Why I disagree with the dark side in this game

[Argonloris]

I've been playing the game since launch and in the process maxed out several characters including at least one of every basic class. I've enjoyed the stories of each individual class and the planetary class quests of Makeb but I've found myself staying away from the dark side choices throughout the game. It's not because I have some need to be the good guy all the time or that I'm trying to avoid violence at all costs. It's because I believe the dark side was written poorly in most of the choices.

This isn't to say that the staff has bad writers. With a few notable exceptions in this and other games I've always found the scripts of games made under the Bioware logo to be well done and rich in detail. But I think there was a misunderstanding about what the dark side is when it comes to this game.

As I understand it the light side is when a person makes a choice that is done for the greater good whether or not the character has to sacrifice something of a personal nature or not. The dark side should be that a character is willing to do anything for personal gain or advancement of an individual goal. What I often see instead is the dark side choice being unrestrained violence and in general the character acting in a manner resembling a borderline sociopath. The choices far more often than not end up with the other side dead and with the character gaining nothing more than they would have if they had allowed the person to live.

A prime example of this are the two choices for the Black Talon flashpoint. The first one makes some sense as I assume the players are trying to inspire order by fear. That seems fair enough. What lessens that is the fact that you then have an incompetent junior officer in charge. It probably wouldn't seem so bad if I couldn't figure out from the first conversation that the only way she advanced was by kissing up to the higher ups. The second choice is even worse. If you choose light side then the target is captured and you get to take him to the capital and the Empire and see what he knows about the Republic. The character advances his standing with the Empire and all is well. If they choose dark side on the other hand the target is killed by the players hand. First of all the objective is to capture the target according the mission briefing, so no real success there. Second you leave the body on the Republic ship. They can't bring the guy back to life or course but they still have the implant with all the info they need. The dark side choice here basically fails to accomplish anything but up the body count.

One time I can say the game made the right choice in where to make the decisions was the trooper storyline in act 3. I won't go into detail about it but anyone who has played the story will know what choice I am referring to. The choice becomes a question of ethics asks a player if they are willing to sacrifice for the greater good. We need to see more of these questions asked in the game. The dark side doesn't always have to be pure evil, just ruthless in their determination to see things done their way.

[-Firestar-]

Oh? Have you played dark side Jedi Consular yet?

I enjoyed that one very much. It wasn't a case of upping the body count or choices that just make you a self-centered jerk, but reaching goals in the most efficient way possible.

Minor:

 

Like cutting something out of a conscious smuggler because you want to hurry back and help your sick master and don't really have time to be gentle.

 

D'awwww.

 

Playing DS Empire characters does have that sociopath feel to it. I found it really boring, but I felt that running through DS on my republic characters gave me a bit more fulfillment in that aspect of "I'm doing this because it needs to be done and I'm the only one with the guts to do it."

[Zardac_the_Great]

I have noticed this. It's almost as if the Empire story line plans for you to be light side. Every choice that actually helps the Empire is a light side choice, while dark side choices are generally "I are the Joker so you die now! HA HAH AHAHAH AHAA!"

 

And it also seems that most choices that will actually help the Republic are dark...

[Bleeters]

And it also seems that most choices that will actually help the Republic are dark...

Smuggler story.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Bleeters

[BradTheImpaler]

I have noticed this. It's almost as if the Empire story line plans for you to be light side. Every choice that actually helps the Empire is a light side choice, while dark side choices are generally "I are the Joker so you die now! HA HAH AHAHAH AHAA!"

 

And it also seems that most choices that will actually help the Republic are dark...

 

Yeah, I'm getting the same feeling, though I played a LS Consular.

[QuiDonJorn]

Yeah,...pretty dumb.

[Stinghen]

It's actually a very dumb outcome, because when you look at the Dark Side choices available for the Sithilies in the game, you come to the sole conclusion that, if the Force was bound by Bioware's rules, then Palpatine, Darth Bane, Darth Zannah and who knows how many other Sith Lords would have a pretty big tally on Light Side Points.

 

The "help-the-Empire" choices aren't the only wrongly-aligned in most cases. Other, less politically-related choices (such as sparing the nek'ghouls to allow them to turn to the Dark Side, or turning in the tuk'ata brain to the scientist's apprentice so she can sabotage his experiment first) also award you with LSP's. I think the worst mistake of this current game is how the devs aligned most of the choices (and a recurring mistake, too, because to be a Darksider in KotOR 1 and 2 you also have to commit to the rabid, dumb-evil choices).

