This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. 1358(Talk) 21:10, May 9, 2014 (UTC)
I hope it's not considered bad form to reopen a consensus track discussion, but it seems to me the consensus that was reached at Forum:CT:TOR and video game canon is deeply flawed in the sweeping characterization of all Republic player classes as pure light side and all the Empire player classes as pure dark side. It seems like this was the "easiest" decision to reach, but I don't think that means that it was the right one. I would like to readdress this if possible, with some changes.
The Jedi Knight and Jedi Consular stories should be written based on dialogue options that give the most light side points. (This is how both pages are written currently, so I don't propose any changes to the Jedi player classes.)
The Sith Warrior and Sith Inquisitor stories should be written based on dialogue options that give the most dark side points. (This is how both pages are written currently, so I don't propose any changes to the Sith player classes.)
The Trooper story should be written based on dialogue options that reflect a professional soldier and those that serve the Republic best. I realize this is open to a lot of subjection, but I would rather every single dialogue option be decided separately if needed instead of the consensus just being a sweeping light side character. Character will probably be leaning heavily light-side or pure light side anyway with this characterization.
The Smuggler story should be written based on dialogue that reflects a charming, usually good character but the motivation of credits needs to be a factor here as well (they ARE a smuggler after all, and we saw that motivation with Han Solo), so pure light side probably shouldn't cut it. I realize this one is also open to a lot of subjection. Character will probably be leaning heavily light-side or pure light side anyway with this characterization.
The Bounty Hunter story should be written based on dialogue options that complete the hunter's contract exactly as it is given to him/her. If his/her contract is to kill someone, he/she kills them. If it is to bring them alive, they do so. This one gives a good mix of DS and LS options, but the character will still be leaning heavily DS because the nature of his/her work usually involves killing. (This is actually how the article appears to be written currently, which doesn't follow the Forum:CT:TOR and video game canon consensus, but I'm okay with that. I think it's written well as is.)
The Imperial Agent story should be written based on dialogue options that serve the Empire best and leave no loose ends. This character will probably still lean heavily dark side, but I believe there are a few light side options that may make more sense.
To sum up:
Jedi classes should be pure light side.
Sith classes should be pure dark side.
Trooper and Smuggler classes should lean light side but should have other motivations that may require dark side dialogue occasionally. (These may end up being pure light side even with my proposed changes.)
Bounty Hunter and Agent classes should lean dark side but should have other motivations that may require light side dialogue occasionally.
I urge people to consider that what I am proposing is not really a drastic change to the information that the wiki already has in place on SWTOR. In the end, if this consensus were to be re-decided, only minor changes would be needed to the player class articles, if any. Mainly it would set precedent going forward that sweeping generalizations are bad except when dealing with the force-sensitive player characters.
And one last thing to provoke some thought: Would it not be possible, since the pasttwo BioWare Star Wars games have made the player character pure light side (this much is at least canonically confirmed), that ALL the player classes in SWTOR are meant to be pure light side? Probably not, so I'm not proposing that. But going that route would be just as silly as the consensus that is currently in place regarding this issue. --Gnarscien (talk) 17:35, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
Even if we stick with the current consensus...Edit
We should clarify it. For instance, there are often multiple light side choices or dark side choices in any given dialogue. We should probably clarify it to mean whichever dark side or light side option gives the most light side or dark side points (depending on Republic or Imperial, of course). That way we make clear that the player class articles are meant to be as ridiculously polarized as they possibly can be. --Gnarscien (talk) 16:39, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
We should probably also decide on if the class articles should follow the most neutral route when possible (it's very rare that the player can choose a neutral option over LS or DS, although it may be possible to write certain parts of the articles with some ambiguity as to the decision). For instance, instead of "The bounty hunter killed Yalt, sawed off his head, and took it to his wife at Nem'ro's Palace," or, "The Bounty Hunter let Yalt live and he and his wife fled the planet," we could write, "The bounty hunter found Yalt and completed his contract." I don't particularly like this idea, myself, but I know it was expressed in the original CT discussion, so I'd like to bring it up again for discussion here. --Gnarscien (talk) 16:47, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
This is not at all how you run a Consensus Track forum. This isn't a vote, this is a discussion. Please clarify what you are requesting and add voting options. CadeCalrayn 16:48, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
Please be forgiving of my ignorance since I'm new to the wiki. I'm not sure what to do to "add voting options". You're correct that this is simply a discussion so far. I think discussion of the topic is needed before any 'voting' takes place. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:02, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
We should probably move this to the Senate Hall instead, since this is a discussion rather than a vote. That would solve the problem. ~Savage 18:30, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
