Lately I've been noticing a lot of inconsistencies in the dark and light options.

In one case you have a couple of lovers who you encourage to abandon their love and do their duty for the good of the Jedi order. In another case you have a bunch of soldiers who have gone AWOL and the result is their comrades are starving to death because they're not delivering the supplies and doing their duty.

Encouraging the lovers to do their duty get's you light points, encouraging the soldiers to do their duty gets you dark points. Encouraging the soldiers to desert and abandon their comrades to starvation gets you light points. Why?

Why can we blow away a gazillion minions but when it comes to blowing away an evil arch villain mass murderer war criminal we're given dark points and letting him go gives us light points... and we're not allowed to arrest him? Capturing should at least be an option.

In spite of the obvious moral relativism there should at least be internal consistency and a set of guidelines that govern it.

Doing your duty is the right thing and should net you light points... unless you're going to hurt innocent people. If they've broken the law or are bad, they're not innocent.

Hurting innocent people is always the wrong thing. Hurting them to save other people is still wrong, but sometimes necessary in war. The fact that you need to hurt some innocent people to save many more doesn't make it any less wrong. But there you go. Sometimes you have two bad choices. In which case both should net you dark points...the worst giving you more.

Killing a bad guy is not wrong when protecting the innocent or in self-defence (it should net you light points). However it's preferable to bring them to justice. Sometimes you can't wait for the courts or trust the courts, the bad guy is just too bad and is not going to play nice and bigger things are at stake... case in point Mace Windu vs. Palpatine. Putting down an arch villain should net you a lot of light points.

If you have a choice--between bringing them to justice/ or killing them--arresting them should give you more light points.

Tricking a bad guy to get the information that will save lives and win a war is OK and so is going back on any deal that would let a villain go. (You don't let mass murderers and war criminals get away so they can do it again... unless you don't have a choice.) Good guys are there to defeat bad guys.

Lastly don't make choices for people. Give enough options that a player can make the choice they want. In the case of the lovers, there should be an option to help them without reporting them (and there is for the guy but not the gal). In the case of the Soldiers there should have been light side points for helping them to come back in. (I'm mean how stupid is it for them to camp out in the middle of hostile terrain when they're deserting to keep from being exposed to that same terrain.)

Ok about 3/4s of that is a rant that I couldn't get anything worth responding to(might be something in there, but I missed it), so I'll just respond what appears to be the central issue.

The Jedi lovers quest isn't about "doing your duty" or anything like that. The quest is about the potential pitfall that emotions can have when you have a strong connection to the force. The girl in this quest is pretty clearly on the first steps towards falling to the dark side as a result of the relationship. Keeping the relationship secret is asically ensuring she doesn't get the help she needs to not fall to the dark side.

The soldier quest is about something else entirely. In that quest the soldiers have basically been forced into a death sentence with no way out. They were only supposed to be there for I think a year, and I beleive they had ben there for three with no sign they were ever leaving. One can certainyl argue about whether they took the proper way to get out of that situation, but they had certainly done far beyond their duty should of requried them to. Also no one at the base they were from ever mentioned being low on supplies, so it doesn't seem that their decision had any immediate adverse impact on anyone.

The only quest so far I've thought was really out of line is one on Ord Mantell where saving a bunch of dying republic soldiers nets you darkside points and helping a group of criminals (those criminals being the reason the republic soldiers are going to die) nets you lightside points.

I agree with you on the point that more options would be nice ( it always would be though ), but disagree about your specific examples being particularly egregious.

Since someone else mentioned the first two, regarding the one about the villain: That one is pretty straightforward, killing an enemy in cold blood after the battle is already won is simply not a lightside choice. Forgiveness, redemption, justice are all strict tenants of the light side, not vengeance.

Try to remember that "Dark side" isn't just about evil. It's about passion. So when Obi Wan raged out and attacked Darth Maul, it was GOOD but it was DARK SIDE- yknow?

But you're right, too. You should be allowed to arrest people. You should be allowed to kill people more often, too.

The best example of messed up light/dark I've seen is the quest where you have to decide whether or not to drag a mind-controlled person away from the people doing it to her. Taking her by force is dark side, leaving her and 'respecting her wishes' is light. WHaaaat? The creatures doing it are seriously evil, and she cannot control herself. It made NO sense.

