As a result of the Revan xp boost, I decided to level up a Jedi Consular. However I noticed rather odd light and dark side choices. On Taris, you have the option of the workers saving themselves in the factory, or risking their lives to save the factory. If the factory was destroyed, the air pollutants would kill thousands. This is where it gets weird. Choosing to risk the workers lives to save thousands of people from pollutants is the DARK SIDE option. Why? You are saving more people by doing so. We could certainly debate the moral implications of each decision and arguments could be made for either decision. But for one of them to be labeled Light and the other Dark is simply ridiculous. Slightly earlier, you face a similar choice. Save a single woman from the crash site or save the medical holocrons that could revolutionize medicine and save thousands (maybe millions in the long run). Again, this is a hard choice to make with no clear right or wrong decision which I applaud. But then Bioware stuck Dark side points on saving the medical information. These choices are great and provide a nice moral complexity instead of most of the other decision in the game that are basically "So are you good or evil?". However the decision to make them clear Light and Dark choices is terrible.

A second set of odd decisions I have noted are that you can execute the Jedi Masters after subduing them, which makes absolutely no sense in context. These people are clearly being mind controlled. Yet you have the option to execute them to punish them for their crimes, despite clearly knowing that they aren't even slightly responsible for their actions. It is simply out right murder for absolutely no reason at all. It would be like starting a conversation with any of the Jedi on Tython and randomly having the option to kill them. If there was a criminal who surrendered to the Jedi, it could make sense that the player has the option to execute them vigilante "you don't deserve to live" style instead of a by-the-books imprisonment. But it simply does not make sense in the story's context for you to be able to kill the Jedi

As a result of the Revan xp boost, I decided to level up a Jedi Consular. However I noticed rather odd light and dark side choices. On Taris, you have the option of the workers saving themselves in the factory, or risking their lives to save the factory. If the factory was destroyed, the air pollutants would kill thousands. This is where it gets weird. Choosing to risk the workers lives to save thousands of people from pollutants is the DARK SIDE option. Why? You are saving more people by doing so. We could certainly debate the moral implications of each decision and arguments could be made for either decision. But for one of them to be labeled Light and the other Dark is simply ridiculous. Slightly earlier, you face a similar choice. Save a single woman from the crash site or save the medical holocrons that could revolutionize medicine and save thousands (maybe millions in the long run). Again, this is a hard choice to make with no clear right or wrong decision which I applaud. But then Bioware stuck Dark side points on saving the medical information. These choices are great and provide a nice moral complexity instead of most of the other decision in the game that are basically "So are you good or evil?". However the decision to make them clear Light and Dark choices is terrible.

 

For this first area, you actually miss understand what Like and Dark side options are. Those are exactly how Light and Dark side options are SUPPOSE to be.

The Light side option is always that you never sacrifice a person, you do whatever you can to save them. As a result, saving a person is more important than saving technology or information.

The Dark Side option (in a good story) is NOT suppose to be evil for the sake of evil. It is suppose to be the ends justify the means. You can sacrifice a person for the sake of saving more down the road. A Jedi who follows the code would never sacrifice a person when they can save them, but someone who is more flexible or perfers to think long term will make a sacrifice to save those down the road. Dont think of the Light and Dark side as "Good" and "Evil" think of it more as "nobility and honor" vs "getting the job done"

You should NEVER be saying "Im going to click straight lightside" Its a horrible idea and very illogical as you start running into things like just plain stupid decisions on the lightside or "chaotic stupid" on the dark side. You just look at every decision and pick what you think is right for your character, not what color an icon is.

That is actually a rather consistent motto in the game; saving the individual is often times the light side choice while choices that would be more beneficial in the future are dark side.

I had a similar conflict with the Trooper story, where actions to protect the Republic that sacrificed individuals were dark side, because like you I asked "why is sacrificing one life to save a thousand others dark?". I can somewhat understand the reasoning behind it, guess I'm just a pragmatic person then...

That is actually a rather consistent motto in the game; saving the individual is often times the light side choice while choices that would be more beneficial in the future are dark side.

 

I had a similar conflict with the Trooper story, where actions to protect the Republic that sacrificed individuals were dark side, because like you I asked "why is sacrificing one life to save a thousand others dark?". I can somewhat understand the reasoning behind it, guess I'm just a pragmatic person then...

