like a glove. The Vailian Republics seems to be all about the trades and proto-capitalism, and the 'five suns' little more than merchantile barons that have secured political positions (Woo, democracyyyy).

She's pretty much sent on a mission to underhandedly rip the Dyrwoodan economy from under their feets in the middle of a ~20-year national crisis.

 

Edit: As a bonus, which I however actually would consider much less important, it wouldn't overlap with any pre-existing orders. Only 1 favours Diplomatic, only 1 favours Aggressive, and not a single current order Disfavours either Honest or Clever.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Luckmann

[Evange]

But does this mean I have to pick up Pallegina super early in the game?

[CriticalFailure]

I don't exactly disagree, but isn't Diplomatic/Aggressive somewhat contradictory?

 

Looking at her reactions to the player's comments during her personal quest for the ambassador, if those are any indication, she seems to favour Aggressive and Passionate responses, as opposed to Stoic and Rational (though the latter is mostly "do what your boss says and you won't get in trouble").

 

That said, I'm not convinced if I like NPCs getting bonuses or penalties depending on the player's choices. Yes, they're in the same party, but they don't necessarily agree with them. Another option (if technically doable at all) would be to increase the bonuses at level up.

Edited April 20, 2015 by CriticalFailure

[Razorchain]

I would say Passionate/Diplomatic

 

Opposed Stoic/Clever

[Grakor456]

Aggressive and diplomatic are supposed to be opposites. It'd be kind of like giving a paladin order both benevolent and cruel, or deceptive and honest. I don't know what would be more fitting as I never take her, but that combination would be very, very odd.

 

I do like the idea of enabling these bonuses for adventurers, at the very least. It always feels like priests and paladins get taxed for not being the main character.

[gkathellar]

Aggressive and diplomatic are supposed to be opposites. It'd be kind of like giving a paladin order both benevolent and cruel, or deceptive and honest. I don't know what would be more fitting as I never take her, but that combination would be very, very odd.

 

They're supposed to be? Really? Where does it say that? What source material are you drawing on?

 

In any case, Pallegina strongly approves of the Watcher if they're Diplomatic, but is personally hard-handed, hard-headed, and is honestly pretty violent. She's the essence of "walk softly, and carry a big stick." That's Diplomatic/Aggressive to a tee. I guess you could go Diplomatic/Passionate, since Passionate choices largely work out to "judgmental ass" in practice, but that seems kinda meta.

[Grakor456]

 

Aggressive and diplomatic are supposed to be opposites. It'd be kind of like giving a paladin order both benevolent and cruel, or deceptive and honest. I don't know what would be more fitting as I never take her, but that combination would be very, very odd.

 

They're supposed to be? Really? Where does it say that? What source material are you drawing on?

 

In any case, Pallegina strongly approves of the Watcher if they're Diplomatic, but is personally hard-handed, hard-headed, and is honestly pretty violent. She's the essence of "walk softly, and carry a big stick." That's Diplomatic/Aggressive to a tee. I guess you could go Diplomatic/Passionate, since Passionate choices largely work out to "judgmental ass" in practice, but that seems kinda meta.

 

 

On a meta level, I can't be the only one who's noticed that the ten dispositions are easily and neatly divided into five opposing pairs.

 

But, beyond that, the mere definitions of aggressive and diplomatic put them into conflict, even how they're handled in the game itself. Diplomatic is all about negotiation, compromise, and avoiding tactlessness and hostility. Aggressive is forcing conflict to get what you want and refusing compromise. I'd never be able to reconcile those two as being at all compatible.

 

Personal opinion, perhaps, but again this strikes me as suggesting a paladin order that is benevolent and cruel. Just doesn't compute.

[Luckmann]

Aggressive and diplomatic are supposed to be opposites. [...]

I don't exactly disagree, but isn't Diplomatic/Aggressive somewhat contradictory?