Another one that seems off is a SI class quest one. I'll spare you spoilers, but basically someone you like gets killed and the murderer stands before you. Asking this bastard to join you is light side, but killing him is dark side. I assume because of the 'passion' thing.

Oh, and on Quesh there's a quest where you end up being bribed. Taking a bribe and subverting the empire = light side. Killing the bastard, dark side. I get that murder is wrong... but you were sent to kill him. It's not 'passion' in this case, you're doing your job.

Once, early in my SI class quest, I got 50 dark side points for telling some dick to "Deal with it."

Soooo....yea.

I totally agre that light and dark choices at some points makes no sense at all.

Splitting up a family on Ord Mantell, actually helping a child coming back to to his family which misses him and probaly could help GIVES YOU DARK SIDE POINTS!!!!!

This makes me mad because it has real life background with child soldiers in the third world, and never would it in real life be a good thing to simply ship the child away to a new place on his own.

There are other things aswell, sending rockets against Imperials in Candemimu gives you dark side points, arent we at war with them? Well technically not but basicly we are.

Another thing which I have thought about:

There should also be bad/dark consequensces with dark descions, I want to be a light side character, however many things I do gives bad consequensés, in real life this is a cool contrast but not in a game where you want to assemble points.

Take the quest for the courascant senator (SPOILER) who allied with MIgrant MErchant guild, thelight side gives you dark consequence, dark side gives you light consequence, you choose light side becasue you want to be a good guy.

Maybe they need to make it more clear then, that what they mean by light/dark is the yin/yan thing. Not good/evil, but reason/passion.

The killik thing still irks me, though.

The best example of messed up light/dark I've seen is the quest where you have to decide whether or not to drag a mind-controlled person away from the people doing it to her. Taking her by force is dark side, leaving her and 'respecting her wishes' is light. WHaaaat? The creatures doing it are seriously evil, and she cannot control herself. It made NO sense.

This quest.....feels off, but I have to agree with the LS/DS on the quest. The basic gist of the decision is, are you going to remove a person's happiness in order to take them back to where they are supposed to belong. If you take her away then you have basically ensured that she will be miserable every day that she is still alive and she will basically never be the person she used to be.

Did she choose this fate for herself? Probably not. If we had the ability to prevent it would that be the light sided choice? Probably. But we get there too late. And what was done to her can't be undone. So we are stuck with the uncomfortable option of letting her go and be happy or taking her back to her family where she will be miserable. She made her choice, and no matter how uncomfortable we may be with it, respecting that choice and letting her find her own happiness now is the lightsided thing to do.

Another one that seems off is a SI class quest one. I'll spare you spoilers, but basically someone you like gets killed and the murderer stands before you. Asking this bastard to join you is light side, but killing him is dark side. I assume because of the 'passion' thing.

 

Oh, and on Quesh there's a quest where you end up being bribed. Taking a bribe and subverting the empire = light side. Killing the bastard, dark side. I get that murder is wrong... but you were sent to kill him. It's not 'passion' in this case, you're doing your job.

The lightside is all about the sanctity of life. So any option that allows you to avoid killing someone will always be the light side option. Is keeping a person alive always in the best interest of the Empire, Republic, or in the best interests of justice? Probably not. Is this outlook on life incredibly naive? Probably. But that is sort of what the light side represents.

Edit:

There are other things aswell, sending rockets against Imperials in Candemimu gives you dark side points, arent we at war with them? Well technically not but basicly we are.

I interpretted this specific choice as the Imperials are going to think that the attack was done by the planet's seperatist government, so you are basically going to cause death to rain down on the planet form the Imperials in exchange for a cheap shot on the Imps.

Another thing which I have thought about:

There should also be bad/dark consequensces with dark descions, I want to be a light side character, however many things I do gives bad consequensés, in real life this is a cool contrast but not in a game where you want to assemble points.

Take the quest for the courascant senator (SPOILER) who allied with MIgrant MErchant guild, thelight side gives you dark consequence, dark side gives you light consequence, you choose light side becasue you want to be a good guy.

