Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Inconsistencies In Dark and Light

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore
Inconsistencies In Dark and Light

Caon's Avatar


Caon
01.30.2012 , 02:50 AM | #21
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.

lokdron's Avatar


lokdron
01.30.2012 , 03:34 AM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by Caon View Post
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.

SalsaDMA's Avatar


SalsaDMA
01.30.2012 , 05:19 AM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by Ranadiel_Marius View Post
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)

B-E-T-A's Avatar


B-E-T-A
01.30.2012 , 06:59 AM | #24
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.
There is no good or evil, only madness. Therefore there is only one question: "Just how mad are you?

Phyreblade's Avatar


Phyreblade
01.30.2012 , 11:21 AM | #25
I myself appreciate the nuances of the LS/DS options, only because it highlights, for me, how truly complex morality really is. It's not a perfect black and white simplistic rationale. But more often than not a question of "what's best". Right and wrong really isn't an EASY thing. It's often a struggle and a hard one. The game manages to capture that struggle very very well.
"Why can't things be easy? Just once!"
-- Gaibriel Duncan, Sawbones Scoundrel
Phyreblade, Co-Leader Covenant of the Phoenix

Ryuksgelus's Avatar


Ryuksgelus
01.30.2012 , 12:09 PM | #26
Plenty of the light side options for Imperials have nothing to do with Yin/Yan, Black/White, Good v Evil, philosophy or the Force. You're rewarded simply for assisting the empire. Assisting Nekghouls helped empire via depriving the Republic of a potential ally. BT is the same way. Light side choice is him getting tortured not because you're preserving life but because the Empire wants to torture him and learn whatever bit info they can.

Very stupid I know. As a light side Sith Inquisitor my storyline should be about not caring about or even actively changing/demolishing the Empire from within. Earlier quests supported this idea.
Spoiler
. By Tatooine, "Its long live the Empire". Hopefully any expansions have a more cohesive story experience.

parkerprice's Avatar


parkerprice
02.19.2012 , 12:09 PM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by Ranadiel_Marius View Post
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.
You clearly do not understand the duties and obligations of a soldier. You also don't seem to understand the true implications of those soldiers actions. First off, it is their duty to follow orders, regardless of the order itself or the situation it puts them in. I have multiple friends and family members who've served in Iraq and Afghanistan, that despite having profound internal objections to an order they received, they followed them anyway. In the words of Kipling, "it's not theirs to wonder why, it's theirs to do and die". I've seen the words of that specific poem played out many times. Secondly, in a combat outpost in Afghanistan, if 10 guys left a position and went AWOL, they would be abandoning an already undermanned outpost, leaving their friends to the dangers of being over run by Taliban forces. The same is applicable in the in-game situation. Those men were guilty of dereliction of duty. It should be noted I am not yet a soldier, I matriculate into the citadel this coming fall to pursue my commsion. However I have many personal friends and close family members who are all combat veterans with their "C I Been there" badges. In the marines and army respectively. I grew up, was surrounded by, and inundated with military culture as my father was a career military man as well. I only wish to remedy your understanding of the situation, as many civilians are ignorant in the many facets of military life.

Anyways, thanks for listening.

smartalectwo's Avatar


smartalectwo
02.19.2012 , 01:27 PM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by Ryuksgelus View Post
BT is the same way. Light side choice is him getting tortured not because you're preserving life but because the Empire wants to torture him and learn whatever bit info they can.

Very stupid I know.
I always felt that it was Dark Side to kill the General because you're giving in to lust for killing, and Light Side is because you're resisting the Dark Side and thinking about your choice.

It should go without saying, I think, that the 'tone' of LS/DS choices for the Empire are very different to the Republic's. The Republic's feel more external, while the Empire's seem more internal.

For the Republic, it's about resisting the urge to do Dark things and respecting people, mostly.

For the Empire, the Dark Side already dominates your destiny. The choices you have are either letting it completely rule you, or trying to keep your head.
There is no try.

Spleenboy's Avatar


Spleenboy
02.19.2012 , 01:46 PM | #29
Consider this one as a moral quandary:

At one point (I won't say where to avoid spoilers, other than that it's an imperial quest), you are supposed to either capture or kill an enemy "agent". The Light side option is Capture.

Consider further - if you capture this person, they are going to be interrogated in a way that makes waterboarding look like a fun day out at the beach. Yet it is considered the lighter side option (and gives light side points) than killing the person (basically a merciful, quick death) is the dark side option.

Now, I know that this is Star Wars, and that there is no real grey area in the morality, so BW have gone for murder == bad, therefore dark side, but in this instance? You're doing the person a favour by killing them!

Spleenboy's Avatar


Spleenboy
02.19.2012 , 01:47 PM | #30
D'oh that'll teach me for not reading the entire thread before posting.. someone's already commented on this one...