You basically take the throne no matter what. The choice at the end is mostly about how you choose to use it.

So you'd rather deal with those guns she took out? C'mon, she's more talented and is doing more than you're giving her credit for. And Oddessen was attacked before you arrived. She's really supposed to just wait around and do nothing before you specifically TELL her to do something? I'm sorry, but nothing in your argument is fair. Pragmatically or sentimentally.

Or they cut him out because they decided against bringing him back.

Is she truly more expendable than Torian, though? Vette has a good amount of tech knowledge and other clever tactics due to her time as a pirate. Whereas Torian could easily be seen as another soldier, of which you may already have plenty. In particular, if you recruited Shae Vizla, and took the light-sided route in the Mando chapter, you probably have plenty more Mandolorians willing to follow you into battle. This isn't to say you're wrong to choose Torian over Vette. There are perfectly valid reasons for either. I'm just pointing out that there is much more to this war than just fighting, and specialists like Vette definitely also have their place alongside fighters like Torian.

Maybe. But regardless, I do consider it kind of a waste that the Outlander never meets Thexan in any form.

I suspect that's BioWare's basis for it, too. However, that's contradicted by the appearance of Senya, who wasn't part of Valk's force-eating scheme either.

I suspect she didn't give a speech because in her eyes, she needs no justification for what she did. She's one of those people who thinks they're right about everything, that they're the only one who can fix things, and that anyone who disagrees is either an idiot, evil, or an evil idiot.

True. That said, I also have to admit I consider the alternative scenario of sparing her (albeit while imprisoning her) to be pretty satisfying in its own right. Essentially directly saying, "I'm not like you. I'm better." Plus, leaving her alive means that she will live to see the Alliance thrive. To see the Republic Thrive. Without her. See will be forced to watch and see that the Galaxy is better off without her, and that she was a failure in every way.

Ding dong, Chancellor Saresh is dead! This is a happy day for the Galaxy. Especially the Republic.

Segregation is still a far cry from advocating for genocide against them.

Eh, it's debatable in the end. I still he has perfectly valid reasons. But I do have to bring something up. Some componaions in this game have been hated by a number of people since day one for disagreeing with them. Especially poor Mako and Ashara. How heinous a crime it is to be Imperial aligned and *gasp* have morals! Koth is just the first to actually act upon his dislike. In a sense, he feels more realistic that way. Maybe that's why I like him.

It varies from person to person whether "it's all about me" or not. I wasn't exactly trying to claim everyone who picked that choice was like that, just that there was enough that I felt the need to bring it up.

Is Koth wrong when he claims a dark-sided Outlander is a monster who's just as bad as Arcaan? Believe it or not, I think he is fully justified in taking the Gravestone from them. He has, in essence, taken a major source of power from one of the deadliest monsters in the Galaxy. And given himself a tool to use against them in the process. Kinda like taking the Eternal Throne from Arcaan. The extreme Dark Side Outlander's victory would simply replace one tyrannical government with another; not a real victory. As for Asylum, he probably still sees that as coming from the Outlander. He may realize that Valkorian is the source of the power, but the Outlander is the one using it. There's also the matter of how in that moment, collateral damage was done, but there was a understandable goal of taking out Arcaan. That's probably the key difference between Asylum and the incident that ultimately drives Koth to desert-bombing civilian targets on Zakuul. Simply disabling the machines was all that was neccesary in that moment, and effectively what Dark Side players did in that moment was a genuine war crime that killed countless innocent people. Koth wanted to help his home and instead the Outlander tried to blow it up. Frankly, the criticism against Koth just sounds to me like whiny entitlement from people who can't accept that different cultures can view people very differently (and have perfectly understandable reasons for thinking that way), can't accept that you can't please everyone and there will be people who take issue with questionable choices, and above all else, can't accept that their actions have consequences. I'm a fan of Koth, and I'm proud of it!

Fair enough. And in all honesty, given BioWare's love for moral grays, it's probably not entirely unintentional that plenty of the Dark Side choices aren't truly evil, but moreso just putting pragmatism before morals. Something akin to the Paragon/Renegade thing in Mass Effect. But if they have to label something as a Dark Side, it's overall fairer to give it to the more morally questionable choice. I don't mind too much if people feel it's better to make the Dark Side choice in certain cases for the sake of pragmatism, provided they are aware of why some don't like it. It's when they find NOTHING morally wrong with it that I take issue. I'm probably overreacting, but sometimes it seems like complaining about a choice being Dark Side, it feels like a slap in the face to Light-Sided players, claiming they are bad people for thinking differently. The arrogance, self-righteousness, and obvious selfishness of certain (but definitely not all!) Dark Side players doesn't help in this regard. The reaction to Koth is a good showing. Dark Side players get whiny when the guy calls them out on Dark Side choices and even leaves the alliance at one point, calling him whiny and selfish. Pot calling the kettle black much?

