The Politics of Dissent seems like a very odd Jedi quest, at least at its ideals for light/dark side options. I noticed it in beta and was hoping it would change when the game went live. How is aiding a senator that's working with the Sith the light side choice? This seems very wrong as far as being the light side option.

Unless there is a reason that helping the Sith has some way become a good thing to do to, I'm a little lost with the choice. Perhaps I am missing something in the story?

The senator is an elected representative of the Republic. Even if you disagree with his stance on matters by stealing the files from him and trying to go around the system you are breaking the very foundations the Republic is founded on, a free democracy. Taking the files to use against the senator, even if for a "better good" is the same principle that leads to an Empire.

The senator's ideas may be wrong and they ay hurt the Republic if followed, but it is the freedom that the Republic provides that gives the senator that right and by taking the files you are removing his freedoms and breaking Republic law to do it.

The senator is an elected representative of the Republic. Even if you disagree with his stance on matters by stealing the files from him and trying to go around the system you are breaking the very foundations the Republic is founded on, a free democracy. Taking the files to use against the senator, even if for a "better good" is the same principle that leads to an Empire.

 

The senator's ideas may be wrong and they ay hurt the Republic if followed, but it is the freedom that the Republic provides that gives the senator that right and by taking the files you are removing his freedoms and breaking Republic law to do it.

Exposing his true motives and plans to essentially destroy the Republic works against the system? I don't make that connection. I don't know all of the "laws" in the Republic or their interpretation. What the senator is doing though is actively working toward what would undermine the Republic's safety/security or even destroy it since the Sith have NO other intentions other than conquering the Republic. That could be interpreted as "sedition" and in the United States and many western countries, it's illegal. It is NOT protected as "free speech."

Doing something under the guise of free trade or free speech does not mean it is all nice and legal.

Agreed -- the overall mission arc here is to prevent the Sith from taking over the Republic.

If a Jedi knew that Senator Palpatine planned to overthrow the Republic, by the "lawful diplomatic democratic" means that he did, would it have been aligned with the light-side to help him have his 'free speech'?

This quest was very poorly setup -- while the individual dialogue options may seem to correlate with light/dark, the overall understanding of the situation is the opposite of what's awarded.

I agree: This quest's reward seems backwards.

I ended up choosing Dark Side. It's the only way it made sense to me. If BioWare believes in The Jedi Code and what they stand for (and more importantly, what Mr. George Lucas says they stand for), one must choose the Dark Side option. If Jedi are no better than politicians and their aides, you must agree with the Light Side options. I chose the more optimistic viewpoint.

Personally, I believe it's a mistake on BioWare's part, but ultimately it won't make much difference given the dozens of other Light/Dark quest rewards.

I wondered this same thing myself, but it's actually very simple. To be lightsided is not to be "Good," it's mostly just to follow the law and maintain order (if you are Republic, that is)

There is no "greater good" to the Jedi Code. You follow it or you risk falling to the dark side. This seems silly, but think of Revan: He disobeyed the Council and ended up saving the galaxy by fighting the Mandalorians (greater good) but in the end he fell to the dark side.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to see patterns in Bioware's logic, compare it to the other Senator quest, the one where you find out the Senator, who is very popular for leading the Coruscant rebuilding effort, took donations from gangs to get elected.

If you expose this Senator (most likely getting her removed from the Senate), who is helping billions and billions of people, you receive light side points. If you expose the other Senator, who is betraying the Republic by trying to cut off ties to the Jedi and allying himself with the Sith, you get heavy dark side points.

One is a much better person than the other, and by helping one but not the other you are saving many lives. Why does one get you light and the other dark? Because one is breaking Republic law and the other is not. Simple as that. Extremely morally narrow minded but it is what it is.

If you truly want to help the Republic and save people you're going to have to suck it up and take some DS points (or alternatively LS points if you are playing a Sith).

Oh god, its not a mistake. The game makes it painfully clear-and furthermore when you choose the darkside option it suggest you made things worse by strengthing their resolve. The lightside option revolves on representing the freedom of opinion and respecting a democratic value. The darkside option revolves around a corrupt arrogance. Its as simple as that.

Oh ya I forgot that democracy = light side.

Oh ya I forgot that democracy = light side.

Its a pretty common theme throughout the star wars series that it is.

Its important to note that in the mission the Senator was not simply voicing an opinion rather he was attempting to secretly form a coupe within the senate to enact policy that works against the will of the people and would ultimately lead the republic into subjugation to the empire.

Defending such actions in the name of "Respecting the Democratic Process" is a farce and a misunderstanding of Democracy.

