Neutrality

[paul10000]

Roleplaying games are about roleplaying, and KOTOR 2 (as with KOTOR 1) did a great job of letting you play as either a flaky do-gooder who does silly things like pay peoples' debts for them, or as an essentially psychotic murderer. Now that's fine, but the presence of attribute bonuses for only those characters who have become masters of either the light side or dark side creates a game where instead of being immersed in the plots and conversations, you instead search the dialogue threads for those options which correspond to your chosen alignment. Any deviation can very easily result in the loss of your attribute bonuses.

 

I don't mind roleplaying extreme characters, but it would be great if the bonus system wasn't stacked in favour of only two alignments. How about a bonus (and plot options) for remaining neutral the way Kreia does. Or better yet, how about a continuous scale of bonuses present for all possible 'alignments' on the scale between light side master and dark side master. Maybe at DS master you have all physical bonuses, at LS master it's all mental bonuses, and in between depending on where your character is you'd have some sort of mix of the two.

 

It's an idea maybe for KOTOR 3, and I think it would let players play the game in a more immersive and intuitive way.

[Halo343GS]

rephrase plz?

[Helton]

Excellent point. The plot of TSL seemed to imply that both Jedi and Sith are wrong, and that the middle ground is the correct path... So where's the bloody middle ground? Not only don't you get the attribute bonuses (I can live without those), but you never get your prestige class if you stay neutral.

 

I would prefer to be a neutral Jedi personally.

[Eji]

Excellent point. The plot of TSL seemed to imply that both Jedi and Sith are wrong, and that the middle ground is the correct path... So where's the bloody middle ground? Not only don't you get the attribute bonuses (I can live without those), but you never get your prestige class if you stay neutral.

 

I would prefer to be a neutral Jedi personally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What would be VERY interesting is if the main jedi in K3 was a grey one. We've already gone through two light-then-dark-then-possibly-light-again jedis, and we were introduced to a lot of grey areas concerning jedi/sith mentalities, so that would be a perfect next step.

[Halo343GS]

oh i see what you mean now. yeah. that would be awesome havign a middle ground. maybe wrecking destruction to the light side people and the dark side people

[Darth Frog]

... instead of being immersed in the plots and conversations, you instead search the dialogue threads for those options which correspond to your chosen alignment. Any deviation can very easily result in the loss of your attribute bonuses.

 

Whether you want to role-play or power-game is your own choice, really. The game simply is there; it lets you do both but does not force you to do either.

 

I don't mind roleplaying extreme characters, but it would be great if the bonus system wasn't stacked in favour of only two alignments.

 

D&D has two dimensions - lawful/chaotic and good/evil - while KotOR maps everything onto the dark/light dimension. However, you can still play chaotic good, lawful evil or true neutral if you so desire. The first two will simply delay alignment mastery a bit and as regards neutrality - do you really expect a bonus for nothing at all? If you simply evade questions and avoid taking a stand then the game should put you about halfway to to dark side, and even further if you try to play both ends against the middle (a la Goto). You are either for Vaklu or for Queen Talia, either for the Ithorians or for Czerka. There cannot be any middle ground since the Exile isn't just some anonymous vegetable merchant, she is, well, a player. Avoiding commitment isn't truly neutral, it favours whatever side is currently stronger.

 

I think if the current system has shortcomings then it is these:

(1) every light side penalty is automatically a dark side bonus and vice versa

(2) you can achieve mastery even if you are not really committed (it just takes longer), and you can thenceforth retain master status by doing nothing at all

 

This could be fixed by adding something like a 'neutrality penalty' that pulls you back to the middle, and this could even exist in polarized forms that act as penalties for one alignment and are neutral to the other. Certain actions could be 'pegged' on the light/dark scale, e.g. stealing might be worth 20% dark and pull you towards that mark if you are lighter but it would do nothing if your are darker already. Things like having Big Z kill Mission would be worth a full 100%.

 

Of course, this would make things mighty complicated for the game designers.

[Reveilled]

... instead of being immersed in the plots and conversations, you instead search the dialogue threads for those options which correspond to your chosen alignment. Any deviation can very easily result in the loss of your attribute bonuses.

 

Whether you want to role-play or power-game is your own choice, really. The game simply is there; it lets you do both but does not force you to do either.

 

I don't mind roleplaying extreme characters, but it would be great if the bonus system wasn't stacked in favour of only two alignments.