[Argonloris]

It's actually a very dumb outcome, because when you look at the Dark Side choices available for the Sithilies in the game, you come to the sole conclusion that, if the Force was bound by Bioware's rules, then Palpatine, Darth Bane, Darth Zannah and who knows how many other Sith Lords would have a pretty big tally on Light Side Points.

 

The "help-the-Empire" choices aren't the only wrongly-aligned in most cases. Other, less politically-related choices (such as sparing the nek'ghouls to allow them to turn to the Dark Side, or turning in the tuk'ata brain to the scientist's apprentice so she can sabotage his experiment first) also award you with LSP's. I think the worst mistake of this current game is how the devs aligned most of the choices (and a recurring mistake, too, because to be a Darksider in KotOR 1 and 2 you also have to commit to the rabid, dumb-evil choices).

 

To clarify, I don't think that any of the choices were "wrongly aligned". I just think that the direction the dark side choices went were off base. Dark side doesn't mean evil all the time. No characters from the movie were pure evil. Even Palpatine had motive for killing the people he did. His reasoning was to ensure that his power base was secure. I think that is what is missing from many of the dark side choices. When a decision lacks motivation or reasoning it tends to fall flat in terms of story.

[Stinghen]

To clarify, I don't think that any of the choices were "wrongly aligned". I just think that the direction the dark side choices went were off base. Dark side doesn't mean evil all the time. No characters from the movie were pure evil. Even Palpatine had motive for killing the people he did. His reasoning was to ensure that his power base was secure. I think that is what is missing from many of the dark side choices. When a decision lacks motivation or reasoning it tends to fall flat in terms of story.

 

Palpatine was wholly evil. That's the thing about Star Wars - the good vs evil is clear-cut. Surely nobody knew Palpatine was in truth evil, because he concealed his intentions until the declaration of the New Order. But that doesn't make him good, or just a 'misguided person'. Just like Vader - he wasn't evil at first, but he thought doing good meant killing Jedi children. So he was just rationalising his evil actions saying that they were "for the greater good". Now, on to the game at hand, look at some examples of wrongly-aligned choices.

 

 

On Korriban, you're tasked by Lord Renning to retrieve the brain of a tuk'ata mutant. His apprentice lets you in to her jealous feelings towards her master, who got funding to perform a work she considered completely worthless. So she asks you to bring the brain to her, so she can sabotage her master's experiment and gain credit on the turf of his failed research.

 

Once you get the brain, you have the choice of turning it over straight to Renning and denounce his apprentice's request (for DSP's), or you can turn the brain to her instead. You aid her in betraying her master, and yet you gain LSP's. What's the moral basis for that assignment? None that makes sense.

 

 

 

On Taris, when you fight the Jedi Master Sulan who tried to show the nekghouls the path to the Light Side, you are once again faced with a two-fold choice. You can slaughter the neks, for obvious, frothing, rabid DPS's, or you can spare them. The intention is to allow them to unleash their anger, turn to the Dark Side and in the end turn on the Republic. Yet, for that clearly honourable decision, you are awarded with.... light side points. You're trying to turn a whole bunch of beings to the Dark Side so they can basically fight your war for you, and you still get to be a good guy.

 

 

 

In the Sith Warrior mission on Dromund Kaas, you confront the son of Lord Grathan in order to kill him and send his father a message. After defeating the brat, his mother offers you a pretty interesting choice - kill Lord Grathan instead and allow the son to take his father's place. In so doing, the Warrior would elevate Grathan's wife, who would enjoy greater power in her son's rule, all that on Grathan's and Baras' turf. Not exactly a morally sound decision, do you not agree? Guess the rewards (asides from intimate favours from lady Grathan) - Light Side points.

 

 

 

Still on Kaas, the Warrior is sent to silence some rebellious slave chieftains who were blackmailing Darth Baras, threatening to expose his involvement in the outbreak of the slave revolt. Once the warrior is brought up to speed, he sees two choices - he can either slaughter the chieftains and end the problem, or he can pursue a more devious path. He can instead spare the chieftains, and threaten to expose their own dealings in slavery. That way, their silence would be assured, and they would be allowed to continue pursuing their hobbies as neophyte slavers. Not necessarily the best decision to continue Baras' plot on Kaas, but still provides with a tidy profit from slavery. Once again, worth Light Side points, for keeping slavers in tow, but obviously not out of a kind heart or a concerned conscience.

 

 

 

On Nar Shaddaa, on the Sith Inquisitor story. You confront Lord Paladius, a Sith Lord cult leader. You fight him off, then once again, as you take control of his own cult, you're faced with two choices - you can kill Paladius, and offer control of the cult to two other people, Destris and Rylee. Or you can spare him (and be a good-hearted chap) and allow the Sith Lord to continue to exert his influence over the cult (doing who knows what sort of wicked manipulations of the cultists).

