The morality system is a sad take on the force.

[AJediKnight]

A black and white morality system -- where act A is 'good,' but act B is a 'no-no' -- does not equate to the force, and never has. That is why the dark side is tied more to emotional output than to set-in-stone actions. Murder is a bad act, but what if you kill to save, or kill to defend, or even kill for (what you believe to be) a righteous cause? It's easy to sit back and wash our hands of a situation and be like 'oh, well that's evil,' but the force is more concerned with attachment/detachment than it is about doing a body count and then pointing fingers. One man's murder is another man's justice, and the force has much more to do with a person's emotional state during the act than the act itself.

 

What if Anakin had been told that there was a massive bomb at the center of Coruscant that would explode if he didn't murder the younglings? Yes this is a silly situation, but it demonstrates a point -- Anakin's mental state during the killings was far more important than the killings themselves in determining whether the act was light/dark.

 

This is why the Jedi wear kid gloves while dealing with the force -- why seemingly 'everything' leads to the darkside. Because one questionable act, while it might not be truly dark, could conceivably lead to others that are. Anakin being sad about leaving his mom in Ep. I probably wasn't all that strongly darksided -- but when it led to an obsession by the time of his teenage years that ultimately culminated in the slaughter of the sand people, then we can begin to appreciate the initial hesitancy of the council regarding his entry into the Order.

 

The problem with the morality system in TOR is that it makes no account for the long term ramifications -- good or bad -- of a decision. Every single choice results in an immediate morality swing, often with ridiculous implications with regards to what Bioware apparently believes is light or dark. As a Sith Warrior, what if I saved Overseer Tremmel because I was thinking about how he would help me slaughter Baras? Is that a lightsided move? Is 'saving a life' good if I am plotting to utilize the person in a future coldblooded murder? Therein lies the flaw of this system -- instantaneous, absolute and utterly farcical 'judgement' is rendered without any consideration being given for ulterior motives.

 

*Edit* I wanted to also add, there is a huge issue with 'goodness by proxy' that pops up time and again. Just because an act is of 'lesser evil' than another, does not make it good. There's a quest on Dromund Kaas that is a perfect example -- where my character is given the option to either brutally kill a bunch of rebellious slaves slowly, or kill them quickly. Now, maybe a quick exit is a better way to go, but that doesn't make such an action lightsided, for Christ's sake.

Edited January 25, 2012 by AJediKnight

[Kringlorr]

Have you never played a Star Wars game before?

[ThePirateMD]

I still maintain that the biggest problem of the LS/DS system is that it is POINTLESS- it doesnt change anything (NOT ONE THING) about how the storyline ends up going.

 

As far as sidequests go, I also love how, as long as the option doesn't have a LS/DS icon, you can SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT, you can treat the NPCS like ABSOLUTE DIRT, and they'll just shrug it off and still give you your quest/reward/etc.

[AJediKnight]

I still maintain that the biggest problem of the LS/DS system is that it is POINTLESS- it doesnt change anything (NOT ONE THING) about how the storyline ends up going.

 

As far as sidequests go, I also love how, as long as the option doesn't have a LS/DS icon, you can SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT, you can treat the NPCS like ABSOLUTE DIRT, and they'll just shrug it off and still give you your quest/reward/etc.

 

Yeah. But, again, that's a systematic issue with being force-fed a story like this. The illusion of choice does not equate to real, actual choice. Ninety-nine percent of the decisions in this game really boil down to the following: will you accept this quest? A) yes, B) no.

Edited January 25, 2012 by AJediKnight

[Ebbikenezer]

You don't know the ramifications of every choice you have made, not yet.

 

You are far too concerned about how they implemented Light/Dark side decisions and if that's your thing, by all means more power to you, but how can you judge what furture morality implications your choices would have unless you have a time machine?

 

Also, your example of saving Tremel to later have him help you kill someone... is semi-balanced because Light+ for saving, Dark+ for killing.

 

Do I think the system is perfect? Absolutely not, BUT at least we have some moral decisions to make that actually affect our alignment and therefore other environmental aspects of the game.

 

It's something that I find interesting about the game, but I'm sure not going to spend my days and nights filled with thoughts about how my Bounty Hunter will react in 5 years when it dawns on him that he has killed a LOT of people, mostly just to get creds for Fleet Passes and gear repair.

[ThePirateMD]

Yeah. But, again, that's a systematic issue with being force-fed a story like this. The illusion of choice does not equate to real, actual choice. Ninety-nine percent of the decisions in this game really boil down to the following: will you accept this quest? A) yes, B) no.

