Just now in the Imperial Research Bunker on Taris, the game had the choosing to kill Col. Thorus as a "dark" side choice. Do the developers know what is right and wrong? Thorus murdered many non-combatants apparently for his own pleasure even against the orders of the Empire and he was unrepentant. Why is killing him a dark side choice when killing him meant that no more people would be wantonly murdered? When we focus on these things, we have to go beyond feeling "sorry" for people like Thorus and think about the consequences of his release. We need to think about his future victims and the agony he caused with his past victims who lost their loved ones. Further, there was nothing to suggest that Thorus was going to be placed in custody and tried for his crimes. It was implied that he was going to be let go simply because he gave some information. Sorry developers, but just because he gave information does not vindicate his crimes. His information is not a fair swap for his victims. He said that my killing him wasn't "fair". That's absurd. "Fair" for whom? Thank about his victims both past and future.

It's known as extra-judicial killing, which is punishable as murder in most societies.

 

The right thing to do would be to ensure that he stood trial and the appropriate punishment is applied (quite likely the death penalty).

 

Becoming judge, jury and executioner is a pretty obvious "dark" thing to do.

Revenge is bad. Killing him isn't seeing that justice is served, you're just saying, "You did something I don't like so I'm going to kill you." That's pretty dark side.

Revenge is bad. Killing him isn't seeing that justice is served, you're just saying, "You did something I don't like so I'm going to kill you." That's pretty dark side.

 

Normally I'd agree, but as I said, there was no indication that he would go to trial. He would simply have walked free. That's not justice.

There are a lot of LS/DS choices that don't make sense in the game. At the end of the day one has to go with their gut more than the alignment.

 

In one of the expansions the LS choice is to let a genocidal dictator off the hook with no trial, imprisonment or punishment for his actions, and have him work side by side with the people he victimized.

 

It's also the LS choice to let SCORPIO merge with a planet of superweapons, *after* she's played the Alliance and nearly killed everyone.

 

There are a number of places where the LS choice is to turn a prisoner over to the Imperial authorities (where they even say they will be tortured).

 

In the Jedi Knight story it's a DS choice to accept an offer of sisterhood from the Twi'lek and also DS to protect your padawan from the Jedi Council when she's scared of them.

Also, why is it a DS choice to tell Tazonthe Ghon ( old twilek from Kalikori village) you killed a lot of Flesh Raiders and avenged his father's death when you actually did what you said you've done? It makes no sense.

Well, in that case, it's bad timing on the game most likely.

 

They always give up before you deliver that final blow, meaning if you kill them at that point, you're being dark side.

 

However, yes, there are some I'm puzzled at and/or disagree with.

Normally I'd agree, but as I said, there was no indication that he would go to trial. He would simply have walked free. That's not justice.

 

And it's still not your decision to make. You would still be killing him out of revenge which is still dark side.

Also, why is it a DS choice to tell Tazonthe Ghon ( old twilek from Kalikori village) you killed a lot of Flesh Raiders and avenged his father's death when you actually did what you said you've done? It makes no sense.

 

It's the intent. Did you kill those flesh raiders because you wanted to, out of revenge? Or were you forced to because they attacked you? I mean, technically for that quest you're supposed to find out what happened to his father, right? You don't *have* to kill anything - other than because the game spawns the monsters in the way of course but that's game mechanics really.

 

Although I think I misspoke earlier when I used the term "justice". I don't think the light side of the force is really so much about justice per se but more about ... compassion, mercy, forgiveness? Obviously I'm not an expert or even hugely into the lore of Star Wars (not nearly as much as some) . However, the game itself seems to often go with a simple binary of life = light, death = dark. Alliterative but I think it tends to miss the nuances.

Plenty of DS/LS choices dont make sense at all. Hence why i've decided as of late, to simply choose the answer i feel most comfortable with, or closest to what i feel and i would do.

 

Example: when you arrive on Coruscant, one of the first side missions allows you to expose a female senator who made shady deals in order to win the election. However, she is doing pretty good things for the people, and her rival in the election was a corrupt scumbag.

 

Light Side: expose her, making her lose the position and probably another corrupt worm takes her place.

 

Dark Side: dont reveal the info on her, so she can continue doing her fabulous job for the people of Coruscant.

 

I chose the Dark Side option ofc (as a 'mostly' light side Consular). To me, the choices in this particular quest should be the other way around. Same applies for many others.

Normally I'd agree, but as I said, there was no indication that he would go to trial. He would simply have walked free. That's not justice.

 

How is it justice when an enemy combatant who surrendered and is your prisoner happens to be executed by yourself? That is a war crime. That makes you no better than Thorus.