 

 

These are the ones I can remember off the top of my head. There may be more, which I don't recall. But these are enough to prove my points. What defines an action at all is not the immediate or posterior outcome. It is the intention behind the action itself. It's not morally superior to do good just to serve selfish interests (ever heard of political populism? That's kinda like it - you give your people enough for them to feel satisfied, but offer them no chances of striving for something better so you and your buddies can remain on top of the food chain). Sparing a man's life is not always done out of kindness of heart (or else many Sith Lords would be quite the morally sound chaps, especially the most clever and manipulative sorts), but they can be done so as to corrupt someone else, or subject them to continuing pain (such as being forced to live to see all he loves be destroyed).

 

So, the way the game is, you can be a really evil Sithily, clever and scheming, manipulating, sparing key people to earn favour and/or control over them, to use them to further your own ends. But it's very ridiculous that you get Light Side points to do it.

[Argonloris]

I suppose I can see your point of view but I still would contend that is not wholly evil. It's still something that I would consider misguided evil. Pure evil is the idea that they cause chaos and destruction for it's own sake and no rational person would do that. The only pure evil that I have ever seen played out well was a character Luca Blight from Suikoden 2. But again he was not portrayed as a person with any real mental stability. Rational thinking no matter how flawed is part of what drives most powerful characters. One thing that most writers would probably agree on is that a character will not be useful to a story for very long unless there is some way to rationalize their actions. Characters that just do things because they can may start as interesting ideas but become boring far to fast for any good story. This is why I don't think the points you showed were mis-aligned. The dark side choice in most of the ones you mentioned was to kill because you could. There was no reasoning behind it beyond the idea that it was an option. Without substance we can't push characters to develop. Edited September 24, 2013 by Argonloris

[Slowpokeking]

Many Dark Side choices are wiser as well, if you want to be smart you have to pick both light and dark side choices.

[Belgarim]

On Nar Shaddaa, on the Sith Inquisitor story. You confront Lord Paladius, a Sith Lord cult leader. You fight him off, then once again, as you take control of his own cult, you're faced with two choices - you can kill Paladius, and offer control of the cult to two other people, Destris and Rylee. Or you can spare him (and be a good-hearted chap) and allow the Sith Lord to continue to exert his influence over the cult (doing who knows what sort of wicked manipulations of the cultists).

Just a few days ago played this quest. Allowing him to take over the cult is a dark-side choice.

[Stinghen]

Just a few days ago played this quest. Allowing him to take over the cult is a dark-side choice.

 

I stand corrected. The set of choices regarding Paladius' fate is better rounded and assigned than I remembered it.

[BradTheImpaler]

Many Dark Side choices are wiser as well, if you want to be smart you have to pick both light and dark side choices.

 

I agree. I was just playing a Bounty Hunter on Hoth last night and I got dark-side points for capturing this Trandoshan guy instead of killing him...it didn't make sense to me. Yeah his religion said he'd be better off getting killed than captured because he'd go to his afterlife with honour...still something seems off.

 

Aside from weird things like this, though, I tend to kill Hutts/gangsters rather than spare their lives, when given the choice. They are fickle allies at best, and unless they can be captured, killing them is usually the only way to prevent them from hurting or enslaving people. Morally and tactically, some dark-side choices make more sense.

Edited September 25, 2013 by BradTheImpaler

[kalarigamerchic]

oops wrong window nothing to see here... Edited September 25, 2013 by kalarigamerchic

[Argonloris]

I agree. I was just playing a Bounty Hunter on Hoth last night and I got dark-side points for capturing this Trandoshan guy instead of killing him...it didn't make sense to me. Yeah his religion said he'd be better off getting killed than captured because he'd go to his afterlife with honour...still something seems off.

 

Aside from weird things like this, though, I tend to kill Hutts/gangsters rather than spare their lives, when given the choice. They are fickle allies at best, and unless they can be captured, killing them is usually the only way to prevent them from hurting or enslaving people. Morally and tactically, some dark-side choices make more sense.

 

The issue with the Trandoshan makes sense to me. Killing him is seen as an act of mercy and acting in honor of an enemies wishes. I wrote a similar concept in when developing the Kashyyyk storyline. Dark side doesn't mean that killing is required. There are cases where taking life can be seen as an act of mercy. In similar fashion the Koan mission has the Empire taking the life of the security officer as a light side option. This makes sense as the man would die no matter the situation. It would be an act of mercy to end it quickly rather than make him suffer a slow and painful death.