A corrupt senator who ignited a civil war, and caused who knows how many deaths, because she took a bribe is removed from the Senate. I can't think of a more light sided way for that quest to end short of her getting jail time.

"A corrupt senator who ignited a civil war, and caused who knows how many deaths, because she took a bribe is removed from the Senate. I can't think of a more light sided way for that quest to end short of her getting jail time. "

But the consequenses of this quest, if you tell the truth you get dark side consequnce, the even more corrupt senator comes to power, someone who prabably have taken even more bribes and caused more death.

IF you dont tell the truth you still quits so she gets removed but she does a lot of good before that.

I do understand the choices but teh consequences should be in line with the choice you make.

have fun

sanzen

"A corrupt senator who ignited a civil war, and caused who knows how many deaths, because she took a bribe is removed from the Senate. I can't think of a more light sided way for that quest to end short of her getting jail time. "

 

But the consequenses of this quest, if you tell the truth you get dark side consequnce, the even more corrupt senator comes to power, someone who prabably have taken even more bribes and caused more death.

IF you dont tell the truth you still quits so she gets removed but she does a lot of good before that.

I do understand the choices but teh consequences should be in line with the choice you make.

have fun

sanzen

O_o When does it say that a corrupt senator takes her place? To the best of my recollection, we never learn who takes her place just hat she has been removed from office.

How about you get Dark Side options for saving the lives of soldiers dying on an operating table, but Light Side points if you give the medical supplies to the little kid with the headache instead?

For the most part the writers are consistent and the choices really do make sense. You may not agree, but that's a philosophical issue.

There's two sides to every story. Non-force users aren't actually getting Light or Darkness. They're getting what would amount to paragon and renegade points. Everything isn't about being black and white with easy to determine good vs. evil.

Sometimes the greater good may appear evil. Getting Dark Side points for venting the crew of the Esseles for instance. Why? There's nothing malicious about it. The ship comes first. Every member of the crew knows that. Each one of them needs to be willing to give their lives for the ship and the officers must be able to order them to their deaths.

You can't think of the alignment system in black and white terms.

I still think the best/worst example is the empire mission on taris where you get lightside points for subverting lightside force users into being darkside forceusers...

That, if anything, strikes me as being the biggest offender. I really have a hard time seeing how it can be a light thing to convince others to follow the dark side... Was even worse when I consider I was doing it on my lightside Sith, which made the whole lightside debates with Jaesa meaningless when taken in context of what you do in that particular case to rank up the lightside score.

Follow the light by following the dark.. yeah right...

I still think the best/worst example is the empire mission on taris where you get lightside points for subverting lightside force users into being darkside forceusers...

 

That, if anything, strikes me as being the biggest offender. I really have a hard time seeing how it can be a light thing to convince others to follow the dark side... Was even worse when I consider I was doing it on my lightside Sith, which made the whole lightside debates with Jaesa meaningless when taken in context of what you do in that particular case to rank up the lightside score.

 

Follow the light by following the dark.. yeah right...

The reason for that being lightsided is because you are saving their lives as opposed to killing them....but yeah that dialogue was not what should be there. I have a feeling that not every class uses the dark side bit for that option because the Nekghouls don't even mention turning to the dark side in their response from what I recall. But yeah that specific line should definatly be different.

Some of the dark/light side points I disagree with on the Empire side (just my opion others may disagree):

Dark Science on Korriban. I don't see how betraying a quest giver for credits is light side.

Creeping Hunger on Korriban I think posioning the monster who eats acolytes should not be light side its self preservation.

Testing Ground: I know its light side to kill the slaves out right without having them suffer but posioning them seems dark side to me.

Finally I know its not topic but I think Thana Vesh should of had three choice options like Lord Rathari instead of just light and dark.

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/121/1215532p4.html

The last part of this interview talks about this.

Essentially, the Force is almost like an entity that can see repercussions in the future and light side is concerned with preservation of life and not succumbing to passion, dark side enjoys pain and death and complete submission to emotion.