I'm quoting from Help:Contents here: "Consensus track — where community-wide proposals, discussions, and debates take place". So how was it posted in the wrong place? Wookieepedia's help page clearly says Consensus track forum is used for discussion and debate, not exclusively voting. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:32, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the page Forum:Consensus track describes the forum like so: "The Consensus track page is a forum for organizing vital discussions and debates, especially those concerning new policies or site-wide improvements. In contrast, the Senate Hall is a place for general-purpose talk." Again, discussion and debate about something concerning *POLICY*. Senate Hall is *NOT* the place for a discussion of this type. --Gnarscien (talk) 19:01, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
It's possible those pages are out of date and need updating. In practice, Senate Hall is for hashing out debates, and CT is for making explicit up-or-down votes on proposed changes to policy. I'd suggest letting this discussion run its course and then deciding what, if any, specific changes to policy you want to make. I know that's what you intended, but just roll with it. You're generating a lot of discussion, which is a good thing! You can later turn it into a specific, policy-aimed vote. ~Savage 15:05, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
Republic should be light and Empire dark. Any kind of mixed opinions are ridiculous. How do you expect us to write an article if the character decisions are not clearly determined/defined? If it was mixed then someone will say "that option was lightside" and someone else will say "no, it was darkside". Who will be the judge then to say who is correct? Path-x (talk) 19:25, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
I understand that that's the opinion many have, that it's basically just "too difficult" to come up with a good consensus for the player characters so we'll just slap a sweeping polarized alignment generalization on every single one. But that, to me, is not the way things should be done. Is it easy? Yes. Is it correct? I don't think so. --Gnarscien (talk) 19:43, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
At the moment no LS/DS choices are confirmed as canon therefore in that respect nothing really is correct/incorrect. At least current "polarised" consensus makes things clear and simple. I do not see why would we complicate things when we would gain no "correctness" by it what so ever. Path-x (talk) 19:57, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
"Correct" was the wrong word. Of course there's no confirmed canon out (yet, hopefully BioWare will tell us some day), but that doesn't mean we should make the character stories so comically polarized. We should base them off what the ideal trooper, bounty hunter, agent, or smuggler would do. Especially if you consider the options for a full DS bounty hunter are so ridiculously evil that it doesn't even seem plausbile. The way the BH article is currently written is against consensus (a mix of LS and DS decisions) but it's the way that makes the most sense in my opinion. I wish the other class articles were similar to it in that regard. --Gnarscien (talk) 20:17, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
I am not really an expert on bounty hunter. I have been mostly contributing to Inquisitor, Agent and Warrior articles. I have always tried to write in a neutral way by avoiding the LS/DS options when possible (i.e. when the general outcome is not affected by those options). But sometimes it is impossible. Especially Agent is really tricky with Jadus option. I just do not see how could someone decide on how to write something if the Wookieepedia guidance would be something as unclear as a "mix of LS and DS decisions". And who will be the judge to decided which option will remain in the article when a conflict among contributors would unavoidably occur. Path-x (talk) 01:10, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think what Gnarscien propose makes sense and I agree CT should be reopen. I'd gladly support his suggestion. And sorry Path-x, u're wrong - options are clearly determined/defined. I'm playing SW TOR and lightside and darkside options if they are present are visible on left side of the dialogues when u hover mouse arrow over possible answers from your character or actually numbers they're attach to these answers, otherwise it's empty circle. So, no guessing is needed if certain option is considered lightside or darkside. -- Jedi Marty (talk) 12:09, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
What on Erath are you talking about? That is not what I was saying at all. I said that by writing the article with "mix of light and dark options" as a general guidance, the storyline on the character is not clearly defined because considering both light and dark choices can make completely different storyline outcomes. Now for example, we are both writing the Agent article and you want to write the chapter 1 ending with light side choice and I want to write it with dark side choice. So now how do you think we will resolve this conflict? Who will be the judge to decide which of us will get what he wants? Mix of light and dark choices makes the entire article writing unclear, undefined and conflicting. Path-x (talk) 15:29, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
First, I'm talking about your first comment here - which is wrong. Second, like others said this is encyclopedia and u have thousands choices in SW TOR to play it however u like. However if u noticed f.e in Hero of Tython article it's assumed that player choose light side options based on CT and also there are no side quests described (it would be next to impossible to place them here). So, f.e. if Jedi choose only dark side or neutral, don't u think he would become Dark Jedi or Gray Jedi? Also u use example of Agent serving Sith Empire. Do u think he would suddenly out of blue change side and join Republic instead? That's what Gnarscien proposes are about. And yes we have some guidance in Star Wars: The Old Republic Encyclopedia book, which is canon. -- Jedi Marty (talk) 02:55, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia has no bearing here. It doesn't involve alignments at all; it simply gives vague overviews of the class and leaves it open as to their alignments. CadeCalrayn 02:57, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