The fundamental basis of a Democratic society is that officials are elected to Do the will of THE PEOPLE. The people are not Subjects of the government. The people do not serve the Government. The Government is to serve the people and do the will of the people.

In the real world if an elected official Fails to perform the will of the people they are voted out of office and replaced through the Electoral Process. If an elected official is found to be working Against the will of the people and Against the principles of the society they have been elected to represent and/or working in their own self interest; they are Impeached and Immediately Removed from office. (sic. Rob Blagoyavich [sP?])

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is not possible for all people to know what misdeeds their government is perpetrating behind closed doors, secrets, and lies. But if the people that do know whats going on do nothing to stop it or expose it then they bare as much responsibility for the loss of their freedom as the corrupt politicians that sold their freedom to tyrants.

When a government fails to do the will of the people and/or works in direct opposition to it; It is the Duty of the people to rise up expose the corruption and affect change. Not always necessarily through "The blood of Patriots and Tyrants" if that can be avoided, but a people must be ready and willing to do what it takes to expose corruption, Even if that means Intercepting Documents by legally questionable means.

In Reality The Light Side Option advocates a peoples subjugation to the government and accepting Tyranny in the name of adherence to law.

This seems backwards to me, but I can see the point... maybe. Of saying its darkside to get rid of the corruption by not using the democratic process. But I thought the quest was just about getting evidence, then letting the democratic process do its thing. Even still, if you do the light side option, you can tell the jedi does it grudgingly which is good. But then still lies to the original contact. most other missions let you tell the truth in these situations. This would have been a good start for a quest chain, where maybe you go back and say something like, I agree with you but it we need to do it thru the proper channels. And who knows, maybe what was the original intention and it never got continued? I would be ok with my character possibly doing lightside if he could tell the original contact the truth. I dunno, its darkside to not steal evidence of wrong doing by the senator but its ok to lie to your original contact?

I ended up just resetting and abandoning it for now lol.

I ended up just resetting and abandoning it for now lol.

Same here.

Whats really annoying is that for smugglers, choosing the lightside option causes you to lose 30 affection with Corso Riggs.

Either way you chose you are getting punished.

If you do the morally correct thing and expose parvels corruption you get dark side faction but gain affection from Corso,

If you choose the option that gives you light side faction despite it being morrally objecionable you loose affection with corso.

Its a catch 22.

And dont say to just dismiss corso, you shouldnt have to.

Same here.

 

Whats really annoying is that for smugglers, choosing the lightside option causes you to lose 30 affection with Corso Riggs.

 

Either way you chose you are getting punished.

 

If you do the morally correct thing and expose parvels corruption you get dark side faction but gain affection from Corso,

 

If you choose the option that gives you light side faction despite it being morrally objecionable you loose affection with corso.

 

Its a catch 22.

 

And dont say to just dismiss corso, you shouldnt have to.

Its not a catch 22, BioWare flat out told you that they don't give a damn about lightside/darkside with companions. While some will naturally line up in certain ways, its NOT the way you are supposed to determine whether something will gain influence or lose influence. Look at the Codex to determine likes/dislikes if you have to remind yourself.

And suppose your trying to be a darkside smuggler with Corso as your main companion? Not so Catch 22 there, is it?

Its not a catch 22, BioWare flat out told you that they don't give a damn about lightside/darkside with companions. While some will naturally line up in certain ways, its NOT the way you are supposed to determine whether something will gain influence or lose influence. Look at the Codex to determine likes/dislikes if you have to remind yourself.

And suppose your trying to be a darkside smuggler with Corso as your main companion? Not so Catch 22 there, is it?

I didn't say that the Force Attenuation of the options are what affect Corso's affection. On this mission Corso's affection gain or loss has to do with you actions regarding the Empire not whether or not your choice was light side or dark side.

You lose affection by selecting the lightside option not because it is light side but because your action promotes collaboration with the empire,

Choosing to expose the senator causes gain because your action opposes collaboration with the empire.

For a person playing a Smuggler with a moral compass and That cares about their standing with Corso it is a catch 22, you have to either accept dark side Force Attenuation points, or accept a loss of affection with Corso.

The choice may have absolutely no bearing on any other class' companions, i was speaking Strictly about my specific class and companion.

I didn't say that the Force Attenuation of the options are what affect Corso's affection. On this mission Corso's affection gain or loss has to do with you actions regarding the Empire not whether or not your choice was light side or dark side.

 

You lose affection by selecting the lightside option not because it is light side but because your action promotes collaboration with the empire,

 

Choosing to expose the senator causes gain because your action opposes collaboration with the empire.