 

None of the options are supposed to be opposites, and advancing as one does not cancel out the other. Someone that is Aggressive/Diplomatic is one that favours aggressive solutions, but is also adept at negotiating, or understanding a conflict before taking sides. In the case of Frermàs, my interpretation is a military order subservient to merchant lords, that exists to further the interests of the Vailian Republics first and foremost.

 

As much as I am not a big fan of Pallegina herself, when I think of these things, the Vailian Republics and the Frermàs, I can't help but to think of Machiavelli's The Prince, french mercantilism, and the old fascist adage of Libro et muschetto (the book and the musket).

 

Looking at her reactions to the player's comments during her personal quest for the ambassador, if those are any indication, she seems to favour Aggressive and Passionate responses, as opposed to Stoic and Rational (though the latter is mostly "do what your boss says and you won't get in trouble").

 

That said, I'm not convinced if I like NPCs getting bonuses or penalties depending on the player's choices. Yes, they're in the same party, but they don't necessarily agree with them. Another option (if technically doable at all) would be to increase the bonuses at level up.

 

I could go with Pallegina herself preferring the Passionate responses, but those are the responses that actually go against her duties as a Frermàs mes Canc Suolias.

 

My suggestion is that the Frermàs mes Canc Suolias should Favour Aggressive/Diplomatic and Disfavour Clever/Honest. What Pallegina prefers herself is irrelevant, and all we can do is infer the disposition of the Frermàs based on interactions related to her. Pallegina herself can be as honest and as passionate as she wants to be, but that doesn't mean that she's not at odds with or feeling that she's at odds with what she's been taught.

 

I can be a Bleak Walker and still be Benevolent, after all. I'm still a Bleak Walker. Just a bad one.

 

And my support of Paladins being influenced by party reputation is based on association. If the actions of those you associate does not sit well with the ideals you've been taught, it's not that much different from your own actions going against the grain, like for player Paladins. I think that a per-levelup increase of bonuses is unfair, because it's a blanket bonus that the player can't get, no matter it's disposition and reputations.

 

 

 

Aggressive and diplomatic are supposed to be opposites. It'd be kind of like giving a paladin order both benevolent and cruel, or deceptive and honest. I don't know what would be more fitting as I never take her, but that combination would be very, very odd.

They're supposed to be? Really? Where does it say that? What source material are you drawing on?

 

In any case, Pallegina strongly approves of the Watcher if they're Diplomatic, but is personally hard-handed, hard-headed, and is honestly pretty violent. She's the essence of "walk softly, and carry a big stick." That's Diplomatic/Aggressive to a tee. I guess you could go Diplomatic/Passionate, since Passionate choices largely work out to "judgmental ass" in practice, but that seems kinda meta.

 

On a meta level, I can't be the only one who's noticed that the ten dispositions are easily and neatly divided into five opposing pairs.

 

But, beyond that, the mere definitions of aggressive and diplomatic put them into conflict, even how they're handled in the game itself. Diplomatic is all about negotiation, compromise, and avoiding tactlessness and hostility. Aggressive is forcing conflict to get what you want and refusing compromise. I'd never be able to reconcile those two as being at all compatible.

 

Personal opinion, perhaps, but again this strikes me as suggesting a paladin order that is benevolent and cruel. Just doesn't compute.

 

I can do Benevolent and Cruel. It's a Paladin Order that seeks to improve the lot in life for those that are lacking, and carries out torturous attacks upon their enemies, cruel and vindictive in practice. It is an inquisitorial organization of a fundamentally good faith, that seeks to root out heresy and threats to the social order with fire.

 

A Paladin Order that has Benevolent and Cruel could be dedicated to Eothas. On tuesdays and thursdays, they organize soup kitchens for the poor and clothing drives for the homeless. On fridays and saturdays, they break down the doors of closet magranites and drag them to the Citadel. Cruel and Benevolent isn't even hard.