 

Even if you push it down to taking the enemy combatant as a hostage under the threat of death or torture, that is also still a war crime and if you added an execution, that is two counts of a war crime.

 

Plenty of DS/LS choices dont make sense at all. Hence why i've decided as of late, to simply choose the answer i feel most comfortable with, or closest to what i feel and i would do.

 

Example: when you arrive on Coruscant, one of the first side missions allows you to expose a female senator who made shady deals in order to win the election. However, she is doing pretty good things for the people, and her rival in the election was a corrupt scumbag.

 

Light Side: expose her, making her lose the position and probably another corrupt worm takes her place.

 

Dark Side: dont reveal the info on her, so she can continue doing her fabulous job for the people of Coruscant.

 

I chose the Dark Side option ofc (as a 'mostly' light side Consular). To me, the choices in this particular quest should be the other way around. Same applies for many others.

 

Senator Kayl isn't a war criminal, she is however still a criminal for racketeering which by itself is a form of corruption since she is using her legitimate position to extort criminals and then using those ill gotten gains on an official level. That makes her no different to the person she cheated for the position.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Celise

Senator Kayl isn't a war criminal, she is however still a criminal for racketeering which by itself is a form of corruption since she is using her legitimate position to extort criminals and then using those ill gotten gains on an official level. That makes her no different to the person she cheated for the position.

 

This is arguable, at the very least. It's the typical case of the tree that prevents from seeing the forest.

 

We're talking morals and ethics here, and also if the end justifies the means to get to it. In my opinion, not always, but sometimes the end is worth achieving at any cost. Kayl is competing with a very rich albeit corrupt and lazy man, and it is made clear even by other people that Kayl is doing great things for the people of Coruscant.

 

Therefore i would say it's totally justified if not even necessary to prevent her rival from winning. But i wont delve into politics or anything here, my point is to say that certain choices are definitely arguable, and this is undeniable, because we all have different moral and ethical compasses. Some choices are perfectly clear, others are definitely not and by placing 'dark' or 'light' points they impose a certain view on matters that are definitely not that easy to assess.

 

It's okay, it's just a game, i'm actually not complaining because i think those type of choices truly make the game more interesting, and i LOVE spending 10 mins at a dialogue choice because i genuinely dont know what i would do in that situation.

Summary executions without trial are about as dark as it gets. Even if the alternative is that he walks away that day, the notion of simply executing someone on the spot, who's surrendered and isn't attacking, and without all the evidence or an opportunity to present a defense is just so clearly dark that it's hard to even come up with the counter-argument here...

This is arguable, at the very least. It's the typical case of the tree that prevents from seeing the forest.

 

We're talking morals and ethics here, and also if the end justifies the means to get to it. In my opinion, not always, but sometimes the end is worth achieving at any cost. Kayl is competing with a very rich albeit corrupt and lazy man, and it is made clear even by other people that Kayl is doing great things for the people of Coruscant.

 

Therefore i would say it's totally justified if not even necessary to prevent her rival from winning. But i wont delve into politics or anything here, my point is to say that certain choices are definitely arguable, and this is undeniable, because we all have different moral and ethical compasses. Some choices are perfectly clear, others are definitely not and by placing 'dark' or 'light' points they impose a certain view on matters that are definitely not that easy to assess.

 

It's okay, it's just a game, i'm actually not complaining because i think those type of choices truly make the game more interesting, and i LOVE spending 10 mins at a dialogue choice because i genuinely dont know what i would do in that situation.

 

It's one of those cases of 'blinding morality' where you have a choice of being technically "right" (exposing the senator) or choosing what might do the most good for the most people, even if there's some unethical stuff happening.

 

There's a similar choice on Coruscant with the guy who thinks his wife has been kidnapped and sold into slavery, but you find out that he considers her a "possession" and she voluntarily ran away because she had to get away from him. You can tell the guy that his wife is dead but it's a DS choice. I mean...the woman ran away, and lying means that she probably won't have to worry about him pursing her again. But that's DS.

 

Or the one in the JC story where you can choose between saving holocrons or saving a woman. I mean, greater good, but it would require the JC to literally stand there watching someone burn to death, and yeah, I can't take that as a LS choice.

This is arguable, at the very least. It's the typical case of the tree that prevents from seeing the forest.

 

We're talking morals and ethics here, and also if the end justifies the means to get to it. In my opinion, not always, but sometimes the end is worth achieving at any cost. Kayl is competing with a very rich albeit corrupt and lazy man, and it is made clear even by other people that Kayl is doing great things for the people of Coruscant.

 

Therefore i would say it's totally justified if not even necessary to prevent her rival from winning. But i wont delve into politics or anything here, my point is to say that certain choices are definitely arguable, and this is undeniable, because we all have different moral and ethical compasses. Some choices are perfectly clear, others are definitely not and by placing 'dark' or 'light' points they impose a certain view on matters that are definitely not that easy to assess.