 

D&D has two dimensions - lawful/chaotic and good/evil - while KotOR maps everything onto the dark/light dimension. However, you can still play chaotic good, lawful evil or true neutral if you so desire. The first two will simply delay alignment mastery a bit and as regards neutrality - do you really expect a bonus for nothing at all? If you simply evade questions and avoid taking a stand then the game should put you about halfway to to dark side, and even further if you try to play both ends against the middle (a la Goto). You are either for Vaklu or for Queen Talia, either for the Ithorians or for Czerka. There cannot be any middle ground since the Exile isn't just some anonymous vegetable merchant, she is, well, a player. Avoiding commitment isn't truly neutral, it favours whatever side is currently stronger.

 

I think if the current system has shortcomings then it is these:

(1) every light side penalty is automatically a dark side bonus and vice versa

(2) you can achieve mastery even if you are not really committed (it just takes longer), and you can thenceforth retain master status by doing nothing at all

 

This could be fixed by adding something like a 'neutrality penalty' that pulls you back to the middle, and this could even exist in polarized forms that act as penalties for one alignment and are neutral to the other. Certain actions could be 'pegged' on the light/dark scale, e.g. stealing might be worth 20% dark and pull you towards that mark if you are lighter but it would do nothing if your are darker already. Things like having Big Z kill Mission would be worth a full 100%.

 

Of course, this would make things mighty complicated for the game designers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But the whole for/against mentality is part of the problem. Why is there no third option? Why can't the Exile act against Queen Talia, revel Vaklu's plan to ally with the Sith (and thus place Onderon under a new system no better than the Republic's), and let the people of Onderon decide for themselves what they want to do? Kreia claims the the Light Side is all about stopping people from becoming stronger by protecting them from hardship and making their choices for them. If therefore the Dark Side is about becoming stronger by taking those choices away from them (i.e. killing them, robbing them or enslaving them), coulld one not take the view that a position of neutrality would be to elevate people to the point that they can make their own choices? To put it more simply, if the Light Side is about Helping others, and the Dark Side about helping yourself, Neutrality is helping others to help themselves. Similar to Onderon, take the refugee sector on Nar Shaddaa. Light side is to help the refugees by killing off the Exchange and the Serreco. Dark side is to be cruel and mean and assist the exchange in maintaining their hold on them. Neutrality could be to provide the refugees with the means by which to rise up themselves, say by arming and inspiring them.

 

In D&D terms, it need not even be True Neutrality. A Lawful Neutral PC wouldn't do nothing. On Telos, he could help the Ithorians by protecting the dorid, then report them to the TSF when they ask him to steal and reprogram the Czerka droid.

 

Neutrality isn't about doing nothing, it's about doing something else. Even the middle ground contains actions.

[Tanuvein]

... instead of being immersed in the plots and conversations, you instead search the dialogue threads for those options which correspond to your chosen alignment. Any deviation can very easily result in the loss of your attribute bonuses.

 

Whether you want to role-play or power-game is your own choice, really. The game simply is there; it lets you do both but does not force you to do either.

 

I don't mind roleplaying extreme characters, but it would be great if the bonus system wasn't stacked in favour of only two alignments.

 

D&D has two dimensions - lawful/chaotic and good/evil - while KotOR maps everything onto the dark/light dimension. However, you can still play chaotic good, lawful evil or true neutral if you so desire. The first two will simply delay alignment mastery a bit and as regards neutrality - do you really expect a bonus for nothing at all? If you simply evade questions and avoid taking a stand then the game should put you about halfway to to dark side, and even further if you try to play both ends against the middle (a la Goto). You are either for Vaklu or for Queen Talia, either for the Ithorians or for Czerka. There cannot be any middle ground since the Exile isn't just some anonymous vegetable merchant, she is, well, a player. Avoiding commitment isn't truly neutral, it favours whatever side is currently stronger.

 

I think if the current system has shortcomings then it is these:

(1) every light side penalty is automatically a dark side bonus and vice versa

(2) you can achieve mastery even if you are not really committed (it just takes longer), and you can thenceforth retain master status by doing nothing at all

 

This could be fixed by adding something like a 'neutrality penalty' that pulls you back to the middle, and this could even exist in polarized forms that act as penalties for one alignment and are neutral to the other. Certain actions could be 'pegged' on the light/dark scale, e.g. stealing might be worth 20% dark and pull you towards that mark if you are lighter but it would do nothing if your are darker already. Things like having Big Z kill Mission would be worth a full 100%.