Again, in my first comment (as in all following) I was referring to the lack of clarity when it comes to WRITING an article where you have to take light/dark choices into account. If you don't have a clear definition/guidance as to which should be selected in the writing process (i.e. what is being proposed here) then the whole writing process is unclear, undefined and conflicting. I was NOT saying that one is unable to see which choices are light and dark in-game. So I am not wrong, it is just you who misunderstood in the first place. Path-x (talk) 07:06, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
Cade, did u actually read TOR Encyclopedia? In it each class is shown progress thru their own story, hence spoiler warning on pg.7 of TOR Encyclopedia, so that was what I meant by "SOME GUIDANCE" So yes, Encyclopedia should be taken into account here as well. Or do u think if player would chose only dark side for f.e Jedi Knight it wouldn't have impact on his story? What's the point to have dark side, light side options then? Anyway Path-x comments, speculations and complaints are irrelevant when there is a GUIDANCE. True there are no clear dark side or light side choices in Encyclopedia, but according character alignment and acc. progress thru their story in actual game, we can write accurate articles. Like f.e for Jedi Knight see pg. 92-93. -- Jedi Marty (talk) 12:10, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the Encyclopedia—and no, it gives us no guidance at all in regards to alignment. The basic story's the same regardless of alignment for each class, and that's what's presented in the Encyclopedia's plot summaries. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is about alignment choices. CadeCalrayn 15:51, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
It's not a matter of what is the best for storytelling and entertainment purposes, but rather what is best for impersonal cataloging and collating of the histories. These multiple-path characters are very nearly IMPOSSIBLE to write-up in Wookieepedia's current style conventions, unless we have one path to choose from as "correct.". Wookieepedia isn't LFL. We don't get to decide canon, although we do sometimes make assumptions about it. And long ago, if I'm not mistaken, someone at LucasArts (Chee?) made a statement that he or we should assume full-lightside as canon in KOTOR games, until a more concrete history is established. We've been using variations of that decree as policy ever since. Deciding what is canon, on a case by case basis, is not within the scope of what Wookieepedia is all about. SinisterSamurai (talk) 16:57, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
If Chee said full lightside should be assumed, why are the Empire characters pure DS? Regardless, let's at least clarify the current consensus. The articles should be written based on the dialogue options that give the most LS or DS points in cases where there are multiple to choose from, correct? --Gnarscien (talk) 17:37, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
He said that for KOTOR1 and KOTOR2... not for SWTOR. Path-x (talk) 18:48, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: I have not played TOR, so my opinion is only based on what I've read here on Wookieepedia). I understand what Gnarscien is getting at here, but as SinisterSamurai pointed out, Wookieepedia doesn't get to decide canon, though in some cases (and based on precedence) we make common sense assumptions. As a compromise, I suggest for situations where the "pure" (light vs. dark) choice defies the sensibility of the class, or is simply a "well, it could go either way, depending on the person..." type of decision, that you either write it ambiguously or hash out a consensus on the article's talk page (i.e. decide on a case-by-case basis). - Esjs(Talk) 17:59, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
What Esjs says here is basically what I am requesting. There *are* choices that defy the sensibility of the class in my opinion. I would much rather those issues be addressed on a case-by-case basis via consensus on that article's talk page rather than a sweeping consensus for all classes. --Gnarscien (talk) 18:06, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
Even if we could reach a consensus on these options (it would be very conflicting for sure), the consensus you propose would basically be just a consensus among a few of us contributors. There are many others who read Wookieepedia and would not take part in this consensus and yet it would greatly affect them. I don't think we should force something, based purely on our opinions/preferences, on the rest of the users. At least I won't take part in that kind of thing. Path-x (talk) 19:13, November 17, 2013 (UTC)
Look, I understand the reasoning and sentiment behind this, but there are literally thousands of dialogue options in this game, and so so so so many of them aren't clear cut as being the "smuggler" or "bounty hunter" thing to do. It's not possible to parse these out one by one and it's certainly not possible to come to a site-wide consensus on each dialogue option. We went with Empire=Dark and Republic=Light because that's how the game has largely been promoted by official sources. The player can choose whichever side they want, but we as an encyclopedia have no way of telling what is most "like" that character because the whole idea is so subjective. The reason we do it the way it is done now is for simplicity. This is also why we have the disclaimer template at the top of pages and a Behind the Scenes section that clarifies that the information in the body of the article is assumed based on faction; these also serve as a way to describe the other dialogue-based outcomes. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 22:23, November 17, 2013 (UTC)