Saying "stop whining and pick a side" is wrong, but at the same time, complaining because you have to deal with the consequence of your neutrality is just silly.

 

Why do people keep thinking that playing as a gray aligned player is "being neutral"? It isn't. Every decision I make, I take a stance based on the given situation. "Being neutral" would mean that we have the option to take NO action what-so-ever, but we don't (I guess, technically, we can exercise "neutrality" but simply not accepting ANY quests, because that would be not taking any action). In some of my situations I decide to kill that person/blackmail/whatever, and in others I decide it is best to let it slide. Each time I am taking a stance, doing what my conviction tells me, and somehow that is neutral? Psh.. please.

 

On the topic of alignment rewards: A simple fix is to make it so you only have to have the required number of LS/DS points to equip an item, rather than the LS/DS levels. In other words, instead of having an item require LS II (which implies you have over 2k more LS points than DS), it instead just requires you to have 2k LS points. What this means is, theoretically, a gray aligned character will be able to equip all LS/DS gear eventually, but at a much slower rate. While I see the inherent issue with this, I think its benefits trump its detriments compared to what we currently have--no gray aligned gear.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Kryptorchid

Why do people keep thinking that playing as a gray aligned player is "being neutral"? It isn't. Every decision I make, I take a stance based on the given situation. "Being neutral" would mean that we have the option to take NO action what-so-ever, but we don't. In some of my situations I decide to kill that person/blackmail/whatever, and in others I decide it is best to let it slide. Each time I am taking a stance, doing what my conviction tells me, and somehow that is neutral? Psh.. please.

 

Taking no action doesn't mean neutral. No action is still a choice. Kill an enemy of the empire? straight forward choices here, either do or do not. Help some slaves or make them work harder? This one is tougher, because taking no action or "being neutral" will still caused events to play out, and still play a role in your characters story. What if your future apprentice was in that mix and you don't help them? Later on the republic frees those slaves and he goes on to become a jedi, now a potentially powerful ally is on the other side.

 

"Neutral" is still an action, a choice. Doing nothing is still a decision. It just doesn't affect your alignment any, you're not directly responsible for what happened to that slave, but you COULD have changed, or ended, his life right then and there.

 

Your alignment is nothing more than a general reflection on your overall decisions. Grey = Neutral, which means that you, for the most part, did just as many good things as evil things in the eyes of the force. Doing what you want is not always the same thing as grey or neutral. I do what I want, I make decisions how I would want to and I ended up mostly dark side, by your logic, I shouldn't be that way.

Not that I'm saying the alignment gear is perfect (it's definitely not, we need a buffer zone for Light/Dark V, and alignment gear should be cosmetic ONLY,)

 

BUT

 

Relics aren't that hard to make at a matrix assembler. I've got a nice one at level 30, and the matrix shards to make my second are coming soon - I won't even be able to use it until level 50. swtorspy.com/datacrons - go find your shards - problem (for relics, at least) solved.

Bioware devs have said that your alignment choices will never "gimp" your character. So for those people saying "you knew the consequences" -- well, there wasn't supposed to be any. Light/dark choices were not supposed to make your character weaker, but that is what's happening.

 

Those of you so jazzed about consequences, why should only grey alignment have consequences? If consequences are so great, maybe they should give better light sabers to light side characters. There should be consequences for going to the dark side. So what if that means light-side players dominate PvP... it's a game about consequences!

 

Bottom line is players should be free to play the story however they want without it negatively impacting balance in PvP or their ability to be effective in flashpoints. That should be blatantly obvious. Story having consequences within the story is OK, in fact strongly encouraged. But story having consequences in PvP and other areas of the game does not make any sense. And having no relics is a pretty significant consequence.

Is your epic story really going to be that changed by having -11 END?

No.

I'm also fairly disappointed by the lack of support for a morally gray character. I want to play a Jedi that obeys the law diligently, who would never dream of stealing credits or allowing emotions to guide her actions. And, as she never lets emotions guide her, she feels no pity or remorse. She understands how ridiculous it is to throw away weapons, how dangerous it is to trust traitors (but also how useful those traitors can be).