 

Of course, this would make things mighty complicated for the game designers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But the whole for/against mentality is part of the problem. Why is there no third option? Why can't the Exile act against Queen Talia, revel Vaklu's plan to ally with the Sith (and thus place Onderon under a new system no better than the Republic's), and let the people of Onderon decide for themselves what they want to do? Kreia claims the the Light Side is all about stopping people from becoming stronger by protecting them from hardship and making their choices for them. If therefore the Dark Side is about becoming stronger by taking those choices away from them (i.e. killing them, robbing them or enslaving them), coulld one not take the view that a position of neutrality would be to elevate people to the point that they can make their own choices? To put it more simply, if the Light Side is about Helping others, and the Dark Side about helping yourself, Neutrality is helping others to help themselves. Similar to Onderon, take the refugee sector on Nar Shaddaa. Light side is to help the refugees by killing off the Exchange and the Serreco. Dark side is to be cruel and mean and assist the exchange in maintaining their hold on them. Neutrality could be to provide the refugees with the means by which to rise up themselves, say by arming and inspiring them.

 

In D&D terms, it need not even be True Neutrality. A Lawful Neutral PC wouldn't do nothing. On Telos, he could help the Ithorians by protecting the dorid, then report them to the TSF when they ask him to steal and reprogram the Czerka droid.

 

Neutrality isn't about doing nothing, it's about doing something else. Even the middle ground contains actions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Excellent post!

[Barzarel]

Excellent point. The plot of TSL seemed to imply that both Jedi and Sith are wrong, and that the middle ground is the correct path... So where's the bloody middle ground? Not only don't you get the attribute bonuses (I can live without those), but you never get your prestige class if you stay neutral.

 

I would prefer to be a neutral Jedi personally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont necessarily agree on that thou i think neutral should have bonuses like the others i think the point by what Kreia meant is you have to understand your actions and you have to respect balance in all things despite what it is you seek.

Another thing good work on Kreia i was surprised how well developed her character was.

 

But in short my point is despite who you are or what where your headed you need to understand the consquences of your actions, it where other of the Sith i Kotor and Kotor2 failed, they only understood destruction and dident respect in order or stability.

 

Think Emperor Palpatine is best example of a sith understanding power and how to handle it without being so destructive that he risk destroying every life in the galaxy, he like Revan wasent a slave to the force unlike Nihilus, malak or Sion.

[Rambutaan]

... instead of being immersed in the plots and conversations, you instead search the dialogue threads for those options which correspond to your chosen alignment. Any deviation can very easily result in the loss of your attribute bonuses.

 

Whether you want to role-play or power-game is your own choice, really. The game simply is there; it lets you do both but does not force you to do either.

 

I don't mind roleplaying extreme characters, but it would be great if the bonus system wasn't stacked in favour of only two alignments.

 

D&D has two dimensions - lawful/chaotic and good/evil - while KotOR maps everything onto the dark/light dimension. However, you can still play chaotic good, lawful evil or true neutral if you so desire. The first two will simply delay alignment mastery a bit and as regards neutrality - do you really expect a bonus for nothing at all? If you simply evade questions and avoid taking a stand then the game should put you about halfway to to dark side, and even further if you try to play both ends against the middle (a la Goto). You are either for Vaklu or for Queen Talia, either for the Ithorians or for Czerka. There cannot be any middle ground since the Exile isn't just some anonymous vegetable merchant, she is, well, a player. Avoiding commitment isn't truly neutral, it favours whatever side is currently stronger.

 

I think if the current system has shortcomings then it is these:

(1) every light side penalty is automatically a dark side bonus and vice versa

(2) you can achieve mastery even if you are not really committed (it just takes longer), and you can thenceforth retain master status by doing nothing at all

 

This could be fixed by adding something like a 'neutrality penalty' that pulls you back to the middle, and this could even exist in polarized forms that act as penalties for one alignment and are neutral to the other. Certain actions could be 'pegged' on the light/dark scale, e.g. stealing might be worth 20% dark and pull you towards that mark if you are lighter but it would do nothing if your are darker already. Things like having Big Z kill Mission would be worth a full 100%.

 

Of course, this would make things mighty complicated for the game designers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Speaking about point (1) I found it really annoying when I gave some money to bet on a race on Nar Shaddaa and the Twilek running the races said he had problems with his account. When you used Force Persuade to get your money back it gave you dark points <_< . I mean come on! It's rightfully your money!

[Shizuka2]

Speaking about point (1) I found it really annoying when I gave some money to bet on a race on Nar Shaddaa and the Twilek running the races said he had problems with his account. When you used Force Persuade to get your money back it gave you dark points  <_< . I mean come on! It's rightfully your money! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You, ah, hadn't given him your money yet, so he wasn't giving it back, y'see. That's worth dark side points alright.

