Why I disagree with the dark side in this game

[Stinghen]

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).

 

 

 

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".

 

I understand what you're trying to say. It all ammounts to how one views good and evil actions, really. We do agree not all of the light-sided choices (especially Impside, if not only there) are necessarily morally-sound choices, so it would bottle down to what "the Force views as good or evil", in a way. But the Force may have no views at all, in which case an individual's choice on how to exert his power (imposing over others in any harmful way, be it by corrupting or outright killing; or working to actually do some good, playing "by the book", so to speak) would be the sole factor determining whether a single choice would lead to the Dark Side, or help one stray away from it.

 

Also, having come from a tabletop RPG upbringing when it comes to Star Wars gaming, the whole concept of "Light Side Points" is extraneous to me. Over there, you're either a light-sider (and usage of that term in itself also feels alien to Star Wars IMO), or you can begin piling up DSP's and finding yourself going down the dark path. That's the view we see in the six movies, based on a nobody is born evil concept, and one that an individual chooses either path - light or dark, but straying in the middle means that an individual is in danger of falling to the DS.

 

But it also has another meaning - no matter how morally sound and devoted to the light an individual might be, he is still not safe from choosing the easy path, as Yoda would phrase it. It's as easy for Yoda to do it as it is for someone like Anakin, if the individual is not vigilant. I'd be more happy with that approach to the game, but I'm in no delusions that it ever will happen

[ekimmak]

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.

 

Well, if you'll forgive me going into detail, but Trandoshan religion gives them a tally of all the things they've successfully hunted in life. If they get captured, they lose their entire score. You were about to hand him over to the Chiss ascendancy, who I very much doubt were going to give him a stern talking to and let him go. He was going to die either way, so what should it be. Die in peace by your hands, or die in shame in the hands of your employers?

[phalczen]

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.

 

"Is the dark side stronger?"

 

"No, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."

 

The easier thing for Anakin was to follow the unlikely prospect of prolonging life offered by Palpatine, than to face the prospect of losing his family.

 

Yet, the machinations of Palpatine to eventually transform the republic into an empire were anything but quick. They were everything, though, that Darth Bane planned for his legacy of Sith-dom. Now, I realize that the bane novels were written after the prequel trilogy. But how does one reconcile the portrayal of Sith patience and cunning with Yoda's description?

[Argonloris]

Law and chaos may not be the best concept of what light and dark side is. From what I can see the difference as it stands in this game is between selflessness and selfishness. The intent has more meaning than the action itself. This falls more in line with the concepts that were discussed during the Swarm War series than the movies I suppose but I feel that for the most part it is a more accurate representation. My argument isn't with the actual choices though. Rather it is with the lack of development I see when dark side choices are an option.

[Xakthul]

Tbh, I usually follow the companion's likings. I focus on one comp for each character. Also, LS is a bit easier for me to RP with a SW than DS. Okay, so I'm the Wrath. congratuf*ckinglations. A truly loyal Sith would actually be LS, FTW. And vice versa for a lot of the Jedi decisions. Duty to the 'Pubs before honor. Also makes no sense that freeing a MASS *********** MURDERER is a LS option. Wow. Just wow.

[Xilizhra]

"Is the dark side stronger?"

 

"No, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."

 

The easier thing for Anakin was to follow the unlikely prospect of prolonging life offered by Palpatine, than to face the prospect of losing his family.

 

Yet, the machinations of Palpatine to eventually transform the republic into an empire were anything but quick. They were everything, though, that Darth Bane planned for his legacy of Sith-dom. Now, I realize that the bane novels were written after the prequel trilogy. But how does one reconcile the portrayal of Sith patience and cunning with Yoda's description?

Yoda's describing the nature of the dark side itself, not of all its practitioners. Given that emotional weakness is the most common reason to start using it, it stands to reason that most long-term darksiders would be unstable killers. Those with self-control, such as Palpatine, are all the more dangerous for it, as they're able to use the light side's intellectual strength with none of its morality.

[BradTheImpaler]

Well, if you'll forgive me going into detail, but Trandoshan religion gives them a tally of all the things they've successfully hunted in life. If they get captured, they lose their entire score. You were about to hand him over to the Chiss ascendancy, who I very much doubt were going to give him a stern talking to and let him go. He was going to die either way, so what should it be. Die in peace by your hands, or die in shame in the hands of your employers?

 

Hmm, that's a fair point. I guess it all depends on what he's wanted for/if he can give some valuable intel that would save lives. I have a habit of capturing rather than killing, because leaving someone alive is usually merciful and as a bonus is often the more logical thing to do from an intelligence-gathering perspective. This might be an exception, though.

[BradTheImpaler]

Yoda's describing the nature of the dark side itself, not of all its practitioners. Given that emotional weakness is the most common reason to start using it, it stands to reason that most long-term darksiders would be unstable killers. Those with self-control, such as Palpatine, are all the more dangerous for it, as they're able to use the light side's intellectual strength with none of its morality.