Maybe from a pragmatic standpoint, it wasn't too bad an idea. However, I still fully believe it was right to label risking your life to save thousands of lives as a light side choice. From a moral standpoint, it was probably the right thing to do. Speaking of which, it kinda disturbs me how many people have an "It's all about me" sense of morality. And how they honestly, truly believe it is the right choice morally (not just pragmatically, but MORALLY) to screw countless others over, for the benefit of absolutely nobody but themselves. And then throw hissy fits when they get called out. (... Yeah, I'm a fan of Koth.)

I'd like some elaboration and reasoning. I personally thought the light side/dark side distinctions on most of the choices were perfectly valid.

Well, overall it's game mechanics. Non force users don't use melee weapons, so they had to settle for a gun. The Force Blade idea sounds like it would be too difficult to implement. And kinda a waste of time since only about half the players would get them.

... Did you really just say that? You hate this for the sole reason that you will no longer be better than everyone else by default and will have to put actual effort into competing with the big leagues? Sheesh, talk about whiny. And unfair to the people you play against. And players who worked hard to get as good as they are in general.

What are you talking about? Senya already went! ... To the edge of the galaxy with her son in tow.

As unquestionable as it is that Arcaan is the lesser evil compared to Valkorian, I am inclined to believe that he was a worse ruler. Unlike Valkorian, who ruled with (FAKE) benevolence, Arcaan seemed to be a typical tyrant. In fact, isn't the entire reason Koth joins you is because he liked Valkorian but hated Arcaan? Then again, it could be possible that they might have similar levels of competency, and that their actions towards the core worlds played a part in what the public thought of them. Valkorian pretended to not be interested in them, while Arcaan set out to make them suffer.

Mostly. But with some of the choices like say, the barrager and the guy on Belsavis in the Jedi Knight story, the logic is trying to save EVERYONE. Sacrificing ONLY what is absolutely neccesary. The sacrificing your husband to end the plague, maybe that would be light side... If it were the only way. But I don't see how it would be lighter than finding a way to end the plague without sacrifing them, if such a way existed. Perhaps a bit over idealistic, but still.

I'm going to try and stay neutral on this matter. I do personally hope that we will get to kill Senya for her role in helping Arcaan. However, I equally hope that it will be possible to forgive her and gain her and Arcaan as companions. (Actually, I remember someone in another thread, I forget which, claiming the devs said that Arcaan can be gained as a companion in KOTET, but only if you didn't take either of the "kill him" prompts.) But I will say that it's disturbing how many people say they feel absolutely ZERO empathy for the family. As someone who's had daddy issues of my own, I can say that dismissing Valkorian's influence is very cold-hearted. Parents are supposed to be people kids can give absolute trust, and emotional scarring from abusive parenting can be absolutely devastating. Plus, it's not as if Justice and Sympathy are mutually exclusive concepts. You don't have to forgive Arcaan, and you may even have a point when you claim he deserves death, but that doesn't mean you can't still feel for the guy. You can want him to face justice and still recognize him as a victim of horrible parenting. On the flip side, to anyone whitewashing Thexan... At the bare minimum, he is just as bad as Senya. He saved Valkorian's life from Arcaan's wrath. Y'know, Valkorian, the planet-eating Sith Emperor Vitiate, evil incarnate, winner of the Worst Father Ever award? Yeah, he was willing to save him from the wrath of someone who had every reason in the world to want him dead. Plus, he in general held a very deep love for his family. There is absolutely no question whatsoever that if he was in Senya's shoes, he'd probably have done the same thing she did and saved Arcaan from death. He would've gladly "betrayed" us in the same way you claim Senya did. (Clarification: this is not meant as hating on Thexan. I feel bad for what happened to him. This is simply commentary on the double standard of people demonizing Senya, but claiming Thexan was "the only good thing to come from that family.")

I can think of an opposite case. A "why the hell is that a light side choice". In the bounty hunter story, I don't really understand why it's apparently light side to leave Tarro Blood in his cell to die when you blow up the ship after defeating Kallien Jarro.

Being selfless and putting the needs of others before yourself is light. Being protective and having a "no man gets left behind" attitude is light. Generally, being an idealist is light.

Not exactly. In the Jedi example, the world-destroying weapon isn't going to activate immediately, so you could in theory save the man and still save the planet at the same time. (Which indeed is what happens.) However, in the trooper scenario, it is made VERY clear that if you don't sacrifice Jaxo, the others WILL die. (Which does indeed happen if you save her.)