 

Fellows of St. Waidwen Martyr could Favour Benevolent/Cruel, and Disfavour Deceptive/Rational.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Luckmann

[Grakor456]

I'd argue that just because reputations don't cancel each other out, doesn't mean they aren't fundamentally opposing. Deceptive and honest are obviously opposites in practice, but they don't cancel out because this is about reputation. It doesn't matter if you told ten people the truth, you told those four other people lies and so you're still going to be known as that guy that told those people lies. But that doesn't mean that they aren't opposing, it just means that you're closer to being neutral on that "axis". At their cores, diplomatic is still about avoiding conflict while aggressive is still about forcing conflict. That doesn't strike me as at all compatible for the main focus of a paladin order.

 

Though, this is now starting to get suspiciously similar to D&D arguments about alignment.

[petrivanzyl]

Rational/Aggressive?

[illathid]

Why don't we just ask Josh? Word of God and all that

[gkathellar]

Rational/Aggressive?

 

If you ask Pallegina in conversation, she will explicitly approve of a Watcher with at least Diplomatic 2.

 

She will also explicitly approve of breaking the bones of a small child for daring to sass you.

 

Why don't we just ask Josh? Word of God and all that

 

I'd take such an answer if someone could get it.

[petrivanzyl]

The point has already been made that what she likes is not necessarily the preferences of her order. Also remember with her being godlike, she probably have traits for similar to her god than her paladin order

[gkathellar]

Also remember with her being godlike, she probably have traits for similar to her god than her paladin order

Nowhere in PoE's lore is this even remotely stated.

[Judicator]

When you ask her how you're doing she responds based on your dispositions. She very much approves of Diplomatic, but criticizes you if you're Cruel. With Aggressive she just remarks that you're similar to Dyrwoodians, and with Stoic she says you're basically boring. With Rational/Passionate it depends on which direction you nudge her during her quest, though it seems following her order's directives means doing the rational route. So I would guess that Diplomatic/Rational are her order's favored dispositions, which makes sense since they serve the Republics in a semi-diplomatic fashion, and Cruel/Passionate would be their disapproved dispositions.

[Racker]

I think it would be better if NPC Paladins and priests had preset dispositions.  Perhaps they simply should have been more sensitive to player decisions than other companions, but I guess it's too late to do anything about that now. 

[petrivanzyl]

 

Also remember with her being godlike, she probably have traits for similar to her god than her paladin order

Nowhere in PoE's lore is this even remotely stated.

 

 

They do mention the Cloaca...

[gkathellar]

When you ask her how you're doing she responds based on your dispositions. She very much approves of Diplomatic, but criticizes you if you're Cruel. With Aggressive she just remarks that you're similar to Dyrwoodians, and with Stoic she says you're basically boring. With Rational/Passionate it depends on which direction you nudge her during her quest, though it seems following her order's directives means doing the rational route. So I would guess that Diplomatic/Rational are her order's favored dispositions, which makes sense since they serve the Republics in a semi-diplomatic fashion, and Cruel/Passionate would be their disapproved dispositions.

That is a very compelling point, and seems well-supported. Diplomatic/Rational gets my vote, then.

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

Though, this is now starting to get suspiciously similar to D&D arguments about alignment.

Only for you, the rest of us aren't bound by strict dichotomous relationships in regards to disposition.

 

Also, what would be the "opposite" of Passionate and Clever?

 

When you ask her how you're doing she responds based on your dispositions. She very much approves of Diplomatic, but criticizes you if you're Cruel. With Aggressive she just remarks that you're similar to Dyrwoodians, and with Stoic she says you're basically boring. With Rational/Passionate it depends on which direction you nudge her during her quest, though it seems following her order's directives means doing the rational route. So I would guess that Diplomatic/Rational are her order's favored dispositions, which makes sense since they serve the Republics in a semi-diplomatic fashion, and Cruel/Passionate would be their disapproved dispositions.

