#The allies my reputation wins me are worth the ones it costs me.
You wouldn't have
*if natl > 74
@{(bethune < 1) had|} Bethune
*if skep > 74
@{(etthena < 1) had|} Etthena
*if natl < 26
*if skep > 74
or @{((etthena < 1) and (korszata >= 1)) have|}
@{((korszata < 1) and ((skep < 75) or (etthena > 0))) had|} Korszata and Bjel
*if skep < 26
*if natl > 74
or @{((bethune < 1) and (diakon > 0)) have|}
@{((diakon < 0) and ((natl < 75) or (bethune > 0))) had|} Diakon Edwer
in your rebellion if you'd not led with dedication and clarity. What kind of leader would trade allies like
*if natl > 74
@{(skep < 26) them|her}
*if skep > 74
@{(natl < 26) |her}
*if (natl < 26)
them
*if skep < 26
@{(natl > 74) |him}
for the approval of this blustering merchant?
I can´t actually test this in game until we start importing saves so I may be way off here, but I´m wondering if these *if checks need to be set up differently? For example if you had natl > 74 and skep > 74 I think you would get:
You wouldn’t have Bethune Etthena in your rebellion if you’d not led with dedication and clarity. What kind of leader would trade allies like her her for the approval of this blustering merchant?
Bethune + Etthena seems like it needs a check to add an “or” in between them, and one for Korszata/Bjel + Edwer as well.
I also don´t think the pronoun code is accounting for a Bethune + Etthena or Korszata/Bjel + Edwer combination. I think they’d end up as “her her” and “them him.”
EDIT: I think the choice directly below could have this issue as well: #Perhaps I'll need to get a message to @{gamsent ${gamgee} and|} ${bandlead}, to find opportunities to change how we're perceived.