 

I hope bioware feels bad. They should. Reading stuff like this makes me so mad, because the game could have been great

[Mavajo]

I still maintain that the biggest problem of the LS/DS system is that it is POINTLESS- it doesnt change anything (NOT ONE THING) about how the storyline ends up going.

 

That's mostly true, but not entirely. The Sith Warrior's storyline is affected at a certain point by your previous LS/DS choices.

 

As to the OP, I agree entirely. There were a number of situations where I had to pick a decision that didn't seem to jive with the associated LS/DS effect. For example, virtually any time you choose to kill someone, the game will make that a Dark Side decision. Yet every light side wielding Jedi that I met in my storyline constantly tried to kill me no matter how much I tried to talk it out with them. The beaviour of "light side" characters in the storyline are completely at odds with the spoonfed morality system the player is presented with. If they kill me, it's fine. But if I kill them, it's the dark side.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Mavajo

[AJediKnight]

That's mostly true, but not entirely. The Sith Warrior's storyline is affected at a certain point by your previous LS/DS choices.

 

Yes, and you get to choose between having a character who is a complete psychopath, or one that is dillusional and utterly unaware of her surroundings. There is no version of 'character X' that takes a lawful-evil Sith into consideration. You are either a Jedi masquerading as a Sith Lord or you are the devil incarnate with your little demonling associate.

Edited January 25, 2012 by AJediKnight

[Maeleena]

You ever play KOTOR OP? It is the exact same thing as back then, and it worked perfectly then, and it definitely works perfectly now.

[AJediKnight]

You ever play KOTOR OP? It is the exact same thing as back then, and it worked perfectly then, and it definitely works perfectly now.

 

Lol. You thought the system in KotOR was a good expression of the force? I cast ye out of Star Wars fandom.

[Aleutius]

They should really implement a separate perk system for ls/ds/neutral, giving abilities based on how many points you have. I'm sure they can do more such as mitigation/dmg bonuses but its a start

[Jswizzle]

No game gives you real choice. Some create more illusions of choice than others, but all are essentially the same.

[ThePirateMD]

You ever play KOTOR OP? It is the exact same thing as back then, and it worked perfectly then, and it definitely works perfectly now.

 

wow, how old were you when you played KOTOR? Many fans when it was first released bemoaned the all-or-nothing ls/ds choices. it was poor back then (although overall the game was good)

[Buur]

Once you hit 50 you are basically punished if you didn't go all light side or all dark side. You are not rewarded at all for playing the character the way you wanted. Very bad design decision.

[Mavajo]

Yes, and you get to choose between having a character who is a complete psychopath, or one that is dillusional and utterly unaware of her surroundings. There is no version of 'character X' that takes a lawful-evil Sith into consideration. You are either a Jedi masquerading as a Sith Lord or you are the devil incarnate with your little demonling associate.

 

I don't disagree with you. I tried to go with the "Sheep in Wolf's clothing" archetype for my Sith, and while I felt like the game accomodated it reasonably well in the early-going, by the mid-way point the decisions had lost all nuance and flavor. It was all simple good/bad stuff -- I was either Satan or Jesus.

[saltorio]

I still maintain that the biggest problem of the LS/DS system is that it is POINTLESS- it doesnt change anything (NOT ONE THING) about how the storyline ends up going.

 

As far as sidequests go, I also love how, as long as the option doesn't have a LS/DS icon, you can SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT, you can treat the NPCS like ABSOLUTE DIRT, and they'll just shrug it off and still give you your quest/reward/etc.

 

That's not 100% true. In the Agent storyline, if you treat one of the Sith lords like crap, she actually denies you your quest rewards. Both my friend and I discovered this and were both pissed off at her while at the same time liked the concept.

 

This does seem to be the exception, rather than the rule, however.

[AJediKnight]

That's not 100% true. In the Agent storyline, if you treat one of the Sith lords like crap, she actually denies you your quest rewards. Both my friend and I discovered this and were both pissed off at her while at the same time liked the concept.

 

This does seem to be the exception, rather than the rule, however.

 

Potentially another reason to proclaim the agent story the best of the bunch.

[Jaxxar]

Should be a neutral vendor where you can get the same level stuff as light or dark if you keep your toon at 5K light and 5K dark.

[ThePirateMD]

That's not 100% true. In the Agent storyline, if you treat one of the Sith lords like crap, she actually denies you your quest rewards. Both my friend and I discovered this and were both pissed off at her while at the same time liked the concept.

 

This does seem to be the exception, rather than the rule, however.

 

well that is nice to see.

 

Im playing a consular now, and I just think its hilarious how I'm belittling some NPCs, making teh Jedi look like ****, and they say, "oh you're so bad!" then the audio track changes to the "thank you so much heres a lovely reward" You can even hear how the actor sounds slightly different.

