Huh. Different players, different moralities? As before I do also suspect that class matters, since you don't (obviously) get Die, Sith, Die from the Republic if you're playing an Agent.
We may have different takes on what qualifies for different D&D moralites, too, since the Agent LS choices on Hutta do not strike me as either Lawful or Evil. (I would go with CG, myself.)
One on Dromund Kaas (in the slave revolt area) I'd qualify as LE-LN (LS) vs NE (DS) and the one in the Dark Temple is...odd (the NPC's dialogue volunteers that he turn himself in, but you don't say anything of the sort and without that "I'd rather turn myself in and be tortured than stay here" (which, again, you say nothing of the sort) I would assume you're letting the guy go free which amounts more to CG (LS) vs er... I don't know what the DS option is. (If your dialogue implied what the NPC says then yeah, that'd be more LE vs... ????)
And on Balmorra, again, all the LS choices are to try and preserve life as much as possible, which - to me - is somewhere on the Good spectrum. It's the disconnect for me between being allowed to be Good (or at least on the Gooder end of Neutral) in the Class quests while being much darker in the planet quests that boggles me. It's interesting that you see the Agent class as inherently evil. (I was expecting it to come off LN or LE when played LS but that wasn't at all how it read - to me).
And, no, I wouldn't expect anything but faction loyalty ordinarily in an MMO. But when you throw in morality, and something much more akin to RPing with the game, the whole thing gets really wonky.
Edit: It belatedly occurs to me that some definition of terms might be in order. I'm considering good to be: generally trying to do the best in one's circumstance, not hurting people if one doesn't have to (one could argue that a career in which one sometimes has to is inherently evil, of course), opting for reason over violence whenever possible, having compassion, sparing one's enemies if that's at all reasonable/possible, not being bloodthirsty or ruthless, and (to be more specific) generally trying to protect the citizenry of the Empire. I don't know that that's quite capital G Good, but it certainly doesn't seem like any flavor of evil.
It also occurs to me that I should clarify that I'm not at all puzzled as to why the Agent (or Sith Warrior, for that matter) would start out loyal to the Empire. It's that the Empire (like the Republic) behaves worse and worse which seems like it might make one question one's loyalty if one also believes one's self to be a good person. Just as one might expect a Republic character who believes themselves to be a good person would start to have serious doubts (at Belsavis, if not waaaaay before). I guess it's that - in some classes - you don't have the options to call people on things (or declare that you plan to fix the place) that you do on others. Which leaves your character in the strange position of stating extreme loyalty to a government that they should logically have some reservations about.
no subject
We may have different takes on what qualifies for different D&D moralites, too, since the Agent LS choices on Hutta do not strike me as either Lawful or Evil. (I would go with CG, myself.)
One on Dromund Kaas (in the slave revolt area) I'd qualify as LE-LN (LS) vs NE (DS) and the one in the Dark Temple is...odd (the NPC's dialogue volunteers that he turn himself in, but you don't say anything of the sort and without that "I'd rather turn myself in and be tortured than stay here" (which, again, you say nothing of the sort) I would assume you're letting the guy go free which amounts more to CG (LS) vs er... I don't know what the DS option is. (If your dialogue implied what the NPC says then yeah, that'd be more LE vs... ????)
And on Balmorra, again, all the LS choices are to try and preserve life as much as possible, which - to me - is somewhere on the Good spectrum. It's the disconnect for me between being allowed to be Good (or at least on the Gooder end of Neutral) in the Class quests while being much darker in the planet quests that boggles me. It's interesting that you see the Agent class as inherently evil. (I was expecting it to come off LN or LE when played LS but that wasn't at all how it read - to me).
And, no, I wouldn't expect anything but faction loyalty ordinarily in an MMO. But when you throw in morality, and something much more akin to RPing with the game, the whole thing gets really wonky.
Edit: It belatedly occurs to me that some definition of terms might be in order. I'm considering good to be: generally trying to do the best in one's circumstance, not hurting people if one doesn't have to (one could argue that a career in which one sometimes has to is inherently evil, of course), opting for reason over violence whenever possible, having compassion, sparing one's enemies if that's at all reasonable/possible, not being bloodthirsty or ruthless, and (to be more specific) generally trying to protect the citizenry of the Empire. I don't know that that's quite capital G Good, but it certainly doesn't seem like any flavor of evil.
It also occurs to me that I should clarify that I'm not at all puzzled as to why the Agent (or Sith Warrior, for that matter) would start out loyal to the Empire. It's that the Empire (like the Republic) behaves worse and worse which seems like it might make one question one's loyalty if one also believes one's self to be a good person. Just as one might expect a Republic character who believes themselves to be a good person would start to have serious doubts (at Belsavis, if not waaaaay before). I guess it's that - in some classes - you don't have the options to call people on things (or declare that you plan to fix the place) that you do on others. Which leaves your character in the strange position of stating extreme loyalty to a government that they should logically have some reservations about.