I'm thinking of a few instances:

Also, there are some other light side options that seem to hurt the good guys more than not.

I don't know, maybe I'm viewing alignment wrong. Any thoughts?

I'm thinking of a few instances:

 

 

 

When Agent Galen in the Knight story is forced to fight the Knight, he begs to be killed at the end of the battle and it's dark to kill him, but light to force him to endure the pain and suffering of being less than human?

 

Working with the Hutts to ensure the Republic is supported is dark, and exposing them, weakening the Republic is light?

 

 

 

Also, there are some other light side options that seem to hurt the good guys more than not.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm viewing alignment wrong. Any thoughts?

Yes. How would you disagree? Exposing criminals is a righteous thing to do, and thus light side. Whether the decision "hurts the good guys" is completely irrelevant, light side options are generally intended to be morally correct, above all else. You know, putting yourself in harm's way to protect others (especially civillians), exposing criminal activities, being merciful to your enemies or destroying some sort of super weapon that would destroy the planet it's on for good. That kind of thing.

The dark side is a bit more complex. Sometimes the choice is greedy, sometimes just egoistical, sometimes completely psychotic and downright murderous (to the point where some of them would be stupid to pick under real circumstances). It's probably save to assume that some DS options might even be morally correct. So basically the DS is more chaotic while the LS is more straight forward. The DS isn't always "evil" or "bad", but if you think about it, the choices are generally not morally correct.

I agree OP. There's a mission on Taris, where the lightside choice is to encourage republic troops to go AWOL.

Obviously, the morally right and honorable thing would be to convince them to go back, which you do with the DS choice.

Obviously, the morally right and honorable thing would be to convince them to go back,

Yes and no.

What people often forget that there is a cultural difference in determining what is a "moral good choice" across countries. Just remember George W. Bush and his Iraq war. Several European countries didn't follow him and his righeous war, because they didn't his war to be righteous. And I know many civil voices explicitely stating that "he was only after the oil". Needless to say that he coined the countries that didn't follow him "The Old Europe".

Or just take a look ar ancient empires. Slavery wasn't a bad thing, then. And there might still be cultures in this world where Slavery STILL isn't considered to be a bad thing - by those who exploit slaves.

Or just read Caesar's war-book. Eradicating whole landscapes was a "morally right" thing for him to do in order to get this area for his empire.

And even for Fanatics of ANY kind, some decisions might actiually be considered "morally right", meanwhile for non-fanatics they are not.

And SWTOR was done by Bioware, so I fully expect cultural influences to be there. In the class stories, in the quests. For example a Trooper class story would be completely impossible if SWTOR had been done in Germany : Because great parts of Germany's public are against wars - because of WWII. German's just aren't able ti understand how troopers are treated in the U.S. .

But on the other hand, Germany is also a huge exporter of war machines. And that's a thing that seems to be "morally totally wrong" for those who believe that because of WWII, Germany should NEVER meddle with warts, EVER. And the number of people who believe so is not small. We Germans have learned from WWII : The guilt of being those who started WWII and almost eradicated all Jewish culture in contionental Europe has made us Germans a "moral voice" against war and against cultural discrimination. What does not mean that Germany still struggles, because in any country, there are people having a variety of opinions. And some politicians nudge them into one or into another direction.

So, from the point of view of someone living in an anti-war culture (so to say), the morally right choice is to help them NOT to go back. Especially if their lives will be "verheizt", as we Germans say, on Taris (German "verheizen" means "to burn" in the sense of putting coal into a oven).

One quest Sith-side strikes me as odd, Comrades in Arms, a heroic on Balmorra.

One quest Sith-side strikes me as odd, Comrades in Arms, a heroic on Balmorra.

 

As it stands, the DS/LS points go: reprogram the droid gets DS and repairing the other droid gets LS. This doesn't really make sense as, first, droids aren't living beings with any connection to the Force, and second, removing emotions doesn't seem like something a dark sider would want to do, and repairing the other droid returns a weapon to the field to kill again. Reprogram should get LS points and repair should get DS points.

Step 1: Alignment is independant from the Force, in this case. Connection to the Force and such are irrelevant, what counts are things like morality.

Step 2: The droid is supposed to be reprogrammed because his "emotions" stop him from completing their mission as was originally intended. He doesn't want to continue without his "comrade". Morally speaking, you override the droid's free will and force him to do something he didn't want to do before. Hence why reprogramming is DS while repairing is LS.