[Ebbikenezer]

Once you hit 50 you are basically punished if you didn't go all light side or all dark side. You are not rewarded at all for playing the character the way you wanted. Very bad design decision.

 

How would you have designed it?

 

What if I played an Agent that was just very slightly more lightside oriented than dark? What would you do differently for him, as a designer/programmer/developer that would be immediately different from the Sith Jugg next to me who is just a little bit darkside oriented, but has taken a vow to never kill without just cause?

 

How would our gear differ at 50? How about our stories? How would something like the story in Black Talon play out for us if we were grouped together? COULD we even be grouped together, being that we could have completely different moral fiber, and just butt heads on how any situation should be tackled?

 

What about Ops?

 

Killing someone in PvP is really the same as in PvE when it comes down to morality, how would you satisy/justify giving players against killing senselessly a PvP fix if they desired? Could you also develope a system that only pits opposite moralities against one another in PvP? What about the neutral ones, which Faction would they be placed on in Huttball if you designed the above?

 

 

 

The implication you're making is that the design choice was poor... but you're not substantiating your claim. At all.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Ebbikenezer

[Maeleena]

Lol. You thought the system in KotOR was a good expression of the force? I cast ye out of Star Wars fandom.

You can never implement the 'shades of gray' that a morality system is in a game. It just isn't feasible, as game developers can't incorporate the impossible number of choices into a game.

 

In a book it is easy, because you don't have a choice of where to go, because the writer of the book determines that for you with you having no say in the matter.

 

At least in SWTOR you have a say, and the choices are pretty good. You are either Good, Evil or indifferent.

 

Those are really the only choices you can possibly have in a game and make the development of it feasible.

[Maeleena]

Once you hit 50 you are basically punished if you didn't go all light side or all dark side. You are not rewarded at all for playing the character the way you wanted. Very bad design decision.

So there should be rewards for being indecisive? You need to grow a pair, and decide which course you want to take, and not have the game cater to your indecisiveness.

[Volok]

Because a line has to be drawn somewhere. Things like intention, state of mind, ulterior motive are too complex to realistically model in a game so they have to define a scope and limit what's available accordingly. Edited January 25, 2012 by Volok

[AtomicWanderer]

A black and white morality system -- where act A is 'good,' but act B is a 'no-no' -- does not equate to the force, and never has. That is why the dark side is tied more to emotional output than to set-in-stone actions. Murder is a bad act, but what if you kill to save, or kill to defend, or even kill for (what you believe to be) a righteous cause? It's easy to sit back and wash our hands of a situation and be like 'oh, well that's evil,' but the force is more concerned with attachment/detachment than it is about doing a body count and then pointing fingers. One man's murder is another man's justice, and the force has much more to do with a person's emotional state during the act than the act itself.

 

What if Anakin had been told that there was a massive bomb at the center of Coruscant that would explode if he didn't murder the younglings? Yes this is a silly situation, but it demonstrates a point -- Anakin's mental state during the killings was far more important than the killings themselves in determining whether the act was light/dark.

 

This is why the Jedi wear kid gloves while dealing with the force -- why seemingly 'everything' leads to the darkside. Because one questionable act, while it might not be truly dark, could conceivably lead to others that are. Anakin being sad about leaving his mom in Ep. I probably wasn't all that strongly darksided -- but when it led to an obsession by the time of his teenage years that ultimately culminated in the slaughter of the sand people, then we can begin to appreciate the initial hesitancy of the council regarding his entry into the Order.

 

The problem with the morality system in TOR is that it makes no account for the long term ramifications -- good or bad -- of a decision. Every single choice results in an immediate morality swing, often with ridiculous implications with regards to what Bioware apparently believes is light or dark. As a Sith Warrior, what if I saved Overseer Tremmel because I was thinking about how he would help me slaughter Baras? Is that a lightsided move? Is 'saving a life' good if I am plotting to utilize the person in a future coldblooded murder? Therein lies the flaw of this system -- instantaneous, absolute and utterly farcical 'judgement' is rendered without any consideration being given for ulterior motives.

 

*Edit* I wanted to also add, there is a huge issue with 'goodness by proxy' that pops up time and again. Just because an act is of 'lesser evil' than another, does not make it good. There's a quest on Dromund Kaas that is a perfect example -- where my character is given the option to either brutally kill a bunch of rebellious slaves slowly, or kill them quickly. Now, maybe a quick exit is a better way to go, but that doesn't make such an action lightsided, for Christ's sake.

 

As soon as you used the Lord's name in vain at the end you lost me. It's a stupid game based on a make-believe world. You may want to re-evaluate and prioritize the things you care about in life.

[Mindsplitter]

Please. It's a freekin GAME. Have fun with your pandas!