Back in the day, before the PC craze, when people had to actually interact with each other on a personal level, role playing games usually had 6 types of character alignments. These are how I usually play my characters regardless of the limitations of the game.

Good: Always do the right thing, but not at the expense of others if at all possible. Holds to a high moral code.

Neutral: Did what they wanted, but pretty much followed a moral code.

Evil: Did what they wanted to achieve their goals, but were still pragmatic.

Chaotic Good: Intolerant of anything/anyone who did not believe in their ideals. Always condemning "heretics."

Chaotic Neutral: Do what they feel is right and damn the consequences.

Chaotic Evil: Would destroy anyone and everything to achieve their ambitions.

Most of the Jedi you encounter, while playing an Imperial character, fall into the Chaotic Good category - they'd rather kill you than try to redeem you, even if you're playing a "light" Sith.

Most Sith are Evil. Turning Jaesa to the Dark Side is a good example of this.

Vaylin is an excellent example of a Chaotic Evil character.

It would be nice if you could simply change your alignment to switch factions. So if you are a pub and you drop your alignment below neutral you become imp.

So being dark/evil automatically makes you an imp? Or being light/good automatically makes you a pub? That won't work at all. The Empire has it's "good" people, just like the Republic has it's share of evildoers.

So being dark/evil automatically makes you an imp? Or being light/good automatically makes you a pub? That won't work at all. The Empire has it's "good" people, just like the Republic has it's share of evildoers.

Agreed, it makes no sense to do that. LS characters can exist within the Empire and vice versa. I suppose that if you're a LS sith it's weird that you still shoot lightning instead of rocks then, but really they haven't thought really well about LS in the Empire. It would be too noticeable to stay around unless you could hide your affinity really well.

Traditionally the jedi order is in the dark about everything so it seems normal to have a dark side adept growing under their noses I guess.

It's all a bit tricky and too complext for the set up here I would think.

Here's a good example of why we could use a Neutral option --

* Sit on the throne? You're treated as if you're Dark Side. You're a dictator!

* Don't sit on the throne? You're treated like a Light Side person. You love democracy!

Why can't we sit on the throne to protect Zakuul? Those people have lived completely sheltered lives. They have no clue what's going on. They're the opposite of informed voters and they're not prepared to run a government. Maybe Zakuul needs a ruler until the people learn how to think for themselves and make educated decisions.

That would be a neutral option.

I'm glad that crafting now adds Light and Dark points. I use it to try and balance things out.

Here's a good example of why we could use a Neutral option --

 

* Sit on the throne? You're treated as if you're Dark Side. You're a dictator!

* Don't sit on the throne? You're treated like a Light Side person. You love democracy!

 

Why can't we sit on the throne to protect Zakuul? Those people have lived completely sheltered lives. They have no clue what's going on. They're the opposite of informed voters and they're not prepared to run a government. Maybe Zakuul needs a ruler until the people learn how to think for themselves and make educated decisions.

 

That would be a neutral option.

 

I'm glad that crafting now adds Light and Dark points. I use it to try and balance things out.

I actually wanted to give Zakuul back to the Zakuulans after destroying the throne so no one could abuse it anymore.

But then I wanted to decline the Alliance Commander job from the start. That option was sadly missing.

In storytelling, the problem with neutral choices is that often the dark choices come down to simply not being selfless. Good example is that generator on Zakuul. Light side is all heroic selflessness, fine, but is it evil not to risk your (and Lana's) life in an attempt to shut down a power reactor of alien design, when the actual reactor engineers fled in panic?

Mechanically for the DvL toggle, yeah. I often forget to switch it and end up at dark/light 1 or even 2 after a few warzones, but with victory state lasting for 18 hours these days, there's enough time to switch sides again.

Here's a good example of why we could use a Neutral option --

 

* Sit on the throne? You're treated as if you're Dark Side. You're a dictator!

* Don't sit on the throne? You're treated like a Light Side person. You love democracy!

 

Why can't we sit on the throne to protect Zakuul? Those people have lived completely sheltered lives. They have no clue what's going on. They're the opposite of informed voters and they're not prepared to run a government. Maybe Zakuul needs a ruler until the people learn how to think for themselves and make educated decisions.

