But that villager died

[UniversalRanger]

I'm afraid time won't heal the villagers feelings in regards to non-returning companions, but this is not a bug either, it's just a way it is, and I'll move the thread at suggestions.

Adding mechanisms to tell the NPCs what really happened is tricky, and still even if the companions would die fairly I don't know if villagers still should always be like "He died when hunting with you? Ok, we don't mind that, here have a another hunting assistant, we wish him better luck than the previous. Hehe."   

This is something to tweak/ponder in the future, but there's not an easy way to find a good consensus.

I'm still very newb on this, and am really just focusing on surviving the winter. I was able to find a village with a fine fishing rod.
Also, I'm appologize if this is an outdated discussion at this point, but I would like to contribute my two cents.

You guys already have a system of knowing where a person is hit and the types of injury sustained. Depending on where the injuries are located, and the types of injuries sustained, the village elders or shaman could have a chance of thinking that the player is in some way responsible, directly responsible, likely not responsible, or not at all responsible. That could of course be influenced by current reputation with the village. For example, if they basically regard you as a demigod hero, the Shaman or village elder/s could see a gaping axe-wound in the back, stripped of all gear, blood your hands and and axe, that your axe-blade fits perfectly the wound shape and size, his gear in your inventory, and still think it wasn't your fault, and maybe even have a chance of improving relations further depending on speech skills or something.

I like Saiko Kila's idea of requiring a quest to prove your innocence. If you're not actually innocent though, perhaps upon finishing the quest, you only manage to prove your guilt . . . unless of course the spirits really like you and are willing to lie for you. Side note on that. You could make evil spirits that tend to try and help evil players, perhaps while also penalizing them in other various ways. Perhaps if the player is evil for long enough, the evil spirits decide it's time to kill him for their own pleasure and send some kind of hellish beast after him that if he manages to kill it, they continue helping him, or perhaps it impresses the good spirits who then decide to give him an ultimatum, serve good or die for his crimes. If he decides good, then they send him on a quest for atonement first. Then they send him to a monk's sanctuary where he is to devote his life to good, learning to fight, and to serve the good spirits in various quests. If he refuses, perhaps the good spirits send one of their righteous monks to take him out, so he has a chance of still defeating him and remaining evil if the player wants to do that.

Anyway, off that tangent, that's all I have to say.

[flibbo]

I'm afraid time won't heal the villagers feelings in regards to non-returning companions, but this is not a bug either, it's just a way it is, and I'll move the thread at suggestions.

Adding mechanisms to tell the NPCs what really happened is tricky, and still even if the companions would die fairly I don't know if villagers still should always be like "He died when hunting with you? Ok, we don't mind that, here have a another hunting assistant, we wish him better luck than the previous. Hehe."   

This is something to tweak/ponder in the future, but there's not an easy way to find a good consensus.

Maybe going a little off topic from some people's points of view but I think this is related to the issue (personally I consider it an issue at least) that there is no "respawn" mechanic at all in the game - any NPC villager and even any buyable animal that dies is dead for good, they are never replaced even if your character lives for decades. I realize this is a large task but I think a respawning in some way or another is needed. It doesn't have to be a typical respawn the likes of WoW or other mainstream games of course where any dead creature is basically replaced right away, give it a really long time frame that you feel is appropriate. I never kill NPCs or domestic animals on purpose, every time it happens it's an accident and to always think about that they are never replaced is very harsh. Sometimes it's even completely out of your power, I had villages being attacked by bears and even bands of robbers seemingly out of nowhere, each time several villagers died and I knew that basically this village's population was culled forever, even if my character got to live for 100 years. Perhaps this can be combined with a proper aging system where village children actually grow up to be adults and new children can be born. Also migration of NPCs between different villages or between vilages and the wilds (how likely is it that the NPCs we see represent everyone that lives in Finland anyway?) would make for a credible reason for moving or creating new NPCs. As it is, in this regard UrW is very static right now, this is a little unfortunate and also gives rise to OP's issue.

What I am getting at is that companion deaths could be addressed at the same time and it would be appropriate to do that. I understand that simply hiring people only to kill them and take their stuff over and over again would be a very cheesy way of playing the game that probably shouldn't be allowed, although personally I never felt the need to play in such ways. But banning a new companion hire for all eternity from that village when one happens to die is pretty severe too. You could find a middle ground, like having to wait several years for the villagers to eventually "forget" and trust you again, tying it to some respawn event with a long timeframe happening or something like that. Or maybe have the character build up a kind of reputation with the village and its neighbours for hirable companions - you hire someone, everything goes well, you pay them and go your separate ways and your reputation goes up. The companion goes "missing" on the other hand or you refuse to pay - your rep goes down. Maybe somewhat forgivable the first time (with a hiring price hit?) but if it keeps happening the people will mistrust you and refuse to go with you. Combine it with a long-term "reputation decay" method (in both directions) and things should be fine.

[PALU]

Replacing NPCs and livestock isn't a huge issue currently, as most characters aren't played for even a single decade. However, if marriage, families, and the ability to play an offspring is implemented, there's a need to "restock" the villages at least for each new character generation (given that the parent probably died when the kid was at a single digit age, a time skip might allow for village population replacements through their kids growing up and new kids produced (and some old geezers kicking the bucket).

That said, robber quests are risky business, and villagers hired to participate do die in these clashes, causing a slow decline in the number of villages from which you can recruit (and the more villages lost, the more villagers die, as you have to settle for those who are willing to come with you, rather than those most suitable for battle).

[Labtop 215]

I occasionally stumble across people in the wilderness.  Isn't it possible to hire them to help you?  At little risk since if they die, they aren't associated with a village?

[PALU]

I believe you can hire people you meet in the wilderness in principle (excluding Njerps, of course), but I also believe they usually decline.

[flibbo]

I believe you can hire people you meet in the wilderness in principle (excluding Njerps, of course), but I also believe they usually decline.

You can, I did it once but obv. it's not very reliable.