 

Seems like you went straight for the worst (most evil) case, though. Dooku also showed "light side intellectual strength" but had something resembling a code of honour/wasn't completely amoral. Sometimes it makes them more dangerous, but maybe sometimes less, too.

Edited September 26, 2013 by BradTheImpaler

[Amsterdamus]

I agree that the early dark side options should be more of a grey area, selfish and slightly less psychotic. As you gain more dark side points however the corruption would make you more murderess/evil.

[smartalectwo]

Yet, the machinations of Palpatine to eventually transform the republic into an empire were anything but quick. They were everything, though, that Darth Bane planned for his legacy of Sith-dom. Now, I realize that the bane novels were written after the prequel trilogy. But how does one reconcile the portrayal of Sith patience and cunning with Yoda's description?

 

As I said, the Sith work to try and keep control of themselves and wrestle the Dark Side into serving them, rather than plunging right into cackling madness. Palpatine is one of the greatest Sith of all time! And this is why.

Edited September 26, 2013 by smartalectwo

[Xilizhra]

Seems like you went straight for the worst (most evil) case, though. Dooku also showed "light side intellectual strength" but had something resembling a code of honour/wasn't completely amoral. Sometimes it makes them more dangerous, but maybe sometimes less, too.

Did Dooku ever truly have a code of honor? I thought it was just something he bluffed.

[BradTheImpaler]

Did Dooku ever truly have a code of honor? I thought it was just something he bluffed.

 

I can see why you'd think that (even Mace Windu felt stupid after saying Dooku was once a Jedi and therefore it wasn't in his character to assassinate anyone).

Really, though, from what I know of his character, he never completely shed his Jedi roots. Otherwise he could probably have stabbed Yoda in the face while he was trying to stop that pillar from falling in Episode 2.

 

At the very least, what happened on Vjun showed he honoured Yoda as a former teacher.

Edited September 26, 2013 by BradTheImpaler

[StarMagus]

"Is the dark side stronger?"

 

"No, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."

 

The easier thing for Anakin was to follow the unlikely prospect of prolonging life offered by Palpatine, than to face the prospect of losing his family.

 

Yet, the machinations of Palpatine to eventually transform the republic into an empire were anything but quick. They were everything, though, that Darth Bane planned for his legacy of Sith-dom. Now, I realize that the bane novels were written after the prequel trilogy. But how does one reconcile the portrayal of Sith patience and cunning with Yoda's description?

 

It means that Yoda is Master of the Light side of the force, so asking him to have a fair and balanced view of the Dark Side of the force is probably not fair. Sort of like if during the Dark Ages if you asked the Pope for his opinion on Wiccans and Satanists. You probably wouldn't have gotten an unbiased assessment.

[Xilizhra]

It means that Yoda is Master of the Light side of the force, so asking him to have a fair and balanced view of the Dark Side of the force is probably not fair. Sort of like if during the Dark Ages if you asked the Pope for his opinion on Wiccans and Satanists. You probably wouldn't have gotten an unbiased assessment.

FYI: I have nothing but respect for Wicca, but it did not exist back then.

 

Truth be told, you'd probably get the same lack of fairness if you asked the Pope now, at least if you were pursuing an honest and not a diplomatic opinion.

[StarMagus]

FYI: I have nothing but respect for Wicca, but it did not exist back then.

 

Truth be told, you'd probably get the same lack of fairness if you asked the Pope now, at least if you were pursuing an honest and not a diplomatic opinion.

 

You got the idea... So replace Wiccans with Druids. The point was that Yoda is biased, he's a master of the light side of the force. Even if the Dark Side was full of Rainbows, Kittens, and Candy Yoda would be a bad source of information about it.

[Stinghen]

You got the idea... So replace Wiccans with Druids. The point was that Yoda is biased, he's a master of the light side of the force. Even if the Dark Side was full of Rainbows, Kittens, and Candy Yoda would be a bad source of information about it.

 

Someone can have an alignment and a clarified opinion about the opposite side. This assumption that because he is aligned with the light immediately his opinion isn't worth anything when it comes to talking about the other side is quite the misjudgement.

[Xilizhra]

Someone can have an alignment and a clarified opinion about the opposite side. This assumption that because he is aligned with the light immediately his opinion isn't worth anything when it comes to talking about the other side is quite the misjudgement.

On the other hand, he seems to have either been wrong about the dark side not being more powerful for combat purposes, or the "quicker and easier" thing is to such an extent that almost no light side user will reach the pinnacle of its mastery within their own lifetime. Hell, Yoda had centuries of experience and still lost to the much younger but clearly more powerful Sidious.

[Stinghen]

On the other hand, he seems to have either been wrong about the dark side not being more powerful for combat purposes, or the "quicker and easier" thing is to such an extent that almost no light side user will reach the pinnacle of its mastery within their own lifetime. Hell, Yoda had centuries of experience and still lost to the much younger but clearly more powerful Sidious.