 

That would be a neutral option.

 

I'm glad that crafting now adds Light and Dark points. I use it to try and balance things out.

On my first playrun through I thought the LS option would force you to sit on the throne for the reasons you gave. It's not a neutral choice. I think the neutral choice - and the one most smugs and BH would take - is "Screw that noise, I beat the bad guys, you're on your own, I'm finding my LI and going to a cantina."

 

Chaotic Good: Intolerant of anything/anyone who did not believe in their ideals. Always condemning "heretics."

Chaotic Neutral: Do what they feel is right and damn the consequences.

Chaotic Evil: Would destroy anyone and everything to achieve their ambitions.

 

Most of the Jedi you encounter, while playing an Imperial character, fall into the Chaotic Good category - they'd rather kill you than try to redeem you, even if you're playing a "light" Sith.

That's not remotely what chaotic good means. To sum up, chaotic [and lawful] are both concerned with freedom vs harm. Chaotic good chars believe they can do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Chaotic evil chars are fine if their action harm others. Chaotic neutral chars are in the middle - they would prefer if their actions didn't harm others, but won't go out of their way to ensure it. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticGood

 

Good: Always do the right thing, but not at the expense of others if at all possible. Holds to a high moral code.

Neutral: Did what they wanted, but pretty much followed a moral code.

Evil: Did what they wanted to achieve their goals, but were still pragmatic.

 

Chaotic Good: Intolerant of anything/anyone who did not believe in their ideals. Always condemning "heretics."

Chaotic Neutral: Do what they feel is right and damn the consequences.

Chaotic Evil: Would destroy anyone and everything to achieve their ambitions.

What? It isn't six alignments, it's 9.Try this site: http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

If you want an image version, try this: https://orig00.deviantart.net/26b4/f/2012/150/4/c/star_wars_alignment_chart_by_gamer28-d2zpial.jpg

That's not remotely what chaotic good means. To sum up, chaotic [and lawful] are both concerned with freedom vs harm. Chaotic good chars believe they can do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Chaotic evil chars are fine if their action harm others. Chaotic neutral chars are in the middle - they would prefer if their actions didn't harm others, but won't go out of their way to ensure it. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChaoticGood

What? It isn't six alignments, it's 9.Try this site: http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

If you want an image version, try this: https://orig00.deviantart.net/26b4/f/2012/150/4/c/star_wars_alignment_chart_by_gamer28-d2zpial.jpg

DILLIGAD? The way my friends and I played had the 6 I mentioned. You may have played differently. That's you guys. I said I base my characters on those and I'll play my them the way I want and you guys can play the way you want? Deal? If not, then tough.

You guys are getting too far afield.

Right now, we can be Light or we can be Dark. All we're asking for here, is the option to not be dedicated to one or the other... provided it's appropriate to the character in question.

You guys are getting too far afield.

 

Right now, we can be Light or we can be Dark. All we're asking for here, is the option to not be dedicated to one or the other... provided it's appropriate to the character in question.

Apologies. You're right. I'm in the process of getting one of my BH's back to neutral from Dark V. I have him set for light and I'm even making light choices during flashpoints, even though it makes my stomach turn sometimes. I raised him neutral back in the day when relics had alignment requirements. So he didn't get a decent set until he was 50.

Anyway, I'd love to be able to "lock" his alignment when I get him back to neutral, or be able to opt out completely and just have my choices determine whether he gets dark or light points.

I support the idea from OP to just be able to switch the D/L commit to nuetral/"off."

Re: story option being sometimes being obtuse or overly polar, I agree. The designers need to worry about the story and what fits realistically, not every choice has to be just a clear D/L contrast. The game has plenty of places to earn points if one branch of the story just doesn't happen to be 50/50.

Side Note:

There is an "easy" and backward compatible way to add character neutrality to the game (though maybe a bit less "rich" I think we are far past that), and that is just using a ratio of your dark/light points. Any character within a certain balance threshold would be neutral and a rank, if added, would just depend on your total overall alignment points while maintaining that balance. This is a simple enough approach that even the skeleton crew could likely handle it.