 

For a person playing a Smuggler with a moral compass and That cares about their standing with Corso it is a catch 22, you have to either accept dark side Force Attenuation points, or accept a loss of affection with Corso.

 

The choice may have absolutely no bearing on any other class' companions, i was speaking Strictly about my specific class and companion.

Except its not a catch 22. Your trying to complete two unrelated objectives, which, in this case, is impossible. If the objectives were related (say, Corso only like lightside options except this one case) it would be a Catch 22. However because alignment and affection are independent, this a perfectly fair outcome. Your arguement is personal, and it assumes that a smuggler with a moral compass with an affection gain with Corso is more valuable than a darkside smuggler with an affection gain with Corso-this is not true.

Also, its completely reasonable for affection gains/losses to be made in the same choice for lightside/darkside-those are supposed to be the important ones.

Its important to note that in the mission the Senator was not simply voicing an opinion rather he was attempting to secretly form a coupe...

I'm more inclined to believed that we had an unreliable narrator (or in this case, quest giver). Realistically, the senator was serving the general interest of his district, which happened to have views more aligned with peace with the Empire.

Except its not a catch 22. Your trying to complete two unrelated objectives, which, in this case, is impossible. If the objectives were related (say, Corso only like lightside options except this one case) it would be a Catch 22. However because alignment and affection are independent, this a perfectly fair outcome. Your arguement is personal, and it assumes that a smuggler with a moral compass with an affection gain with Corso is more valuable than a darkside smuggler with an affection gain with Corso-this is not true.

 

Also, its completely reasonable for affection gains/losses to be made in the same choice for lightside/darkside-those are supposed to be the important ones.

Your argument is invalid. It ignores the context of the post and assumes that i'm speaking for anyone other then myself. Also the way i read your post, it seems you are assuming that Gaining Companion affection and gaining light side standing are objectives to be met. This is incorrect; The objective is simply to complete the mission. Gaining or loosing standing in the force and with the companions are just outcomes of the decisions made while achieving that objective.

I was responding to a post questioning not stealing the papers on the basis of lawful morality only to deceive the quest giver upon completion of the quest.

The context is therefore based on a player who is taking morality into consideration when making in game decisions (Also i had previously posited that the morally correct choice is to expose corruption).

The ONLY Thing my post assumes is that a player playing a morally conscious character would view gaining Dark side points as undesirable, and that regardless of faction, loosing companion loyalty is undesirable.

A Catch 22 is a Situation where any action taken results in an undesirable outcome. In the context of my post this mission IS a Catch 22. If a Morally Conscious Smuggler chooses based on morality he receives dark side points. If he decides to go against his morality so he can avoid dark side points he looses [a comparably significant amount] loyalty from Corso. Regardless of which option he chooses there is an undesirable outcome.

I'm more inclined to believed that we had an unreliable narrator (or in this case, quest giver). Realistically, the senator was serving the general interest of his district, which happened to have views more aligned with peace with the Empire.

It would be convenient wouldn't it. But the senate aids arguments do not support this possibility. It instead defends the senators right to work towards the goal the quest giver accused him of.

Then theres the whole loosing Corso Loyalty thing...

For a person playing a Smuggler with a moral compass and That cares about their standing with Corso it is a catch 22, you have to either accept dark side Force Attenuation points, or accept a loss of affection with Corso.

.....Or you just dismiss him for the conversation and take no affection loss.

Your argument is invalid. It ignores the context of the post and assumes that i'm speaking for anyone other then myself. Also the way i read your post, it seems you are assuming that Gaining Companion affection and gaining light side standing are objectives to be met. This is incorrect; The objective is simply to complete the mission. Gaining or loosing standing in the force and with the companions are just outcomes of the decisions made while achieving that objective.

 

I was responding to a post questioning not stealing the papers on the basis of lawful morality only to deceive the quest giver upon completion of the quest.

 

The context is therefore based on a player who is taking morality into consideration when making in game decisions (Also i had previously posited that the morally correct choice is to expose corruption).

 

The ONLY Thing my post assumes is that a player playing a morally conscious character would view gaining Dark side points as undesirable, and that regardless of faction, loosing companion loyalty is undesirable.

 

A Catch 22 is a Situation where any action taken results in an undesirable outcome. In the context of my post this mission IS a Catch 22. If a Morally Conscious Smuggler chooses based on morality he receives dark side points. If he decides to go against his morality so he can avoid dark side points he looses [a comparably significant amount] loyalty from Corso. Regardless of which option he chooses there is an undesirable outcome.