[Barzarel]

Annoying how easy LS points are to attain compared to DS, obviously it should be easier to kill on killing spree like a psycho being evil, than it should be to do charity in my opion, if you look at religous views it should be easier to inflict damage on your soul by killing just for fun, than it should to gain warmth for just throwing around charity, for it to truely influence you it would have to be meaningful charity which is alot harder to find than just doing random acts of violence.

 

Looking at it what would give you higher satisfaction giving money to a poor person starving to death or give a friend or a random person a couple of credits for a Beer or something?

 

"systems Failing master!!!"

[Malagance]

One of the main issues I have about this isn't the lack of a "Gray Side Mastery", because in all honesty the stat boosts aren't extraordinarily substantial. Especially in KOTOR2 where your power level is through the roof no matter how you screw with your stats. No, the issue, for me at least, is that you can't qualify for a prestige class unless you're 75% committed to light or dark...

 

Alas.

[Tanuvein]

Annoying how easy LS points are to attain compared to DS, obviously it should be easier to kill on killing spree like a psycho being evil, than it should be to do charity in my opion, if you look at religous views it should be easier to inflict damage on your soul by killing just for fun, than it should to gain warmth for just throwing around charity, for it to truely influence you it would have to be meaningful charity which is alot harder to find than just doing random acts of violence.

 

Looking at it what would give you higher satisfaction giving money to a poor person starving to death or give a friend or a random person a couple of credits for a Beer or something?

 

"systems Failing master!!!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, if you went on a killing spree, you'd have your ship locked down and a planetary army trying to kill you.

 

Sure, based on the difficulty of both KotOR I and KotOR II, you could defeat said army, but do you really want to spend 60 hours in one big battle?

[ravlib]

It does kinda throw me too. Bump off a someone in real life, and you'll spend the rest of your life trying to atone (or sizzling). But the exile can kill some innocents, enslave a few twileks, and sort it all out by giving some cash to a hobo.

 

I guess from a gameplay perspective, though, you can't take the view that one murder can only be expunged by a lifetime of good acts.

[Osiris]

I agree there needs to be more options for a neutral character, but I suppose it makes sense you don't get a prestige class and bonuses. They represent extreme devotion to a cuase. If you are neutral, you do not have strong devotion to a cause.

[Reveilled]

I agree there needs to be more options for a neutral character, but I suppose it makes sense you don't get a prestige class and bonuses. They represent extreme devotion to a cuase. If you are neutral, you do not have strong devotion to a cause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dunno, there could be some sort of special Neutral Prestige Classes for characters who maintained their neutrality. A devotion to balance, if you will. The neutral equivalent of a Master/Lord, for example, would instead drag the other party members more strongly towards neutrality or away from it depending on the influence. Bonuses...I'm not so sure about.

[jedipodo]

Lucas Arts will never produce a Star Wars game about force users *AND* the option of neutral career stages, because of the simple reason that such a game wouldn't be SW compliant anymore.

It sounds weird, but it's a fact.

[Azure79]

How about

 

Force Warrior - Equivalent to Marauder/Weaponmaster

 

Force Protector - Equivalent to Assassin/Watchman

 

Force Commander(hehe) - Equivalent to Master/Lord

 

Just fooling around.l

[Drakron]

There is no neutrality in Star Wars, this is not D&D.

 

Then again there is really no "Light Side", there is the Force *and* the Dark Side of the Force.

 

That is why you never see any "neutral" force class because there is no such thing in Star Wars.

 

The Jedi classes exist for members of the Jedi Order, the Sith classes exist for the members of the Sith (force users or not) and then we have classes for Dark Side characters (Dark Side Marauder that the "Sith Marauder" was based on for example) and some classes for Force users.

[Osiris]

Kreia is neutral

 

And Jolee was pretty neutral about most things as well.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If you could only use powers that complimented your alignment then there would be a point to being neutral. Since that would be the only place you could draw from both sides of the force.

[Bored Wizard]

Kreia seemed more of an dark neutral, what with being the final sith lord at the end of the game, causing Atris to turn, endangering Telos ect,ect

 

and Jolee seemed more of a light neutral, trying to help people, fighting aganist a DS Revan.

[Helton]

If you are neutral, you do not have strong devotion to a cause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's a rather shallow thing to say...

[jedipodo]

In effect, the alignment system of Kotor2 as it is can't handle neutral characters.

 

For example, a PC playing the "Jolee style" would be stuck in passivity.

 

On the other hand, imagine how many cruel acts you can do, then outweigh this by some very good deeds and just keep being *neutral*?

 

So neutrality is not a real option in Kotor1/2.