Once again I think it needs clarifying that I don't look at this as a thought that the dark side options are wrong. In every case I think the options are correctly assigned as dark side ideas. In the situations where it is marked as a dark side option, killing a person is definitely an evil and dark action. The reason I don't like many of these choices is because the dark side option seems to lack motivation or substance beyond the simple idea that the player will do it because they can. This leads to a very flat character that doesn't seem to undergo much in the way of development and character development is the key thing in making a story move and remain interesting.

[-Silver-]

Really interesting topic here. Though it's worth considering: What do you gain from Dark Side points?

 

Sure you get a hideous scarred face, but how many Empire peeps in the movies had those features? The only people I can think of off the top of my head who had the Dark Side corruption were Palpatine (though mainly caused by lightning damage) and Anakin after he slaughters sand people and younglings (lol) like a psychopath.

 

So maybe this is all accurate in SWTOR? Maybe the best line to take is the Light or Neutral options, with Dark side choices being for ***** and psychos?

[BradTheImpaler]

The issue with the Trandoshan makes sense to me. Killing him is seen as an act of mercy and acting in honor of an enemies wishes. I wrote a similar concept in when developing the Kashyyyk storyline. Dark side doesn't mean that killing is required. There are cases where taking life can be seen as an act of mercy. In similar fashion the Koan mission has the Empire taking the life of the security officer as a light side option. This makes sense as the man would die no matter the situation. It would be an act of mercy to end it quickly rather than make him suffer a slow and painful death.

 

I don't know about the other mission (spoiler alert!), but I never said that killing = dark side. In the Trandoshan case, though, it clearly would be. Just because his religion says he'll be more favoured in the afterlife if he's killed instead of captured, it doesn't mean it's "good" to kill him.

 

Once again I think it needs clarifying that I don't look at this as a thought that the dark side options are wrong. In every case I think the options are correctly assigned as dark side ideas. In the situations where it is marked as a dark side option, killing a person is definitely an evil and dark action.

 

No, not always. I gave a couple of examples.

 

The reason I don't like many of these choices is because the dark side option seems to lack motivation or substance beyond the simple idea that the player will do it because they can. This leads to a very flat character that doesn't seem to undergo much in the way of development and character development is the key thing in making a story move and remain interesting.

 

I don't know how far you've played into what characters, then, because there are several dark side options that aren't just "evil for the lulz", even if you consider them evil.

[smartalectwo]

I think you may have missed the point of the LS/DS choice here.

 

The Dark Side is a real thing. It's a force that feeds on discord, hatred, fear, all the things that seperate people from people and drive them to fight and hurt. Every Dark Side choice represents that; the choice that causes the maximum harm and pain.

 

You're a Sith. The stronger the Dark Side is, the stronger you are. But here's the thing - as a Sith, you're supposed to control the Force, not let it control you. Every time you make a Dark Side choice unthinkingly, simply because it's a Dark Side choice, you're letting the Force dictate your actions. You've got to walk the balance between empowering the Dark Side and keeping hold of yourself.

 

This is why so many Sith seem like cartoon villains. They lost that fight. If you play a character who's gone all the way to Dark Side 5, then you're playing a character who's completely in the thrall of the Dark Side and has no free will; the Dark Side has 'dominated their destiny'. By Sith standards, that makes such a character a failure.

 

So, yes. As other people have pointed out: Being a Sith is about more than just automatically picking the Dark Side choice.

Edited September 25, 2013 by smartalectwo

[Stinghen]

I think you may have missed the point of the LS/DS choice here.

 

The Dark Side is a real thing. It's a force that feeds on discord, hatred, fear, all the things that seperate people from people and drive them to fight and hurt. Every Dark Side choice represents that; the choice that causes the maximum harm and pain.

 

You're a Sith. The stronger the Dark Side is, the stronger you are. But here's the thing - as a Sith, you're supposed to control the Force, not let it control you. Every time you make a Dark Side choice unthinkingly, simply because it's a Dark Side choice, you're letting the Force dictate your actions. You've got to walk the balance between empowering the Dark Side and keeping hold of yourself.

 

This is why so many Sith seem like cartoon villains. They lost that fight. If you play a character who's gone all the way to Dark Side 5, then you're playing a character who's completely in the thrall of the Dark Side and has no free will; the Dark Side has 'dominated their destiny'. By Sith standards, that makes such a character a failure.

 

So, yes. As other people have pointed out: Being a Sith is about more than just automatically picking the Dark Side choice.

