I played a Dragon Age a LOT, but it was only recently I realised something. Dragon Age was the first time I had experienced a realistic and meaningful moral predicament. Let me explain. 
 
I was playing a good character, so every quest I'd play until I was given a choice and then go "Ah! thats the good choice and thats the bad choice" and I'd pick the good choice which to me was pretty clear cut. Thats the problem morality games have had. Moral ambiguity.  
 
**Spoilers past here** During the Dwarven quest line I was presented with backing a specific candidate for king. To me, one was clearly good and one was clearly bad. I made my usual decision, backed the good guy and was done with it. Funny thing was, after I finished the game, the outcome of my actions was quite negative. The King I backed was dead and people were fighting more than before. "Heh" i thought, must be unavoidable. 
 
It was only recently I realised the full extent of the consequences. The good king was old, and traditional, annddd he was (i believe) chosen by the previous king. It just made sense. The other guy was trying to sabotage the good king. Not only that but it was commonly believed that he killed his own brothers to rise in power.
  
During the last PC Gamer Podcast I was listening to their description of the Dwarven origin stories and the caste system and I realised... I had made the WRONG choice. The other candidate was clearly bad, but it was because I didn't understand their culture, I was an outsider. Furthermore he was young, and believed in a casteless system, something that would have freed the people. So what if he was ruthless and a murderer? He was better for the people. I had made a choice, continued with the story and it was WRONG. Dragon Age continues to blow my mind.

I played a Dragon Age a LOT, but it was only recently I realised something. Dragon Age was the first time I had experienced a realistic and meaningful moral predicament. Let me explain. 
 
I was playing a good character, so every quest I'd play until I was given a choice and then go "Ah! thats the good choice and thats the bad choice" and I'd pick the good choice which to me was pretty clear cut. Thats the problem morality games have had. Moral ambiguity.  
 
**Spoilers past here** During the Dwarven quest line I was presented with backing a specific candidate for king. To me, one was clearly good and one was clearly bad. I made my usual decision, backed the good guy and was done with it. Funny thing was, after I finished the game, the outcome of my actions was quite negative. The King I backed was dead and people were fighting more than before. "Heh" i thought, must be unavoidable. 
 
It was only recently I realised the full extent of the consequences. The good king was old, and traditional, annddd he was (i believe) chosen by the previous king. It just made sense. The other guy was trying to sabotage the good king. Not only that but it was commonly believed that he killed his own brothers to rise in power.
  
During the last PC Gamer Podcast I was listening to their description of the Dwarven origin stories and the caste system and I realised... I had made the WRONG choice. The other candidate was clearly bad, but it was because I didn't understand their culture, I was an outsider. Furthermore he was young, and believed in a casteless system, something that would have freed the people. So what if he was ruthless and a murderer? He was better for the people. I had made a choice, continued with the story and it was WRONG. Dragon Age continues to blow my mind.

Dragon Age does a good job of blowing minds :D. I'm in the process of replaying it and I will make the opposite choice with the dwarf king.

I haven't played Dragon Age, and the way things are going I probably won't for quite some time, if at all, but it's nice to see a game doing something where the choice isn't clear cut good or bad. I think the best example I've seen of a game blurring the moral line is in some of the side quests in The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. The conflict between the Fighters' Guild and the Thieves' Guild immediately springs to mind.

Yeah I also liked it a lot because the outcome didnt make me want to reload my game straight away and try all the different dialogue options, which I much admit is a bad habit of mine. 
 
I was shocked to find out that the lesser of two evils still ended up being a wrong choice. But also maybe that what i thought was right, was wrong because I didnt understand the dwarf culture as much as I should have?

" I played a Dragon Age a LOT, but it was only recently I realised something. Dragon Age was the first time I had experienced a realistic and meaningful moral predicament. Let me explain. 
 
I was playing a good character, so every quest I'd play until I was given a choice and then go "Ah! thats the good choice and thats the bad choice" and I'd pick the good choice which to me was pretty clear cut. Thats the problem morality games have had. Moral ambiguity.  
 
**Spoilers past here** During the Dwarven quest line I was presented with backing a specific candidate for king. To me, one was clearly good and one was clearly bad. I made my usual decision, backed the good guy and was done with it. Funny thing was, after I finished the game, the outcome of my actions was quite negative. The King I backed was dead and people were fighting more than before. "Heh" i thought, must be unavoidable.  It was only recently I realised the full extent of the consequences. The good king was old, and traditional, annddd he was (i believe) chosen by the previous king. It just made sense. The other guy was trying to sabotage the good king. Not only that but it was commonly believed that he killed his own brothers to rise in power.  During the last PC Gamer Podcast I was listening to their description of the Dwarven origin stories and the caste system and I realised... I had made the WRONG choice. The other candidate was clearly bad, but it was because I didn't understand their culture, I was an outsider. Furthermore he was young, and believed in a casteless system, something that would have freed the people. So what if he was ruthless and a murderer? He was better for the people. I had made a choice, continued with the story and it was WRONG. Dragon Age continues to blow my mind. "

Thats the thing isn't it? Noones ever really wrong, but I felt I had made the wrong decision. However I felt more like "thats the choice I have to live with now", because of how its executed, rather than , oh crap lets reload.  
 
Like sure the harshness is a bit much but a lot of the dwarf nobles accept that style of culture.

Trying to extrapolate any significant kind of moral satisfaction from Dragon Age is a futile endeavour. So much of it is painted in shades of grey. Gotta love it, though. I didn't exactly the same way you felt at the time, but reading that made me go "damn, you're right", because I made the same decision and saw how Orzammar fell apart afterwards. Oh well, hopefully I can redeem myself in the next game and save Orzammar again.
 
Game of the Year.

The kid or the mum, damn.....

 alright this game is awesome. but i need some help... i gave the juggarnaut armor to alistar, but when he sacrificed him self to the archdemon he went with the armor..fuck could i get it back? could you help me man?