 

Getting dressed in the morning, executing a traitor, eating breakfast, securing a biological weapons facility to turn normal people into mindless remotely controlled killing machines, brushing her teeth, burning a planet down to its crust to deny its resources to the enemy (and killing millions in the process), and clipping her lightsaber to her belt all fill her with exactly the same emotions: none.

 

There is no emotion, there is peace. There is no passion, there is serenity. And she will feel neither emotion nor passion in slaughtering your family, making it look like Imperials did it, and using the attack for propaganda purposes.

Is your epic story really going to be that changed by having -11 END?

No.

 

At end game....well most of the powerful items require light/dark 3+ alighment. Not to mention getting gear is eaiser when you can buy it from a dark/light vendor instead of having to run FP or WZs for it.

 

Just saying that chosing the middle path does make things a bit mroe difficult and gimps your game play a bit.

For the record, I agree that Neutral players should not get the shaft in terms of gear. After all, this is a story based game and you are intended to have the freedom to express your story however you see fit. It doesn't make sense that you should be punished for not fitting into 1 of the 2 archetypes naturally created by the light/dark side choices.

 

If you really want to take to the realm of plausibility how could any physical item be restricted from use by a person with particular moral disposition.

 

Furthermore, I'd like to add on a personal note that it is frustrating that the game displays your total light and total dark side points achieved separately. It's a stigma that I'm sure most people would like removed.

OP has a point. Why not just make it part of character creation and then choose all my dialogue for me? If thought and consideration doesn't enter in to it, then why give me options?

 

Maybe it's the case that light and dark side are purposefully easy-mode. That might make sense. Except then it's the same coupling of story and character optimization, with the same class of issue: why not choose easy mode at the start?

 

I think in general that it's just a poor design decision. Story and character optimization should be separate. If anything, there should be minor side-grades involved, but I shouldn't have to consider optimization when I'm enjoying a story. It really pulls me out.

It is more than a little annoying. I play Ristor, my knight, as one that came to the Order late, and so had more than a few years of maturity behind him. He has a proper sense of self control and proportion, and so sees the total emotional lockdown that the Jedi preach and follow to not only be counterproductive but outright dangerous when applied to young, fiery, hormonal papawans.

 

His self control is contrasted by his surgical violence and focused brutality in battle. He is willing and able to make sacrifices for the greater effort, but strives to not have to do so if he can prevent it. He is merciless in battle, but is compassionate and understanding to noncombatants. He understands that one cannot let themselves be lost to an emotional fervor, but loves Kira with everything he has.

 

Most orthodox Jedi wold consider Ristor to be "fallen" and on the edge of the Dark Side, when really, he's far less prone to falling to it's temptations than the majority of emotionally inexperienced jedi are.

 

I may actually end up deleting Ristor even at level 22 and restart him, because some of the choices made by virtue of being deceived by the speech wheel were by no means in character. Case in point: heading up to the final showdown with Watcher One. Why would anyone sane with even the barest notion of the stakes (BILLIONS of lives) take the time to save a tiny handful of colonists when the information of the whole republic's superweapon program is on the verge of being leaked to the Empire?

 

Sorry for the colonists, but that information is more important than their lives. Instead, I got shafted into helping the colonists and got to Watcher just as he sent the info out. Dark Side points or no, Ristor is very down to earth and pragmatic when it comes time to military action. Even if he'd had to choose between Kira's life and that information, he'd still sacrifice Kira to save billions. It'd leave him a broken wreck, but he'd do it. For the record, he'd expect her to do the same.

I have to agree - somewhat - with this post.

 

I didn't have a problem with the choices, by and large (playing an empire BH) until this last one:

 

 

 

 

And really, I'm not sure why some of these choices are either/or. Why aren't some of these choices either LS points or NO points, or alternately DS points or NO points? The fact that I want to do something that is either only somewhat evil or reasonably neutral and get penalized an effective 100 points (50 LS points take AWAY from my total) seems a bit unbalanced. Sparing someone's life altruistically, sure, that's no-brainer LS points. But I definitely agree that there are some problems with the middle-ground options.