 

It's okay, it's just a game, i'm actually not complaining because i think those type of choices truly make the game more interesting, and i LOVE spending 10 mins at a dialogue choice because i genuinely dont know what i would do in that situation.

 

I don't care one bit for the moral side of the good verse bad. essentially Kayl is a criminal no matter what.

I'm surprised the OP made it to Taris before this thought occurred to them

It's one of those cases of 'blinding morality' where you have a choice of being technically "right" (exposing the senator) or choosing what might do the most good for the most people, even if there's some unethical stuff happening.

 

There's a similar choice on Coruscant with the guy who thinks his wife has been kidnapped and sold into slavery, but you find out that he considers her a "possession" and she voluntarily ran away because she had to get away from him. You can tell the guy that his wife is dead but it's a DS choice. I mean...the woman ran away, and lying means that she probably won't have to worry about him pursing her again. But that's DS.

 

Or the one in the JC story where you can choose between saving holocrons or saving a woman. I mean, greater good, but it would require the JC to literally stand there watching someone burn to death, and yeah, I can't take that as a LS choice.

 

not a possession. Ria said Nik was obsessed with her. my guess is that he was so controlling of her life and his jealousy couldn't permit that he trusted her judgement to the point she needed to get a way out. by not forcing her back into that abusive relationship which is essentially an unhappy prison sentence for her, you do the right thing. But if you forced her back into the relationship, it would essentially be a case of not having any hope or justice for Ria.

 

it is a completely different thing from Racketeering as a criminal in a higher position of power because Kayl chose to become a criminal and take the easy way to power, Ria didn't choose to get into an abusive relationship with a man who can't trust her.

Plenty of DS/LS choices dont make sense at all. Hence why i've decided as of late, to simply choose the answer i feel most comfortable with, or closest to what i feel and i would do.

 

^^ Personally, this has been my approach since launch. I also think this was the intention of the story writers when they created the framework of story arcs under which the LS/DS mechanics are embedded.... because there is no truly pure Light or Dark in the SW universe.... there is always internal conflict within a character portrayed in SW... since the first movie.

 

It did mean in the early days that I sometimes got points that were opposing to my desired direction of Light or Dark for a character... but I just accepted that as the result of my personal choices. Now days... there are so many ways to add the chosen "Side Points" that I desire for a character that even that small imposition of my choices at launch are no longer even relevant.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Andryah

I don't care one bit for the moral side of the good verse bad. essentially Kayl is a criminal no matter what.

Well to me she is the type of politician Coruscant needs, this is, a person willing to do what's necessary for the greater good, and that is indeed what she's done. The black/white way of looking at things is, let's say, too simplistic for me, because the palette of grays is too wide. But in this particular case, Kayl is a no brainer for me, the Dark Side choice is what i've always chosen and always will, because that is for me the actual light side choice. To each his own.

Summary executions without trial are about as dark as it gets. Even if the alternative is that he walks away that day, the notion of simply executing someone on the spot, who's surrendered and isn't attacking, and without all the evidence or an opportunity to present a defense is just so clearly dark that it's hard to even come up with the counter-argument here...

 

^^ Absolutely agree with Joonbeams on this.

Just now in the Imperial Research Bunker on Taris, the game had the choosing to kill Col. Thorus as a "dark" side choice. Do the developers know what is right and wrong? Thorus murdered many non-combatants apparently for his own pleasure even against the orders of the Empire and he was unrepentant. Why is killing him a dark side choice when killing him meant that no more people would be wantonly murdered? When we focus on these things, we have to go beyond feeling "sorry" for people like Thorus and think about the consequences of his release. We need to think about his future victims and the agony he caused with his past victims who lost their loved ones. Further, there was nothing to suggest that Thorus was going to be placed in custody and tried for his crimes. It was implied that he was going to be let go simply because he gave some information. Sorry developers, but just because he gave information does not vindicate his crimes. His information is not a fair swap for his victims. He said that my killing him wasn't "fair". That's absurd. "Fair" for whom? Thank about his victims both past and future.

 

I'm with you on this. The responses that claim that morality is dictated by social forces don't make a lot of sense to me. (Whether or not a killing is moral depends on whether or not it's government sanctioned? I don't think that's a position most people would consistently apply to history.)

 

On the other hand, there's the brutalization effect to consider, the psychological results of killing another human being aren't generally positive.

 

Our morality is rooted in our intuitions, and at the end of the day the writers are human beings whose decisions about which choices are considered light or dark are going to be inevitably rooted in their own subjective views. Sometimes those views are going to clash with others, including yours and mine. It can't be avoided.

