Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Lightside/darkside choices should be revisited

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore
Lightside/darkside choices should be revisited

FuryoftheStars's Avatar


FuryoftheStars
03.16.2013 , 03:42 PM | #1
First off, apologies if this is the wrong area for this...

Honestly, I feel as though some of the light/dark choices you make through your character's progression need to be revisited and revised. Some of them really do not make a lot of sense.

A couple key examples that I just did today:
--On Taris, as part of my Trooper's quests, I am confronted with an Imperial war criminal at one point. Ultimately, I found I had 3 options: Kill him (dark), Kill him (dark), or let him go (light). Now, I understand why the kills are dark and the letting him live is light... but those are seriously the only options? How about arresting him so he can be tried?? He's already all but surrendered to me....

--Also on Taris, in investigating a missing convoy, you find out that the crew has decided to desert. Your options are to let them go (light), or tell them they need to go back (dark). huh?? Their desertion is putting countless other lives at risk, not to mention that because they are the supply runners, the outpost is either delayed in getting its supplies or won't at all. So how is telling them they need to return to duty a dark choice?

I'm sure I'll find many others along my way like these and really feel that BW needs to (at some point; other things do take priority over this) assign someone to review these decisions.

AlexDougherty's Avatar


AlexDougherty
03.17.2013 , 05:47 AM | #2
Quote: Originally Posted by FuryoftheStars View Post
First off, apologies if this is the wrong area for this...
well, that's debatable, it does fit into Story and Lore, just nothing will change
Quote:
A couple key examples that I just did today:
--On Taris, as part of my Trooper's quests, I am confronted with an Imperial war criminal at one point. Ultimately, I found I had 3 options: Kill him (dark), Kill him (dark), or let him go (light). Now, I understand why the kills are dark and the letting him live is light... but those are seriously the only options? How about arresting him so he can be tried?? He's already all but surrendered to me....
Agreed, you should be able to arrest him.
Quote:
--Also on Taris, in investigating a missing convoy, you find out that the crew has decided to desert. Your options are to let them go (light), or tell them they need to go back (dark). huh?? Their desertion is putting countless other lives at risk, not to mention that because they are the supply runners, the outpost is either delayed in getting its supplies or won't at all. So how is telling them they need to return to duty a dark choice?
They have already served their tour of duty, they should have been allowed to leave two years ago, they are basicaly being treated as slaves. Also troopers are dying all the time, six more aren't going to make a difference, especially as another supply train has been organised.
Quote:
I'm sure I'll find many others along my way like these and really feel that BW needs to (at some point; other things do take priority over this) assign someone to review these decisions.
yes, there are loads of ls/ds decisions that aren't quite right, either there should be another option or the wrong things are darside and lightside.
Peace can be found, above all passions. Through passion, I may gain strength.
Through strength, I may gain power. Through power, I may gain victory.
But for every enemy fallen, a new foe rises.
For every chain broken, new chains bind me. Only the Force can set me free.

FuryoftheStars's Avatar


FuryoftheStars
03.17.2013 , 10:23 AM | #3
Quote: Originally Posted by AlexDougherty View Post
They have already served their tour of duty, they should have been allowed to leave two years ago, they are basicaly being treated as slaves. Also troopers are dying all the time, six more aren't going to make a difference, especially as another supply train has been organised.
I hate saying this... but that's the military. But it's a worse choice to just run off, leaving them short handed in defending the place. Yes, six more do matter. That just makes it harder to defend and thus more prone to casualties. But... I can understand the dark choice if the reasoning behind it is more or less "suck it up, weakling", but as the chat options give you as you go through it, you are able to explain to them that they are putting other lives at risk. Yes, people die every day there... but more will die unnecessarily because they are not at their posts. So really, that one looks like it should've had a third option added in. And the option to let them go is debatable light or neutral....

Osetto's Avatar


Osetto
03.17.2013 , 11:30 AM | #4
Light and Darkside choices aren't always expressions of good versus evil. Often times it's freedom versus control. Selflessness versus selfishness. The immediate preservation of life versus the long term. Most Darkside choices that don't make sense to people can be explained by the character imposing their will on someone. Both sides of the Force are about the bottom line, Light and Dark. It doesn't care about excuses in the name of patriotism, or duty, or allegiance. If you condemn someone to die, for the sake of some future uncertainty, that's a Darkside choice.

And Darkside choices aren't universally 'bad'. Sometimes they are just contrary to the peaceful, selfless, in-the-moment decision making of Lightside choices, but may be deemed necessary. Have I seen examples of choices whose alignment couldn't be justified? Not really. Have I seen examples where the choices presented are very lacking and restrictive? Yes. Very much yes.
-------------------- The Fan Fiction Index --------------------

FuryoftheStars's Avatar


FuryoftheStars
03.18.2013 , 10:12 AM | #5
Well, it's obviously highly debatable, then, as letting them go could be considered letting them break the law and endanger others' lives, while telling them to go back is upholding the law and safe guarding lives. *shrug*

Either way, I think that particular one needs an overhaul to make the choice a little bit more clear cut... or pull the light/dark part of it out.

