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.

Edited March 16, 2013 by FuryoftheStars

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

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.

--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.

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.

Edited March 17, 2013 by AlexDougherty

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

Edited March 19, 2013 by AlexDougherty

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!

Edited March 20, 2013 by Blackholeskipper

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.

This is the problem with morality meters.

 

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.

 

I kept the toy droids. I never turn in that quest.

There's one of these on Ord Mantell that's a real head scratcher. There was a Cathar refugee that stole medical supplies from the Republic at Fort Garnik. You're tasked with bringing them back because wounded soldiers need the supplies. You even find out when you go to give it back to the rightful owner that there's a guy going into shock RIGHT NOW who's going to die if he doesn't get the meds.

 

The light side choice is to let the refugees keep the medical supplies, so that (and I kid you not) a kid with a bellyache can get some Pepto-Bismol.

 

It's dark side to tell the refugees (and thieves) to go pound sand and to take the meds back to where they rightfully belong (and save the poor guy going into shock). Saving a life should never be dark side, unless keeping the person alive only leads to greater suffering.

You even find out when you go to give it back to the rightful owner that there's a guy going into shock RIGHT NOW who's going to die if he doesn't get the meds.

 

And that guy going into shock was HITLER!

 

Yeah, the choices are really arbitrary, and seem downright counterfactual at times. At least there's some indication of the point gain or loss for that... some of the ones for the companion choices or other dialog are needlessly obtuse and result in bizarre situations when the dialog doesn't match the cue in choice selection.

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.

 

Yes, but it would be the last time as the foreman will have the blackmarket merchant dealt with, leaving the old couple without income after. I too frowned at this mission.

 

There was a Cathar refugee that stole medical supplies from the Republic at Fort Garnik. You're tasked with bringing them back because wounded soldiers need the supplies.

 

What annoyed me here was that you actually have to collect TWO bags of supplies, so the logical solution would be to give both parties one, imho.

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.

You raise good points that I hadn't really considered but as Micky said:

Yes, but it would be the last time as the foreman will have the blackmarket merchant dealt with, leaving the old couple without income after. I too frowned at this mission.

This only solves the foreman's problems but doesn't do anything for the villagers. It's still very one-sided. When forced into a choice like that, I still think choosing the villagers should be a LS choice. It doesn't have to be "the" lightside choice but it has to be an option. Besides, the foreman works for a ruthless Hutt. It doesn't matter to me that the power couplings aren't "unneeded." They're the ones that let the villagers starve in the first place. Why is the safety of his family worth more than the lives of the villagers? I just blasted his associates to get into the factory, what do I care? Plus, they're slavers too.

 

Also, as a BH, why would you get LS points for betraying the villagers? It's the right thing to do, if you go by the honor code the game depicts during the story (Mandalorian code, otherwise you're just another hired gun and all that).

 

(Conversely, I think helping the old man purify the river should also be a lightside option. It really depends on the reasoning behind your action! There should at least be 2 lightside options for that one).

 

Anyway, the toy quest sounds like fun. Haven't tried playing as the Republic though, except for some of the early quests. Didn't really like them

Edited March 22, 2013 by Blackholeskipper

--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....

Yea, I saw a youtube vid of this and was like ??? Seems to me that a lot of the options in this game are "I'll ENJOY killing you! This will be so much fun!" or "Get outta here! Don't let me see you again!" or "You're free to go" (yea, just show yourself out, you adorable mass murderer!). Ah well.

 

Some choices I DO like are:

Sith Inq story on Balmorra:

 

Err there were more but my mind seems to have gone blank...

Edited March 22, 2013 by Blackholeskipper

There's one of these on Ord Mantell that's a real head scratcher. There was a Cathar refugee that stole medical supplies from the Republic at Fort Garnik.

 

IIRC the Republic contingent is largely corrupt - they're supposed to help the refugees as part of their duty but extort them instead, demanding money for distributing disaster relief supplies. Why you didn't get a chance to expose this, or put a stop to it, I can't understand.

IIRC the Republic contingent is largely corrupt - they're supposed to help the refugees as part of their duty but extort them instead, demanding money for distributing disaster relief supplies. Why you didn't get a chance to expose this, or put a stop to it, I can't understand.