 

You're defining how evil a Sith is by the dictations of the Bioware TOR devs, which may be misguided. It's not the case. Look at Palpatine. He'd be the best example. He was rotten to the core. In game mechanics if he wasn't Dark V, they would've portrayed him wrong. But he wasn't that rabid Darksider that you would suggest a DS V character should be. And yet, I'll wager he was more evil than a mad dog like Ventress.

 

The Dark Side is many things, and if only aggression and clear-cut harm defined its workings, then rare few Jedi would fall to the Dark Side. Corrupting others (instead of killing them) is to me is even more defining of an evil mind. And yet some previous examples I presented above allow you to corrupt others or exercise corruption and still earn LSP's. It's the morality that lies behind a certain choice that should define the Light or Dark Side point awards, and that is not always the observable case. Like Anakin, falling to the Dark Side trying to save his wife from a possible death.

[Xilizhra]

Anakin didn't fall to the dark side because he was trying to save his wife, but because of what he did in pursuit of the end goal, such as mass murder. Which'll always be a dark side option. As for Palpatine, keep in mind that his career was much longer than the timespan of TOR, and he'd have plenty of time to hit Dark V even if he wasn't giving into all of his passions willy-nilly.

[Stinghen]

Not if he kept gaining Light Side points for not slaughtering everyone he saw.

[Xilizhra]

Not if he kept gaining Light Side points for not slaughtering everyone he saw.

If you want, you could say that every time you gain light side points, it's because of sincere intentions to not want to kill more people than necessary, for instance. True, it limits your roleplaying potential, but then, this isn't the best game.

 

Also, can you really get "favors" from Lord Grathan's wife? Yet something else I need to headcanon in for female characters...

[psandak]

Another way to interpret those LS and DS choices is "law" vs "chaos" as many instances are equally evil (capture and enslave or kill and be done with it). Those choices though revolve around what's best for the Empire or what is best for oneself. 90% of the time LS choices can be interpreted as being loyal to the Empire - That is a very "lawful" attitude. And all those DS choices can be interpreted as being loyal to no one but oneself - That is a very "chaotic" attitude.

 

If one is completely consumed by the Dark Side, chances are they have gone psychotic and are no better than The Joker, Charles Manson, or Hannibal Lechter, or any other serial killer: they do not care what others think and kill because they can.

The Emperor in SWTOR is this way. Lord Scourge recognizes this and joins the Jedi Knight to stop the madness.

 

 

Palpatine and other powerful Sith of the EU are not THAT evil. They tend to bide their time, work the system, acquire power and then use that power to influence/dominate those around them: they want to control the universe not destroy it.

Darth Malgus is this way. He plays the part he needs to play, until the Emperor is no longer in the way, double deals with the Republic to eliminate his major competition and then seizes control.

.

 

Both are equally evil just different methodologies.

[BradTheImpaler]

You're defining how evil a Sith is by the dictations of the Bioware TOR devs, which may be misguided. It's not the case. Look at Palpatine. He'd be the best example. He was rotten to the core. In game mechanics if he wasn't Dark V, they would've portrayed him wrong.

 

To be fair, he wouldn't appear to be Dark V to most---even Jedi observers. Of course with hindsight we do know he was rotten to the core (though to anyone politically aware he'd seem rotten from the start, but that's another discussion).

 

The Dark Side is many things, and if only aggression and clear-cut harm defined its workings, then rare few Jedi would fall to the Dark Side. Corrupting others (instead of killing them) is to me is even more defining of an evil mind. And yet some previous examples I presented above allow you to corrupt others or exercise corruption and still earn LSP's. It's the morality that lies behind a certain choice that should define the Light or Dark Side point awards, and that is not always the observable case. Like Anakin, falling to the Dark Side trying to save his wife from a possible death.

 

A couple of things:

 

1. You make a good point about 'corrupting' vs. killing, ("What greater weapon is there than to turn an enemy to your cause?"), but the perspective the Bioware writers were approaching this from seems to think this is the difference between capturing and converting enemy soldiers and outright executing them.

 

2. The Force seems more concerned with a predefined morality of choices themselves rather than "the morality that lies behind a certain choice". Part of this is probably game mechanics. They don't/can't account for every reason why a person might choose a certain action (i.e. sometimes killing one or two will spare many others, and sparing them will hurt or kill many others). Anyway, in short the Force doesn't seem to care nearly as much about motives as about actions. Also, going off of the post above, Sith don't (usually) create evil---they use or bring out evil that lurks in the seemingly "good".

Edited September 25, 2013 by BradTheImpaler