Trooper is even worse.

One of your first choices is kill a few (on orders) to save many. Dark Side choice if you do this.

Later you get a sacrifice one to save many (the other option is save the one friend and the others could still live) and get light side.

Same situations (sacrifice the few for the many) and you get opposite sides for them :/

Certainty tends to be the determining factor, from what I can tell.

If you're sacrificing one person to save many now, then sacrificing that one person is a light sided choice.

If you're sacrificing one or a few people because something might potentially happen down the line that would hurt more people, it's a dark side option. Particularly when you have options to both save them and potentially mitigate the future consequences of doing so.

For this first area, you actually miss understand what Like and Dark side options are. Those are exactly how Light and Dark side options are SUPPOSE to be.

 

The Light side option is always that you never sacrifice a person, you do whatever you can to save them. As a result, saving a person is more important than saving technology or information.

 

The Dark Side option (in a good story) is NOT suppose to be evil for the sake of evil. It is suppose to be the ends justify the means. You can sacrifice a person for the sake of saving more down the road. A Jedi who follows the code would never sacrifice a person when they can save them, but someone who is more flexible or perfers to think long term will make a sacrifice to save those down the road. Dont think of the Light and Dark side as "Good" and "Evil" think of it more as "nobility and honor" vs "getting the job done"

 

 

You should NEVER be saying "Im going to click straight lightside" Its a horrible idea and very illogical as you start running into things like just plain stupid decisions on the lightside or "chaotic stupid" on the dark side. You just look at every decision and pick what you think is right for your character, not what color an icon is.

You are claiming that Light and Dark side are supposed to be like that but that is simply wrong. The Dark side CORRUPTS your character, as seen by the visual effect it has on players who go the Dark side. In all known Star Wars media, the Dark side is clearly intended to be evil and the light side as good. It is not Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good. So no, this is not how they are SUPPOSED to be.

In regards to the Dark side being "the ends justify the means" that is certainly not what is happening in the choices I have described. The ends justifying the means involve compromising principles or doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. In this case, choosing to save the plant instead of the workers is not "the ends justifying the means" it is about making the hard decision and saving more lives. The ends justifying the means would be torturing somebody for information to save somebody elses life as it involves doing something that is clearly morally wrong and defies basic principles, but with an ulimtately good intent.

About the Dark side option not being about committing evil for the sake of evil, then I will assume you never fully read my post as I clearly complained in the second half about there being choices that were essentially evil for the sake of evil and that they made no sense in the Jedi Consular story.

And nowhere in my post did I claim that I click only lightside, which is an assumption you have made for no reason. It is quite the opposite as I do make each decision regardless of whether it is Dark or Light side. However, my complaint is that when making a decision that clearly has no right or wrong answer, I am being told that I have received Dark side points when there was no clear right or wrong decision and I did nothing morally wrong. So again, it is clear you are not reading my post fully or you are just not comprehending it.

Imagine you had the choice to stop a nuclear bomb going off that would kill millions, but in doing so you had to sacrifice the lives of a few other people. This is an almost identical dilemma that has been presented in the game in the two examples I mention. Can anyone honestly disagree and say that choosing to disarm the bomb is morally wrong?

You are claiming that Light and Dark side are supposed to be like that but that is simply wrong. The Dark side CORRUPTS your character, as seen by the visual effect it has on players who go the Dark side. In all known Star Wars media, the Dark side is clearly intended to be evil and the light side as good. It is not Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good. So no, this is not how they are SUPPOSED to be.

That is EXACTLY how the Dark Side is suppose to work though. People in the universe dont go evil for the sake of being evil. No one does that except Saturday morning cartoon villians (like the Emperor in this game) They would perform the Dark Side because they are trying to improve the galaxy however everyone has a different interpretation on was "improve the galaxy is"

The Dark Side is not Chaotic Good, the Dark Side in its best situation would be Lawful Evil. That does not mean it is ALWAYS Lawful Evil though, its just a way to lure people to it. For example, Darth Vader would never claim that he was evil, he was trying to improve the galaxy, he was just determined to do whatever it takes to do it. He was clearly following the Dark Side but he was doing it to make the galaxy better in the long run.