 

Incorrect. The Mantellian militia, as in, not the Republic soldiers, but the Republic-aligned soldiers from Ord Mantell, were corrupt. But the medicine wasn't stolen from the Mantellians, it was stolen from the Republic, ergo that was a Republic soldier dying in there. One of your brothers (if you're a trooper). Of course, I can see a smuggler giving the Cathar the medicine without a blink; at this point they have no allegiance to the Republic, except for that they're against the separatists, too. But the trooper's obvious choice should be to save their brothers/sisters.

The worst, to me, is on Korriban, dealing with Lord Renning and his apprentice.

 

 

Lord Renning wants you to give him the brain of a mutant Tuka'ta to prove his theories about the Force correct. This is somehow a dark sided decision, despite no harm to anyone actually coming from his theories.

 

His apprentice wants you to give the brain to her so she can make adjustments to the brain to "prove" her master is a fake so she can leave his service. This is somehow a light sided decision, despite the fact that she only wants to do this because she personally thinks Renning is wasting her time and talents, and you are tampering with a legitimate experiment

Edited March 24, 2013 by Darth_Vicente

The worst, to me, is on Korriban, dealing with Lord Renning and his apprentice.

 

 

Lord Renning wants you to give him the brain of a mutant Tuka'ta to prove his theories about the Force correct. This is somehow a dark sided decision, despite no harm to anyone actually coming from his theories.

 

His apprentice wants you to give the brain to her so she can make adjustments to the brain to "prove" her master is a fake so she can leave his service. This is somehow a light sided decision, despite the fact that she only wants to do this because she personally thinks Renning is wasting her time and talents, and you are tampering with a legitimate experiment

 

I guess because helping Renning is helping a loco Dark Lord and Dark Lords = EVIIIIL! Whereas I suppose if you help the apprentice she won't become a Sith if she can't find another Master and she'll effectively be one less Sith in the Empire.

I really wish that some of the DS choices didn't make you look like you were for lack of better terms Chaotic Evil.

 

I wish that SW light Vs dark went more along the lines of D&D Law vs Chaos & Good vs Evil method.

 

I mean there are times in the SI so far, that i've wanted to manipulate the rules and exert control on a MASSIVE scale, but many of these choices are considered LIGHT SIDE?

 

The hell? Really? I am influencing galactic matters or matters on a planet by subterfuge and guile, bending people ot my will much like Palpatine in the first 3 and it's considered LIGHT SIDED?

 

Does this make ANYSENSE?

I really wish that some of the DS choices didn't make you look like you were for lack of better terms Chaotic Evil.

 

I wish that SW light Vs dark went more along the lines of D&D Law vs Chaos & Good vs Evil method.

 

I mean there are times in the SI so far, that i've wanted to manipulate the rules and exert control on a MASSIVE scale, but many of these choices are considered LIGHT SIDE?

 

The hell? Really? I am influencing galactic matters or matters on a planet by subterfuge and guile, bending people ot my will much like Palpatine in the first 3 and it's considered LIGHT SIDED?

 

Does this make ANYSENSE?

Depends on what your influencing to happen, if you're worsening the situation then it's obviously DS, but if you're make matters better then it should probably be LS.

Depends on what your influencing to happen, if you're worsening the situation then it's obviously DS, but if you're make matters better then it should probably be LS.

 

Thing is though, I am only making it better for ME, bending people to my will for MY benefit. If i choose to let somebody go, it might be so i can twist that favor to my advantage.

 

Game doesn't really reflect that. I mean there should be an option and this is merely an example.

 

I just saved somebody. Right now there is the LS let him go, and DS kill him. what about a third or fourth option of another set 1 DS 1 LS and the DS is "i will let you go, but now you belong to me/owe me, and I WILL COLLECT and you WILL pay."

 

That isn't light sided, that is, now you owe me and i own your behind. That is darkside because I purely did it for my benefit.

 

Game is good, but some of these choices like on Taris for the trooper, i can kill the colonel or let him go. Why can i not take him in to stand trial?

 

Sometimes, I just scratch my head.

 

 

 

Sometimes the choices make no freaking sense..

 

click the video link on my signature.. pretty much sums it up

Holy cow this got more posts then I expected!

 

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.

 

I can't remember for sure - I'll have to wait until I get another character on planet - but I'm pretty sure they said their service at that post (aka tour) was up, and were supposed to have been sent to a different post... not that their service to the military in general was up. Otherwise, technically speaking, they couldn't have been going AWOL.