 

And to be fair, sometimes they get it right. Some of the decidedly evil options give 100 or 150 DS points in one shot - choosing to just wipe someone out without even hearing what they have to say, killing civilians for no particular reason, etc. That makes sense to me and is well implemented. But there are some options that I definitely agree need a second look. And, unfortunately, that will likely not see one.

its not even about the gear anymore, its the fact that we are being punished for making our own decisions.

 

If you play as either all light or all dark, then you aren't making your own decisions; you are making the decisions you are supposed to make. They aren't your own, the are the right ones you are supposed to make because you have to choose them to get any positive rewards.

 

Personally, I am choosing to do all light (thus far) because that's the side I'm choosing as a player, on my own, and the decisions that happen to fall under the light category are the ones I want to make. Some players want to be evil, and some want to be good, that's still a decision.

 

Its not even enough to have to add a neutral set of items, because that still forces the player to play one of 3 correct ways; dark, neutral or light. The entire concept of gear with any alignment requirement is counterproductive to the "play your own story" philosophy that SWTOR is based on and is being advertised as.

 

The entire concept of choice here is an illusion. Right now there is no choice, its either all dark or all light. The penalty for choosing otherwise is an entire equipment slot.

 

THIS.

 

This is such a huge issue with me. For a game emphasizing story it's doing a really poor job of it. I don't know what kind of crack they were smoking when they decided to tie gear with alignment. Alignment should in NO WAY be tied to gear. The only thing it should affect is your character's story and how npcs interact with you due to the decisions you make. It's incredibly counterproductive with the current system. It just encourages people to either blindly hit blue or red. And saying "but you can play the way you want and do diplomacy to grind out points later on" is a complete **** way of justifying this horrible system. So don't even try to bring that up.

Bioware always had trouble understand morality for what it actually is, they always only had good or evil. And I do not mean what society tells you is morally right. It's all about what is right for you as a person. Do you think it's right to put down a criminal that murdered, because a life pays for a life? Or do you think he should be locked away? These are choices we make for ourselves and the same is true for Characters we play (even more so, because we are free to make these choices, while we would in reality probably be locked away.)

The light and dark choices are, as usual, insanely ludicrous anyway. For instance, on Hutta there's a quest where you can choose to help some starving settlers. While doing this, someone else comes along and claims that if you help the starving settlers, his family will be killed, so he wants you to betray the person providing them food. For some bizarre reason, helping him is light side, and not betraying the settlers is dark side. So what, is his family more worthy of life than everyone who the person he wants to eliminate is trading food to?

 

I turned off the indicator that tells me what actions are light and dark on several characters, and simply by doing what I believe the character would do, I've wound up with my alignment pretty neutral. Sometimes it goes into light 1 or dark 1, but it can bounce back and forth. So, in order to fill both relic slots on these characters my only choice is to run a bunch of completely out-of-character missions or flashpoints to artificially inflate my Light or Dark meter, just so I can obtain the loot I want.

 

And on the light/dark equipment, it's ludicrous that crystal colors are light/dark restricted. Apparently it is now canon in Star Wars that a darkside character is physically incapable of wielding a blue lightsaber for some unexplained reason. Whee.

one of the most unfortunate things about games like this is that there is limited content, especially in the beginning. While I do expect more content to be added (as stated above, someone said they plan to, but you can tell from the game world there are areas where content is meant to be added later), there's still only so much you can do. SWG was pretty good about adding stuff for neutral players in the end of its life, and hopefully game designers will take the whole "third faction" beef seriously and start making multi-faction equipment and content.

 

Until then, we play the way a game is designed or choose another game. I understand you plight and agree whole heartily, but as I said, that's the way the game was made and they did advertise that before launch.