On the point of the quest "AWOL": The morally correct choice is clearly not to send them back into the fight against their will. If you listened to them, basically they've been through hell for the past 5 years and their commander is a *****. They basically have a PTSD and aren't even of any use in the field in their condition anyway. Sending them as far away from Taris as you can and getting them psychological treatment is what should be done with them.

Although I have to point out that one of them is potentially infected by the rakghoul virus, meaning both options are somewhat dangerous

The most inexplicable choice is in the Cadimimu fp when

The most inexplicable choice is in the Cadimimu fp when

You are given the choice to redirect the missiles to either your enemy's fleet (DS) or to an uninhabited moon (LS). On has to presume that the moon is in orbit around the planet. Even if the missles don't destroy the moon outright, there's a good chance that they might shift it's orbit with catastrophic effects on the civilians on the planet. As for targeting the enemy fleet, how is targeting a force with whom you're at war darkside? It's not like you're worried about killing your enemy anywhere else in the game.

 

The logic is probably that it's indiscriminate and allows no possibility for surrender, but you kill a heck of a lot of people in game without offering them a chance to surrender first.

Hardly:

Actually, this whole thread reminds me of a similar thread during the early days of the game where one guy was very (and I mean VERY) upset that the game was "forcing" him to do the wrong thing and go against his own morals to get light side points.

The problem? That guy on coruscant who's wife left him and you can either force her to go back or you can tell him that she's left him.

Yeah... this guy actually said it was "wrong" of her to leave him because a wife had a duty to stay with her husband no matter how bad it got.

(and this guy in the game, you find out that he only looks at her as a posession and a trophy and was extremely jealous).

It's pretty easy to figure out the wrong/right choices in the game.

1: Don't kill in cold blood. Like, ever.

2: Don't torture. There is no good reason to inflict pain on another creature.

3: Don't force people to do things they don't want to.

4: Don't get emotional (usually just for jedi).

As for the killing you do in the game, sure, it's plenty and you're not really picky.

BUT, that's for gameplay reasons.

Step 1: Alignment is independant from the Force, in this case. Connection to the Force and such are irrelevant, what counts are things like morality.

 

Step 2: The droid is supposed to be reprogrammed because his "emotions" stop him from completing their mission as was originally intended. He doesn't want to continue without his "comrade". Morally speaking, you override the droid's free will and force him to do something he didn't want to do before. Hence why reprogramming is DS while repairing is LS.

 

 

On the point of the quest "AWOL": The morally correct choice is clearly not to send them back into the fight against their will. If you listened to them, basically they've been through hell for the past 5 years and their commander is a *****. They basically have a PTSD and aren't even of any use in the field in their condition anyway. Sending them as far away from Taris as you can and getting them psychological treatment is what should be done with them.

 

Although I have to point out that one of them is potentially infected by the rakghoul virus, meaning both options are somewhat dangerous

But droids don't have free will, aren't living things, and therefore, I don't see how it's the more moral option. In fact, looking at it from the perspective of the harm principle, the choices as they are should still be reversed.

It causes more harm to others to repair the droid and less to reprogram, ergo, repairing should be dark side and reprogram light.

But droids don't have free will, aren't living things, and therefore, I don't see how it's the more moral option.

Actually, droids that don't undergo memory wipe for prolonged times will develop free will and emotional attachment. Like R2-D2. Or the droid in the quest. Or every droid in the Directive 7 Flashpoint.

That wasn't the case with the droid in the quest, it was given emotional programming. My point still stands, droids such as these are autonomous weapons following programming, nothing more. We should be careful about anthropomorphizing these things.

And you can't deny that returning a weapon to war is much more dark side than wiping an errant droid's emotions.

That wasn't the case with the droid in the quest, it was given emotional programming. My point still stands, droids such as these are autonomous weapons following programming, nothing more. We should be careful about anthropomorphizing these things.

 

And you can't deny that returning a weapon to war is much more dark side than wiping an errant droid's emotions.

You could also say that by repairing the droid you help your allies by giving them further support, thus it should be light side. We're moving in circles if we look at it like that. I was just trying to provide the view I believe the developers had on this.

Hardly:

 

 

It would take enormous force to affect a moons orbit. Just consider how many (and how large) asteroids have impacted on our own moon without moving its orbit. But using it to to just annihilate an enemy force that is currently not a threat to you, definately is darkside.