That's just based on Pallegina herself, though, especially the Disapproved dispositions of Cruel/Passionate. I could stretch myself to Diplomatic/Rational, although I still think Aggressive/Diplomatic makes a lot more sense, but Disapproved dispositions of Cruel/Passionate? I don't see that at all.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Luckmann

[Grakor456]

 

[...]

 

Though, this is now starting to get suspiciously similar to D&D arguments about alignment.

Only for you, the rest of us aren't bound by strict dichotomous relationships in regards to disposition.

 

Also, what would be the "opposite" of Passionate and Clever?

Comments like this are precisely why this sounds a lot like D&D alignment arguments. Despite the system defining and even enforcing alignment classifications though spells, you still get people proclaiming that good is a matter of perspective and people aren't bound by binary alignments. 

 

As I see it: Opposite of Passionate is Stoic: one is being emotional and hot-headed, the other is being reserved and cool-headed. Opposite of Clever is Rational: one is being irreverent and humorous, the other is being practical and humorless.

 

Since I'm still dealing with the first five post restriction and your edit came after my last post, I'll also comment on your "Benevolent/Cruel" example here: I don't see that as Benevolent/Cruel. Actual examples from in-game: the benevolent guy is the one that lets the known murderer go free, because he is swayed by a sob story of past abuse. He is the one that lets a man whose treachery killed dozens go free on the promise of future reparations. Benevolence is being merciful and kind even to those that do not deserve it. If you're showing no mercy to your enemies, then you're not benevolent. That doesn't mean that you're not good, you're just not benevolent.

 

You can't be the paragon of soft-heartedness while also being the paragon of hard-heartedness. You can't champion the ideal of resolving conflict through diplomacy while also championing the ideal of resolving conflict through force. As paladins are described in-game as being zealots to a cause, it would be bizarre to me to have their favored dispositions being two that are highly likely to pull them in opposite directions.

 

Diplomatic/Rational sounds good to me.

[illathid]

Just asked Josh on his tumbler here: http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/

[Snowscoran]

The dispositions seem to be organized into the following opposing pairs:

Deceptive - Honest

 

Passionate - Rational

 

Benevolent - Cruel

 

Clever - Stoic

 

Aggressive - Diplomatic

 

If you look at the favoured/disfavoured dispositions of the Paladin orders, you'll see that their preferences mostly conform to this list in that if they favour one disposition, they'll tend to disfavour its opposite. Further, no orders or faiths will simultaneously favour or simultaneously disfavour both sides of an opposing pair.

 

With this in mind, Aggressive/Diplomatic for the Bird Lady's order should probably be avoided.

[Judicator]

 

[...]

 

Though, this is now starting to get suspiciously similar to D&D arguments about alignment.

Only for you, the rest of us aren't bound by strict dichotomous relationships in regards to disposition.

 

Also, what would be the "opposite" of Passionate and Clever?

 

When you ask her how you're doing she responds based on your dispositions. She very much approves of Diplomatic, but criticizes you if you're Cruel. With Aggressive she just remarks that you're similar to Dyrwoodians, and with Stoic she says you're basically boring. With Rational/Passionate it depends on which direction you nudge her during her quest, though it seems following her order's directives means doing the rational route. So I would guess that Diplomatic/Rational are her order's favored dispositions, which makes sense since they serve the Republics in a semi-diplomatic fashion, and Cruel/Passionate would be their disapproved dispositions.

That's just based on Pallegina herself, though, especially the Disapproved dispositions of Cruel/Passionate. I could stretch myself to Diplomatic/Rational, although I still think Aggressive/Diplomatic makes a lot more sense, but Disapproved dispositions of Cruel/Passionate? I don't see that at all.

 

Remember that the Brotherhood of the FIve Suns is political in nature and represents the Valian Republics, it would make no sense for them to be overly aggresive, cruel, or passionate. People judge their nation based on their actions.