Protip: If it bothers you that much, get Diplomacy as a mission skill. It lets you get more LS or DS points for endgame stuff.

 

Yay, more darkside points to make me more full-on corrupt than I already am!

 

I'm getting diplomacy.

This issue is my only complaint about the game so far. But It is a big issue for me. Were given the ability to play our characters personality as we wish but can end up with a gimped toon if we dont do it exactly like this or like that. Not everything in life is black or white. There is just as much gray area. I don't want to be forced to play my character as a "goody two shoes" or a "maniacal lunatic" just so I don't have gear issues..

Op nailed it. Dark / light restrictions are pointless at best and a giant pain in the *** at worst.

im playing my trooper neutral not on purpose but because my charecter follows orders to the letter sometimes it leads to good sometimes to bad but the outcome is the same an interesting playthrough

Personally , I think they should HIDE all light / dark points from your in the game and only reveal what your choices have done when you hit a light / dark level plateau - THAT would be more consistent with the Lore in SW, as people learn and grow as time goes on. Just my opinion.

Heres something i find funney. For all of the options in the chat wheel is almost never what is said..

 

Ex.

 

Quest Giver Says:

The Replubic needs you to save the planet, are you with us

 

Chat Wheel:

1 I fight for the Replublic

2 Is thier any money in it for me?

3 Eat my shorts

 

Choosing 1

 

Charater says:

Yeah...

 

I agree with OP though, people should be able to make thier own choices and not be punished in a way that gimps your charater because of it. The System is Flawed atm. they need to patch in some items on the vendors for these people till they get the system worked out. [ Edited ] Items should be purely cosmetic if anything

Edited December 31, 2011 by -Jayson-

BW said they will add more non-alignment gear. Furthermore, if you are playing this game with out picking a side, you are doing it wrong!

 

i find these comment funny, the choices you make in the game arnt allways black and white for example my jedi who is for the most part good has made some choices that have netted him dark side points as doing them could potentally strengthen the republic (weather these choices make a difference or not isnt the point its a story and it feels like these choices will make a difference)

 

hell my agent was for ths most part at the begining a very dark character yet as i have progressed througth the story i have found that the light side choices have made much more sence for my character so he has gone from dark side lvl 3 to lvl 1.

I think I need to point out the difference between making a neutral decision in one scenario, and making a light and dark decision in two separate scenarios (leading to a neutral reading on the alignment scale).

 

Were talking about the second instance. If I choose to play a character who thirsts for revenge, but saves every innocent life he comes I'll end up making both light and dark decisions... and I'll be punished for it.

 

Just because you are denied access to aligned gear does not make it a punishment. It just means you are not being rewarded. A lack of reward does not constitute a punishment. Punishment would be if your stats suffered penalties because of your choices.

 

Besides, the Devs said there would eventually be gear for the neutral inclined players. Neutral meaning those who collect both dark and light side points. Patience, my friend.

Just because you are denied access to aligned gear does not make it a punishment. It just means you are not being rewarded. A lack of reward does not constitute a punishment. Punishment would be if your stats suffered penalties because of your choices.

 

Besides, the Devs said there would eventually be gear for the neutral inclined players. Neutral meaning those who collect both dark and light side points. Patience, my friend.

 

This.

 

Still. I sort of agree with the OP to an extent. Most of the issues with alignment restrictions don't effect the majority of my characters in the long run, but at the same time I can still sort of see how it's maybe slightly unfair to reward certain people and not others. All I mean by that is this: while I don't feel as if I'm being punished, it still kinda sucks just a little bit that I'll never get to use some of those higher level relics on a couple of my toons because of the fact that my actual alignment rating will probably never go beyond rank 1 or 2 in either direction. I also think it's kind of just silly as all hell that I can't use a red color crystal 5 out of 7 days of the week simply because my Jedi's rating is generally Light Side I or maybe II, but I make enough Dark Side choices that I've dropped to Dark I at least once so far as well.

 

Also, to all the people who say if you're not fully Light or Dark you're not doing it right - really? Are you all robots?