In terms of executing people without trials, I think there are two points being overlooked:

 

The PC has, in many cases, been directly given the authority to deal with problems as they see fit and make decisions that affect large groups of people, both civilian and military.

 

So the kill options are often in the context of someone who has been given the legal agency within the game to make those choices, and it's not as though they're living in our own countries where a fair trial is supposed to be a citizen's right. Even in the Republic they have massive evidence of people being locked away without fair trials (such as the Condemned gang on Belsavis, who are imprisoned even as adults because *their parents* committed crimes) and executed without fair trials (such as the Bounty Hunter's friends on Nar Shaddaa, who do nothing other than throw a party for their friend, but get murdered by the Jedi and the SIS).

 

Also, in some cases, what's to prove by trial? "Arcann, do you have a valid excuse why you subjugated the galaxy and blew up five planets?"

 

I do think the game should give the PC more chances to imprison vs. the black and white binaries of "forgive and let off the hook scott-free, or kill," but IMHO there are places in the game where killing the NPC isn't the most DS choice that can be made, particularly when killing that person stops them from inflicting large amounts of misery or death on others.

Edited November 16, 2018 by IoNonSoEVero

Summary executions without trial are about as dark as it gets. Even if the alternative is that he walks away that day, the notion of simply executing someone on the spot, who's surrendered and isn't attacking, and without all the evidence or an opportunity to present a defense is just so clearly dark that it's hard to even come up with the counter-argument here...

 

The counter argument being you have no moral compass guiding you.

In terms of executing people without trials, I think there are two points being overlooked:

 

The PC has, in many cases, been directly given the authority to deal with problems as they see fit and make decisions that affect large groups of people, both civilian and military.

 

So the kill options are often in the context of someone who has been given the legal agency within the game to make those choices, and it's not as though they're living in our own countries where a fair trial is supposed to be a citizen's right. Even in the Republic they have massive evidence of people being locked away without fair trials (such as the Condemned gang on Belsavis, who are imprisoned even as adults because *their parents* committed crimes) and executed without fair trials (such as the Bounty Hunter's friends on Nar Shaddaa, who do nothing other than throw a party for their friend, but get murdered by the Jedi and the SIS).

 

Also, in some cases, what's to prove by trial? "Arcann, do you have a valid excuse why you subjugated the galaxy and blew up five planets?"

 

I do think the game should give the PC more chances to imprison vs. the black and white binaries of "forgive and let off the hook scott-free, or kill," but IMHO there are places in the game where killing the NPC isn't the most DS choice that can be made, particularly when killing that person stops them from inflicting large amounts of misery or death on others.

 

In this case i will answer to the Moral and Ethical side on this:

 

Except that the Republic military don't go around butchering innocent towns people on the whims of a general a jedi. The thing here is that Elin Garza is as far from an ideal example of a dedicated officer of the republic military, it is clearly seen on Rishi and on Coruscant the lengths she will go with the power she has.

 

on Coruscant she orders you to have some mad man killed and innocent people who were locked away in a room because she thinks they are cyborgs. Her actions aren't rational in the matter, they are based on fear and having no evidence they are cyborgs. She takes the quickest route instead of the correct route, she has them killed and has the whole thing covered up.

 

When it came to the Senate hearings regarding Havoc squad and their activities before your character comes on board, if you choose to act and reveal the entire truth she more or less throttles you with the military code of conduct book, and her suggestion after dealing with Jaxo's mission in the black sun sector also draws attention that she wants you to help her by dragging your feet in giving the senators nothing.

 

On Rishi when she loses command of Havoc squad, she attempts to build a new squad and takes shortcuts in doing so in order to get up to speed faster and her team has to be tracked down by Havoc to not only clean up her mess, but to euthanise her team who have become twisted reflections of themselves because of her shortcuts.

 

Even between this she doesn't respect the chain of command or respecting interagency cooperation with the SIS for example on Nar Shaddaa with Jonas Balker regarding M1-4X.

 

I question her methods and her goals and her commitment to the republic and what it stands for and frankly the warning signs are already there. If you wish to be a good soldier, following orders and keeping a clean record and conscience? you do what is right, not what is easy.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Celise

In this case i will answer to the Moral and Ethical side on this:

 

Except that the Republic military don't go around butchering innocent towns people on the whims of a general a jedi. The thing here is that Elin Garza is as far from an ideal example of a dedicated officer of the republic military, it is clearly seen on Rishi and on Coruscant the lengths she will go with the power she has.

 

I wasn't trying to make that a Republic vs. Imperials post; I was just attempting to point out that both sides have engaged in killing and imprisoning people without fair trial in the context of the stories.

 

Garza is a war criminal as far as I'm concerned.