In regards to the Dark side being "the ends justify the means" that is certainly not what is happening in the choices I have described. The ends justifying the means involve compromising principles or doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. In this case, choosing to save the plant instead of the workers is not "the ends justifying the means" it is about making the hard decision and saving more lives. The ends justifying the means would be torturing somebody for information to save somebody elses life as it involves doing something that is clearly morally wrong and defies basic principles, but with an ulimtately good intent.

I did not mean to imply that every example of the Dark should be the Ends justify the means. Just that the Dark Side is usually suppose to be like that. Also the example with the works IS an example of the ends justify the means. You are killing those works as surely as if you shot them yourself to save more lives down the road. Your end result justified the means you did to get that result.

About the Dark side option not being about committing evil for the sake of evil, then I will assume you never fully read my post as I clearly complained in the second half about there being choices that were essentially evil for the sake of evil and that they made no sense in the Jedi Consular story.

I read it and felt it didnt apply to my statement. You are correct, those Dark Side options were dumb and evil for the sake of evil and it made no sense in the story.

And nowhere in my post did I claim that I click only lightside, which is an assumption you have made for no reason. It is quite the opposite as I do make each decision regardless of whether it is Dark or Light side. However, my complaint is that when making a decision that clearly has no right or wrong answer, I am being told that I have received Dark side points when there was no clear right or wrong decision and I did nothing morally wrong. So again, it is clear you are not reading my post fully or you are just not comprehending it.

I didnt make an assumption either way actually. I simply was making a point that people should not pick only lightside or only darkside. I know people who do and I find it very dumb. Your choices were obviously a Lightside/Darkside option and it was a good option. A good decision should stop and make you think what you should do, it should make you say "these options are both good" and you must than decide based off your [characters] morals what the decision you should make is.

Imagine you had the choice to stop a nuclear bomb going off that would kill millions, but in doing so you had to sacrifice the lives of a few other people. This is an almost identical dilemma that has been presented in the game in the two examples I mention. Can anyone honestly disagree and say that choosing to disarm the bomb is morally wrong?

Ill one up your example. In WW2 the Allies had 2 options, Nuke Japan, or invade Japan. On one side, the Allies would murder a total of 150,000 unarmed civilians. On the other side, the expected American deaths alone was expected to be nearly 600,000, Japan's deaths in the millions, and the Soviets would have invaded and seen Japan divided into North and South Japan.

The Allies decided to kill 150,000 civilians so they can save millions down the road. That is called the Ends justify the means. The process of saving over a million lives justified killing 150,000. If that was put in game terms, you bet in a heart beat the Dark Side option would be to nuke civilians. Also people REGULARLY argue if the example you provided is morally wrong.

The second one actually makes a perfect sense. Right now it is only reflected in story-telling, but back in beta times it was also supported by the game mechanics.

Healing a Jedi Master through the technique your Consular learned means sacrificing your connection to the Force. It weakens you. In beta, the character’s power was reduced by a certain % after each LS choice, each heal. If all choices were LS, character became unplayable solo, it was so weak. Right now it was only left in the story and animations.

So, killing a Master to free him from the plague means preserving yourself, while defeating your Antagonist (subdued Master is still controlled and still 'contagious') . It is a perfectly logical DS choice.

Aww, now I really want to play a Consular again…

For this first area, you actually miss understand what Like and Dark side options are. Those are exactly how Light and Dark side options are SUPPOSE to be.

 

The Light side option is always that you never sacrifice a person, you do whatever you can to save them. As a result, saving a person is more important than saving technology or information.

 

The Dark Side option (in a good story) is NOT suppose to be evil for the sake of evil. It is suppose to be the ends justify the means. You can sacrifice a person for the sake of saving more down the road. A Jedi who follows the code would never sacrifice a person when they can save them, but someone who is more flexible or perfers to think long term will make a sacrifice to save those down the road. Dont think of the Light and Dark side as "Good" and "Evil" think of it more as "nobility and honor" vs "getting the job done"

 

 

You should NEVER be saying "Im going to click straight lightside" Its a horrible idea and very illogical as you start running into things like just plain stupid decisions on the lightside or "chaotic stupid" on the dark side. You just look at every decision and pick what you think is right for your character, not what color an icon is.