Bleeters's Avatar


Bleeters
03.18.2013 , 10:44 AM | #6
I think my absolute favourite was the time my female Jedi knight recieved dark side points for telling Kira she wouldn't let anything happen to her, because the option occupied the same conversation wheel slot as a flirt available to male knights.

AlexDougherty's Avatar


AlexDougherty
03.19.2013 , 06:53 AM | #7
Quote: Originally Posted by FuryoftheStars View Post
Well, it's obviously highly debatable, then, as letting them go could be considered letting them break the law and endanger others' lives, while telling them to go back is upholding the law and safe guarding lives. *shrug*

Either way, I think that particular one needs an overhaul to make the choice a little bit more clear cut... or pull the light/dark part of it out.
The other way of looking at it is that they are essentially under an illegal death sentence, they've served the period they signed up for plus another third of that period, the Republic is constantly bringing fresh troops in, but they are being kept until they die. Their own personal freedoms and liberties have been eroded for the greater good, which has the hallmarks of either an abuse of power by someone or a dictatorship, neither a good option.

Under that view your choices are to send them back to their eventual deaths, or let them escape. The fact they are deserting is not a factor, it's a DS choice for them, but you are not involved in that choice, just whether to condemn them to death or not.

This is not necessarily my view, but I can see it from both sides, it's just phrasing that so it doesn't insult anyone or become an avocation of the dereliction of duty. However sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
Peace can be found, above all passions. Through passion, I may gain strength.
Through strength, I may gain power. Through power, I may gain victory.
But for every enemy fallen, a new foe rises.
For every chain broken, new chains bind me. Only the Force can set me free.

Blackholeskipper's Avatar


Blackholeskipper
03.20.2013 , 09:34 AM | #8
Some of them DEFINITELY need to be revisited. On Hutta, there's a quest where this old couple ask you to siphon off energy from the nearby powerstation that belongs to Farth'ra. The villagers from their village are starving so they've been selling the energy couplings to a black market contact. Now, when you're at the final stage of the quest, the foreman comes in and basically says "stop! fath'ra will kill my wife and children if you don't stop! help me shut down this operation!"

Well sure, his family is in danger BUT what about the friggin villagers? The whole village is starving and the 'good' thing to do is to help him because HIS family is in danger? How selfish and stupid is that? I don't see why you get darkside points for that or why you don't get lightside points to balance it out...after all, maybe you put his family in danger but you've just saved an old couple from starving. You're basically working for Fath'ra if you help the foreman. Let the villagers starve because a tiny amount of energy is being stolen from his factory, great! here's 50 lightside points.

There are a lot more quests like that, they really tick me off!

DarthGile's Avatar


DarthGile
03.20.2013 , 01:42 PM | #9
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackholeskipper View Post
Some of them DEFINITELY need to be revisited. On Hutta, there's a quest where this old couple ask you to siphon off energy from the nearby powerstation that belongs to Farth'ra. The villagers from their village are starving so they've been selling the energy couplings to a black market contact. Now, when you're at the final stage of the quest, the foreman comes in and basically says "stop! fath'ra will kill my wife and children if you don't stop! help me shut down this operation!"

Well sure, his family is in danger BUT what about the friggin villagers? The whole village is starving and the 'good' thing to do is to help him because HIS family is in danger? How selfish and stupid is that? I don't see why you get darkside points for that or why you don't get lightside points to balance it out...after all, maybe you put his family in danger but you've just saved an old couple from starving. You're basically working for Fath'ra if you help the foreman. Let the villagers starve because a tiny amount of energy is being stolen from his factory, great! here's 50 lightside points.

There are a lot more quests like that, they really tick me off!
I remember that one. Didn't the foreman let you take the coupling, but with a tracker on it? So the old couple still sold it for a profit. And I also believe it was the old couple who said they the facility didn't need the couplings. They were assuming. The foreman pops in and tells you the bottom line. His family was endangered because of the "unneeded" couplings being looted.

I agree that many alignment choices were poorly written. I'm trying to make a gray Jedi, and almost all of the dark-side choices are just plain evil. There's only a few dark side choices in the game (Republic) which are feasible.

An example would be the dark side choice against the guy on Tatooine who begged you to save his "loved ones." He pleaded his case like these things were family members who were kidnapped. You go to the location after killing 20-30 pirates.. and it turns out to be collectible toy droids. Uhh what!? You can either give them back, with a patient humorous response... or smash the toys infront of him. The anger is justified. Not many dark side choices like that.

DAWUSS's Avatar


DAWUSS
03.21.2013 , 11:09 AM | #10
This is the problem with morality meters.