 

Time alone doesn't tell everything. Yoda reached his prime. Maybe he wasn't as strong when he faced Sidious as he was before, when he was younger. But clearly Sidious was in his prime, and that meant he had a greater innate power than Yoda. That would've been true if Palpatine had been a Jedi as well.

[StarMagus]

Someone can have an alignment and a clarified opinion about the opposite side. This assumption that because he is aligned with the light immediately his opinion isn't worth anything when it comes to talking about the other side is quite the misjudgement.

 

No but to except his view on the other side is silly as well.

 

Look at it this way, two sides are at War. Country X and Y.

 

Do you believe everything the leader of Country X tells you about Country Y?

 

Do you believe everything that the leader of Country Y tells you about Country X?

 

Or to put it this way, do you think the Dark Council would be a good source to trust and believe if they started telling you about Jedi, The Republic, and the Light side of the Force?

[Stinghen]

No but to except his view on the other side is silly as well.

 

Look at it this way, two sides are at War. Country X and Y.

 

Do you believe everything the leader of Country X tells you about Country Y?

 

Do you believe everything that the leader of Country Y tells you about Country X?

 

Or to put it this way, do you think the Dark Council would be a good source to trust and believe if they started telling you about Jedi, The Republic, and the Light side of the Force?

 

That is true of governments, of normal people. The Sith have a deep interest and moral commitment to bad-mouthing others. The Jedi, on the other hand, have a compromise with honesty. Yoda has been around for 900 years. He may not have had any contact with the Sith prior to the appearance of Darth Maul, but he saw 900 years worth of some Jedi turning to the Dark Side. So he would know quite a bit, and in the interest of warning any Jedi against the traps of the Dark Side, he would be quite the authority.

[StarMagus]

and in the interest of warning any Jedi against the traps of the Dark Side,

 

That right there is my point. Yoda considers the dark side *bad* and that falling to it is something one does when they fail or are trapped. He has a vested interest in keeping people from going to that side, and he also has a personal interest as well.

 

In my opinion the problem with the Jedi and the Sith and why they keep dragging the entire galaxy into soul crushing wars that cause millions of people to die is that they are both extremists. Their side of the force is the only side that is good, and it ends up leading to broken people who when they slip they fall off a cliff rather then like normal people and can recover.

[Stinghen]

That right there is my point. Yoda considers the dark side *bad* and that falling to it is something one does when they fail or are trapped. He has a vested interest in keeping people from going to that side, and he also has a personal interest as well.

 

In my opinion the problem with the Jedi and the Sith and why they keep dragging the entire galaxy into soul crushing wars that cause millions of people to die is that they are both extremists. Their side of the force is the only side that is good, and it ends up leading to broken people who when they slip they fall off a cliff rather then like normal people and can recover.

 

Rationalising things from a moral relativistic point of view is what led many Jedi into the Dark Side. It's part of its traps. And yes, the Dark Side is the evil, worked by selfish people to do destructive things. Name one Dark Sider that wasn't committed to destruction or war to achieve his goals. You don't seem to realise that the Dark Side is corrupting, that is an established canon fact against which there is no argument. When people tend to be more lax on their morality, that's when they fall. From the first Jedi of the Legions of Lettow to the last Sith that ever will be.

 

Even a Force-using tradition not committed to a strict no-emotion paradigm (like the Imperial Knights) were watchful against the wiles of the Dark Side. They had a more pragmatic approach to the usage of the Force, but they were committed to fighting the Dark Side as well, they did not take a relativistic moral philosophy, or else they would certainly have fallen to the Dark Side.

[StarMagus]

Name one Dark Sider that wasn't committed to destruction or war to achieve his goals.

 

It's not like the Light Sided Jedi weren't OK with genocide to accomplish their goals either.

 

I mean the setting is called "Star Wars" not "Star Friendship is Magic". Both sides are willing to wage war and kill when it comes to furthering their goals.

[Stinghen]

It's not like the Light Sided Jedi weren't OK with genocide to accomplish their goals either.

 

I mean the setting is called "Star Wars" not "Star Friendship is Magic". Both sides are willing to wage war and kill when it comes to furthering their goals.

 

Delve a little deeper. There is only one instance where the Jedi carried out "genocide", and that belongs to a small note on a non-G-canon source. But of course, you're right. The Jedi slaughtered millions everytime, just like the Sith did. Yeah, they're murderous bastards, invariably killing without necessity.

 

Every war the Jedi were involved in were not started by them. Every war.

[Xilizhra]

Rationalising things from a moral relativistic point of view is what led many Jedi into the Dark Side. It's part of its traps. And yes, the Dark Side is the evil, worked by selfish people to do destructive things. Name one Dark Sider that wasn't committed to destruction or war to achieve his goals. You don't seem to realise that the Dark Side is corrupting, that is an established canon fact against which there is no argument. When people tend to be more lax on their morality, that's when they fall. From the first Jedi of the Legions of Lettow to the last Sith that ever will be.

How do you explain light-sided Sith PCs, who regularly use the dark side without suffering moral corruption? Or Kyle Katarn?