Not true in the trooper story you have to kill that one chick to save everyone if you saved her you would get a DS point

Not true in the trooper story you have to kill that one chick to save everyone if you saved her you would get a DS point

Exactly. And when you do save her, they all have a CHANCE of getting out. This gives you DS point.

If you sacrifice her, then all the others WILL get out. This gives you LS point.

Truthfully, this didn't make sense to me. And if I recall correctly, none of them are important to anyone or any cause.

You are claiming that Light and Dark side are supposed to be like that but that is simply wrong. The Dark side CORRUPTS your character, as seen by the visual effect it has on players who go the Dark side. In all known Star Wars media, the Dark side is clearly intended to be evil and the light side as good. It is not Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good. So no, this is not how they are SUPPOSED to be.

Except only 4 of the 8 classes can use the Force so the whole Dark Side Corruption thing makes no sense for the non Force user classes as it's not even something that they believe in or practice. For instance there is no Light or Dark Side as far as Smuggler or Bounty Hunter is concerned.

In all honesty the Light/Dark choices and the corruption are just hold overs from KOTOR that they should've abandoned. They (Bioware) felt like they needed to be in there because that's what people remembered from KOTOR but honestly the game would've been better off without visual indicators tied to your choices or an alignment meter. Both systems will push many players down a specific path rather than playing it like The Witcher or The Walking Dead where there's nothing telling you that you made the "Good/Bad" choice. By removing alignment it would've freed up many of the relics and lightsabers that are idiotically bound by an alignment level. It serves no purpose other than to push players in a direction, often times one that doesn't even make sense or becomes contradictory.

The only "bonus" that actually comes out of the system is the DS Corruption, which honestly should've just been cosmetic features available in the character creation.

For a game that's supposed to be about choices they sure like to box players in.

Except only 4 of the 8 classes can use the Force so the whole Dark Side Corruption thing makes no sense for the non Force user classes as it's not even something that they believe in or practice. For instance there is no Light or Dark Side as far as Smuggler or Bounty Hunter is concerned.

 

In all honesty the Light/Dark choices and the corruption are just hold overs from KOTOR that they should've abandoned. They (Bioware) felt like they needed to be in there because that's what people remembered from KOTOR but honestly the game would've been better off without visual indicators tied to your choices or an alignment meter. Both systems will push many players down a specific path rather than playing it like The Witcher or The Walking Dead where there's nothing telling you that you made the "Good/Bad" choice. By removing alignment it would've freed up many of the relics and lightsabers that are idiotically bound by an alignment level. It serves no purpose other than to push players in a direction, often times one that doesn't even make sense or becomes contradictory.

 

The only "bonus" that actually comes out of the system is the DS Corruption, which honestly should've just been cosmetic features available in the character creation.

 

For a game that's supposed to be about choices they sure like to box players in.

I'd say it's more that they should've stuck to their guns. Make the choices matter, and not be afraid to say "You don't get this." (ie...Troopers/Smugglers/Agents/Hunters don't get Dark Side Corruption).

Exactly. And when you do save her, they all have a CHANCE of getting out. This gives you DS point.

 

If you sacrifice her, then all the others WILL get out. This gives you LS point.

 

Truthfully, this didn't make sense to me. And if I recall correctly, none of them are important to anyone or any cause.

The Nobility vs Whatever it takes isnt ALWAYS the correct example. Its just a better way of looking at things. Remember the Dark Side is suppose to corrupt people but "the road to damnation is paved with good intentions"

In the Troopers case, you have 1 person you have had a chance to get to know, you can sacrifice her to save 300 soldiers you never met. OR you can Sacrifice 300 soldiers to save just her. Someone WILL die, the question is how many are going to die. The lightside is obviously going to save the most soldiers as possible.

Now maybe you are wondering "whats the difference between that and the Hiroshima example from earlier" and the difference is lies in who is dying. In my Hiroshima example, you are juggling killing x number of non-combatants/innocent people to save Y Soldiers who would have been fighting and had a chance to defend themselves farther down the road. In the Trooper example you are saving 1 soldier who knew the risk of the mission by sacrificing 300 soldiers who are trapped and had no possibility to defend themselves.

Does the difference make sense? Its a thin line that divides up these choices which is exactly what is suppose to corrupt people in the first place. They try to do good not realizing they are slowly making rough decisions that could damn their souls. I hope it makes sense. Its hard to explain