For the Ord Mantell quest with choosing who to give the supplies to, the various quests imply that the Republic forces there are deeply corrupt and that they unjustly charge refugees for the medical supplies when they are needed, even if they have more than they need. By giving the supplies to the Cathar, they end up where they do the most good. Perhaps the original quest giver doesn't realize that his superiors are corrupt or that they don't need those supplies, but in the end the idea is that it ends up actually saving people to give the supplies to the Cathar while giving the supplies to the soldiers can cause more suffering. The quest doesn't make it that obvious though, so I understand where others are coming from, and even still it's pretty debatable.

Lately I've been noticing a lot of inconsistencies in the dark and light options.

 

In one case you have a couple of lovers who you encourage to abandon their love and do their duty for the good of the Jedi order. In another case you have a bunch of soldiers who have gone AWOL and the result is their comrades are starving to death because they're not delivering the supplies and doing their duty.

 

Encouraging the lovers to do their duty get's you light points, encouraging the soldiers to do their duty gets you dark points. Encouraging the soldiers to desert and abandon their comrades to starvation gets you light points. Why?

 

Why can we blow away a gazillion minions but when it comes to blowing away an evil arch villain mass murderer war criminal we're given dark points and letting him go gives us light points... and we're not allowed to arrest him? Capturing should at least be an option.

 

In spite of the obvious moral relativism there should at least be internal consistency and a set of guidelines that govern it.

 

Doing your duty is the right thing and should net you light points... unless you're going to hurt innocent people. If they've broken the law or are bad, they're not innocent.

 

Hurting innocent people is always the wrong thing. Hurting them to save other people is still wrong, but sometimes necessary in war. The fact that you need to hurt some innocent people to save many more doesn't make it any less wrong. But there you go. Sometimes you have two bad choices. In which case both should net you dark points...the worst giving you more.

 

Killing a bad guy is not wrong when protecting the innocent or in self-defence (it should net you light points). However it's preferable to bring them to justice. Sometimes you can't wait for the courts or trust the courts, the bad guy is just too bad and is not going to play nice and bigger things are at stake... case in point Mace Windu vs. Palpatine. Putting down an arch villain should net you a lot of light points.

 

If you have a choice--between bringing them to justice/ or killing them--arresting them should give you more light points.

 

Tricking a bad guy to get the information that will save lives and win a war is OK and so is going back on any deal that would let a villain go. (You don't let mass murderers and war criminals get away so they can do it again... unless you don't have a choice.) Good guys are there to defeat bad guys.

 

Lastly don't make choices for people. Give enough options that a player can make the choice they want. In the case of the lovers, there should be an option to help them without reporting them (and there is for the guy but not the gal). In the case of the Soldiers there should have been light side points for helping them to come back in. (I'm mean how stupid is it for them to camp out in the middle of hostile terrain when they're deserting to keep from being exposed to that same terrain.)

over thinking you are, the force not always clear in its ways

Dark Science on Korriban. I don't see how betraying a quest giver for credits is light side.

You are also preventing pointless animal cruelty in the process.

Creeping Hunger on Korriban I think posioning the monster who eats acolytes should not be light side its self preservation.

Saving the lives of future acolytes, and saving lives is pretty generally the light sided choice.

Testing Ground: I know its light side to kill the slaves out right without having them suffer but posioning them seems dark side to me.

We don't have the option to not poison them, so the best we got is to give them a less painful death. Given the quest options it is the lighter of the two choices. *shrug*

While some of the choices are more obvious, the problem with these dark side / light side issues is that it could be argued both ways most of the time.

So for instances, you could take a "big picture" view to explain why one choice which appears dark, is actually light, or vice-versa, because of repercussions or some specific part of the context.

While for another choice you could simply argue that killing/stealing/passion is always dark, saving/healing/kissing is always light, and ignore everything else.

That is what makes these dark/light options so great and aweful. You're always right and wrong.

But the real problem in my opinion is clarity, limitation and expectation.

If I need knowledge outside of the current quest information, to understand the conclusion to my quest (why the hell is X dark/light), then that is a game design error. I should not need to have done all the quests in a zone to understand why the choices seem erroneous.

Then, there's the simple fact that they reduce the complex world of morality to a black and white outcome. There is bound to be multiple times where you won't agree with the decision since there is zero leeway. You're either going to completely agree or disagree with their judgement.