 

 

Actually, this whole thread reminds me of a similar thread during the early days of the game where one guy was very (and I mean VERY) upset that the game was "forcing" him to do the wrong thing and go against his own morals to get light side points.

The problem? That guy on coruscant who's wife left him and you can either force her to go back or you can tell him that she's left him.

Yeah... this guy actually said it was "wrong" of her to leave him because a wife had a duty to stay with her husband no matter how bad it got.

(and this guy in the game, you find out that he only looks at her as a posession and a trophy and was extremely jealous).

 

It's pretty easy to figure out the wrong/right choices in the game.

1: Don't kill in cold blood. Like, ever.

2: Don't torture. There is no good reason to inflict pain on another creature.

3: Don't force people to do things they don't want to.

4: Don't get emotional (usually just for jedi).

 

As for the killing you do in the game, sure, it's plenty and you're not really picky.

BUT, that's for gameplay reasons.

For that moon bit else where in the game in the JC you crash a ship into a moon and it causes problems for the planet. I think a ship and a barrage of high yield missiles would affect a moon in at least a similar way. Or having chunks of the moon blow off and even crash into the planet. There are many ways in which that barrage of missiles could affect the moon and the planet as a result.

So both choices are dark sided in a regard, just one for quick loss of life, other is for later loss of life or loss of a planet.

The most ridiculous LS/DS decision in the entire game is the Mercy Quest on Ord Mantell, bar none.

...

The justification is in the fact that the military does not currently need the medicine and is only hoarding it while the refugees have imminent need of it but don't get it from the military.

The problem? That guy on coruscant who's wife left him and you can either force her to go back or you can tell him that she's left him.

Yeah... this guy actually said it was "wrong" of her to leave him because a wife had a duty to stay with her husband no matter how bad it got.

(and this guy in the game, you find out that he only looks at her as a posession and a trophy and was extremely jealous).

Honestly, I can see the justification for her leaving being wrong. Once again, the harm principle comes into play. If her leaving does more harm to others than her remaining, then yeah it would be 'wrong'.

I have a sneaking suspicion that quest is trying to highlight a social issue, however, so logic isn't exactly at the core of it.

The justification is in the fact that the military does not currently need the medicine and is only hoarding it while the refugees have imminent need of it but don't get it from the military.

But that's precisely the OPPOSITE of what's going on.

That choice is not so much about whether it's ok to leave a douche you find yourself married to as it is about whether people have the right to self-determination.

One of the most important things in the world is self-determination - until and unless it hurts other people.

But that's precisely the OPPOSITE of what's going on.

 

 

The military, the rightful owners of the medicine need it just as much as the THIEVES who stole it. When you complete the quest, they thank you on behalf of the soldiers whose lives were on the line.

 

Sure the refugees need it too, but there is no option to split the medicine, only give it back to those who need it and own it or those who need it and stole it.

You see, that's what comes of never playing a Rep character dark side, you don't learn that the soldiers need it because the refugee says they don't.

In the refugees' defense, the military can requisition new medicine while the refugees have no other way of getting it than the military which denies them access. No way they could afford, at any rate.

And yes, the woman outright blackmails you but siding with her awards LS points. Why? I guess because the people she does it for are innocents and mostly children? Who knows, I didn't come up with this.

Edit:

@NightEngine: The only person she hurts with this is her "mate", but it is so that she doesn't get hurt in return. Also, why do you have to apply your "harm principle" to everything?

Actually, this whole thread reminds me of a similar thread during the early days of the game where one guy was very (and I mean VERY) upset that the game was "forcing" him to do the wrong thing and go against his own morals to get light side points.

The problem? That guy on coruscant who's wife left him and you can either force her to go back or you can tell him that she's left him.

Yeah... this guy actually said it was "wrong" of her to leave him because a wife had a duty to stay with her husband no matter how bad it got.

(and this guy in the game, you find out that he only looks at her as a posession and a trophy and was extremely jealous.

That guy's needs to get with 21 century. Even traditionally the husband and wife BOTH have a duty to each other. They're supposed to care, respect, support, and all together supplement each other. In this situation that Nautolan dude failed to hold up his responsibility so Ria was justified. We know the Nautolan dude viewed Ria as a trophy so, failing to respect her and hold up his end, her leaving him obviously constitutes a reasonable decision.

For the 100th time...

LS/DS isn't a morality scale. It's about altruism vs greed, self-sacrifice vs selfishness. a quick, clean death vs cruelty.

If however someone doesn't understand the difference then that's for them to figure out.