Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Quest: The Plitics of Dissent (spoiler?)

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore > Spoilers
Quest: The Plitics of Dissent (spoiler?)

JawaJedi's Avatar


JawaJedi
01.08.2012 , 02:01 PM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by TurkeyDinner View Post
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.
Quote: Originally Posted by Saevio View Post
I haven't understood anything anyone has said in this thread so far. That's common on these forums though.

TurkeyDinner's Avatar


TurkeyDinner
01.08.2012 , 06:01 PM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by JawaJedi View Post
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

Quote: Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster
  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
    • 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
  2. 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.

Leecrystal's Avatar


Leecrystal
01.10.2012 , 09:06 PM | #23
I am in 100% agreement with TurkeyDinner after reading all of his posts. I have Qyzen didn't like it and lost 30 affections when I chose to accept older documents/false documents, so that meant I have been dishonor. Qyzen liked honor which meant he didn't like dishonor. Therefore, it should be light side by refusing to accept false documents or older documents. Bioware needs to fix dialogs from quest giver by saying to gather that documents as proof rather than saying smuggling it since she was former military officer and diplomat. She may have suspected something and asked for evidence. That's what I think it should be. Just my opinion.

JawaJedi's Avatar


JawaJedi
01.11.2012 , 12:19 AM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by TurkeyDinner View Post
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.
Quote: Originally Posted by Saevio View Post
I haven't understood anything anyone has said in this thread so far. That's common on these forums though.

ChrisAzzemeen's Avatar


ChrisAzzemeen
01.15.2012 , 09:32 AM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by TurkeyDinner View Post
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.

SqueakGarraputo's Avatar


SqueakGarraputo
01.15.2012 , 12:23 PM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by ChrisAzzemeen View Post
Bioware sure put thought into this.
This game and the stories that have been created have been phenomenal.

However, given the sheer quantity of minor quests developed, it is entirely possible that a few quests were not fully comprehended in their impact/development.

I think there should be one more level of this minor quest, and that should be to investigate the claims of subterfuge, and then go from there. If the senator really is making deals with the devil, then it should be LS to give the real documents. If he's not really being subversive, then LS to give fake documents.

As it stands now, the quest options and rewards given are backwards or not based on thorough enough information.
hay guyz. wut r going on in this lvl
If my only choices for being a Consular/Inquisitor are healing/ranged skills, then that is not a Jedi/Sith. That is just a healer/ranged class with a different class name. I don't want to be pigeon-holed into a cookie-cutter role, I want the ability to pick from variety of skills.

Ancaglon's Avatar


Ancaglon
01.24.2012 , 08:34 AM | #27
This is one of the very few Dark Side choices my Consular made. (Other one being to not turn in the Lovers on Tython, but also not accept their bribe). I ESC'd out of it a couple of times trying to understand it. Eventually, I decided that the Jedi oath to protect the Republic was similar to the US military oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, and chose the Dark side option. I'm not very happy about that choice, but it's one of those moral hooks that Bioware wants us twisting on, to make us think through the consequences of our actions. (In pretty much everything since then though, I've followed the path of forgiving enemies, allowing them a second chance, and that has all been Light side).

Oh, and while the Republic and the Senate itself may be democratic, the Senators themselves are not necessarily elected -- they may well be appointed by a King or similar, since a lot of Republic worlds are actually Monarchies, Alderaan itself and Sarkhai being two examples.

Writetyper's Avatar


Writetyper
02.04.2012 , 08:38 AM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by ChrisAzzemeen View Post
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.
The parcel supposedly contains something that would "bring the senator's plan to public". If he is truly simply planning to speak his mind while "upholding what the Republic stands for", why hide it? What kind of democracy lies in secrecy?

ollepolle's Avatar


ollepolle
02.05.2012 , 05:51 PM | #29
Without referring to any previous post, please ask yourselves this:

Would a (evil)character following immoral standards(Dark side) choose to reveal a politican with plans of, intentionally or not, bringing chaos to their system? -Only because it goes against their form of government(Democracy)? Would doing something like that, make sense in real life for a criminal/otherwise mean person?

Would a character following good moral standards(Light side) choose to overlook a politican having his evil plan fulfilled, just because ruling is what politicans are for?
Do they think something like: "Well, he was elected by the people after all... It's the right thing to do!
Politicans chosen by the people won't do bad things! Never happens, nope. "

The Senator wants to form an alliance with the sith(for who knows what reason), who are unquestionably malicious. How can it strengthen your connection to the Dark side to stop him? That choice would even hinder the Sith from getting influence within the Republic!


Please make my subtly biassed questions invalid!

Serrit's Avatar


Serrit
02.12.2012 , 10:33 AM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by Writetyper View Post
The parcel supposedly contains something that would "bring the senator's plan to public". If he is truly simply planning to speak his mind while "upholding what the Republic stands for", why hide it? What kind of democracy lies in secrecy?
Yeah this is what I didn't get about this quest - it seemed to be a bit schizophrenic!
Initially we are told we are "stealing" information about a Senator's secret plan to ditch the Jedi and ally with the Empire, in order to expose this to the public (and presumably they can then use this information to help decide their next vote). So ok, I can see that stealing the info might be considered wrong in isolation.

But then after taking the information, we're told that Senator has a right to his opinion, and us interfering undermines the system. But we're not necesarrily smearing the Senator, unfairly hindering him in the elections; all we are doing is exposing his opinions so that people can best decide how to vote in the next elections.

Being told I'm undermining the political system when all I'm doing is exposing a hidden agenda annoys me every time I do this quest.