It could be that the Dark and Light side aren't actually good/evil. Someone mentioned dark being passion and light being love_of_local_sports_team, but few people know that, and ya can't really blame em. Dark side and Light side pretty much equates to good and bad in the majority of people's mind.

The last problem I think this system has is answering player expectations.

If I want to be evil, but the dark side option seems to be a goodie-goodie choice, I'm instantly confused and disappointed, because this is basically the conclusion, the pay-off, and it doesn't match-up with what I expected. I don't want to have someone explain to me why, it turns out being kind is actually evil. Unless it happens very rarely, or I'm slow upstairs, understandable expectations should generally be met.

Also, sometimes you get very unusual choices. A serial murderer is captured, and you can either arrest him or let him free. I instantly think... where's my murder him option?

But then, I deal with a harmful computer tech, and I have the option to kill him. Where was that option when I caught the murderer?

And as was mentioned earlier, I capture an enemy general, but I only have the option to kill him or set him free. Where is my "put under arrest" option.

I like the effort BW has put in the game. I appreciate the idea. Most of the time I'm satisfied with the outcome. But more often than I'd like, I tilt my head like a pug wondering what kind of moral compass the designer of that particular quest has.

Also, I've worked in the videogame business and I know that for a project this size, it is near-impossible to always be coherent. Different developers interpret differently design documents, so you get decisions that aren't totally in sync. There's also the fact that the right/wrong answers were decided by people who had deadlines, not philosophers with infinite time. So you're gonna get "good enoughs" and "whatever ship it" scenarios.

You are also preventing pointless animal cruelty in the process.

Saving the lives of future acolytes, and saving lives is pretty generally the light sided choice.

We don't have the option to not poison them, so the best we got is to give them a less painful death. Given the quest options it is the lighter of the two choices. *shrug*

I alreay said others might not agree my thoughts you are one of the ones who don't.

Black Talon on the Imperial side has a wonderfully twisted choice. There is a general defecting, you are sent to capture him. When finally capturing him he is severely wounded.

The good option.

Take him in. Where he even says he will be tortured until his death.

The evil option

Kill the extremely injured man.

The kneejerk is to say killing is bad. But you are not only putting someone out of their misery you are saving them from near endless torture at the hands of the Sith.

Black Talon on the Imperial side has a wonderfully twisted choice. There is a general defecting, you are sent to capture him. When finally capturing him he is severely wounded.

 

The good option.

Take him in. Where he even says he will be tortured until his death.

 

The evil option

Kill the extremely injured man.

 

 

The kneejerk is to say killing is bad. But you are not only putting someone out of their misery you are saving them from near endless torture at the hands of the Sith.

I think with that decision you are free to either kill him or take him in as kilran said in the flashpoint the reason why that choice is light side because the light side is all about preserving life. The dark side is about causing destruction and suffering. The person who is going to torture the guy is going to earn dark side points not you since you are the one thats not going to torture him. Only those who take an active hand inhis suffering are going to earn dark side points.

The reason for that being lightsided is because you are saving their lives as opposed to killing them....but yeah that dialogue was not what should be there. I have a feeling that not every class uses the dark side bit for that option because the Nekghouls don't even mention turning to the dark side in their response from what I recall. But yeah that specific line should definatly be different.

Still makes it a wrong thing to award light side points for turning someone to the dark side (not to mention it causes the death of their master, a follower of the light intent on trying to teach people the virtues of the light).

They should have given us an option that was actually lightsided instead, along the lines of asking them to pack up and move themselves to somewhere they wouldn't bother anyone or cause others to be bothered by them. They had plenty of creative options to choose from when making those choices, yet they decided to opt for arguably the worst (I really can't think of anything worse than awarding lightside for promiting darkside, tbh)

To all those people saying "Light = life preservation" here is a quest for you where KILLING someone was the light side while CAPTURING the same person was the dark side.

The Bounty Hunter Quest line on Nar Shaddaa ends up with you having nailed your target and have him at gunpoint. Your companion then tells you there are two bounties on his head: One from the imperials, who want to kill him and one from the hutts who want him alive.

As I said above, killing him is the light sided option while capturing him for the hutts is the dark side. Now in context it is obvious why this is, but it instantly bursts the bubble of all you "Light = Life preservation" people.