A Catch 22 is NOT a situation where any action taken results is an undesirable outcome (nor is completing the mission your objective-clearly. If it was, you would have no problem. Either option completes the quest) that is a lose-lose, and that was caused by you having multiple independent conflicting goals. A catch 22 is a singular or series of conected goals which is/are impossible to meet due to itself-the example the BOOK WHICH CAME UP WITH THE TERM uses first is that it is impossible to stop flying missions unless your insane but anyone who would want to stop flying is trying to avoid death and thus is sane-the objective itself prevents it from being met. Also, your assuming the morally correct choice is the darkside, which is incorrect, the lightside is clearly more moral in this case. Since when is rigging democratic processes moral?

And it is a personal arguement-whether its you or someone else. It places value on that style of smuggler over the other styles of playing. Which is simply a logically incorrect way to approach this. Every RP play style is going to lose and win sometimes, placing value on any singular style above the others is not the appropiate action. It assumes that one style is "right". Thus, in this case you are making dark side smugglers second-class to light side smugglers.

A Catch 22 is NOT a situation where any action taken results is an undesirable outcome (nor is completing the mission your objective-clearly. If it was, you would have no problem. Either option completes the quest) that is a lose-lose, and that was caused by you having multiple independent conflicting goals. A catch 22 is a singular or series of conected goals which is/are impossible to meet due to itself-the example the BOOK WHICH CAME UP WITH THE TERM uses first is that it is impossible to stop flying missions unless your insane but anyone who would want to stop flying is trying to avoid death and thus is sane-the objective itself prevents it from being met. Also, your assuming the morally correct choice is the darkside, which is incorrect, the lightside is clearly more moral in this case. Since when is rigging democratic processes moral?

 

And it is a personal arguement-whether its you or someone else. It places value on that style of smuggler over the other styles of playing. Which is simply a logically incorrect way to approach this. Every RP play style is going to lose and win sometimes, placing value on any singular style above the others is not the appropiate action. It assumes that one style is "right". Thus, in this case you are making dark side smugglers second-class to light side smugglers.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catch%2022

1. a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule <the show-business catch–22—no work unless you have an agent, no agent unless you've worked — Mary Murphy>; also : the circumstance or rule that denies a solution
   
2. 
   
   • a : an illogical, unreasonable, or senseless situation
     
   • b : a measure or policy whose effect is the opposite of what was intended
     
   • c : a situation presenting two equally undesirable alternatives
     

[*]a hidden difficulty or means of entrapment : catch

In response to your questioning of the morality of exposing the corruption of the Senator: Actually read my Initial post in this thread.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catch%2022

 

 

 

In response to your questioning of the morality of exposing the corruption of the Senator: Actually read my Initial post in this thread.

Catch 22 n. a supposed law or regulation containing provisions which are mutually frustrating (see quot. 1961); a set of circumstances in which one requirement, etc., is dependent upon another, which is in turn dependent upon the first. Freq. attrib., esp. as Catch-22 situation. [ < a paradoxical rule postulated in the novel Catch-22 (1961, released as a film in 1970), by Joseph Heller (1923–99), U.S. author.

The first chapter of Heller's novel was published in 1955 ( New World Writing No. 7 54ff) under the title ‘Catch-18’. For Heller's explanation of why this was changed to Catch-22, see Kiley and MacDonald ‘Catch-22’ Casebook (1973) 294-95.

-OED (Oxford English Dictionary-a.k.a. a better source)

I won't link it, because you need to be subscribed. (My old high school was subcribed and they will never ever change there passwords. It is the same thing for everything every year without changing)

See A supposed law or regulation-it comes from a singular source. It contains a paradox.

Having two sucky outcomes is in no way a catch 22, because a catch 22 is based upon a logical fallacy. There's no logical fallacy presented in this situation. This situation contains no paradox, and it may stink for a particular player (someone who is determined to go lightside and unwilling to remove Corso), but there's nothing illogical about it.

It would be convenient wouldn't it. But the senate aids arguments do not support this possibility. It instead defends the senators right to work towards the goal the quest giver accused him of.

 

Then theres the whole loosing Corso Loyalty thing...

Is there ANY proof that this is a coupe instead of just an "stating a opinion" thing. Because the Senators Assistance is absolutly right that he has the right to bring this idea up. But if its all secretly and more like a coupe then i would choose the DS answer. Somebody found some proof ? Not just interpret some line. The quest is not much detailed. There is in my opinion no information aobut if it is a coupe or just a normal process of expressing ideas to the senate. Maybe that in fact the help for the senator as a LS decision proofs that its just an idea. Bioware sure put thought into this.