Okay, what sort of moral choices would you prefer, a good & evil split or choices that are more grey? Or would you like a return of the good vs. evil thing, so that you know who the bad guys are? Sometimes in DA2 I couldn't decide on who was good and who was evil, to me they both seemed crazy. So I put it to everyone, do you like a more defined morality or a grey one? Which do you want to see in DA3?

All hail Darkside! 203.45.127.20 (talk) 02:23, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

To me it seemed that in DA2 they tried to make it defined morality so hard it came out grotesque instead. And the 3 groups of Kirkwall are: Big-Templar-Men-With-Swords Idiots Inc., Slit-Our-Wrists Society and Association of Hawke Lovers. Grey moral background is the way to go with rpg's. Classic example: a necromancer rises a small army of undead which ravages nerby areas because he was trying to revive his wife and walking corpses are just failed attempts. Yammamoto69 (talk) 05:19, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hehehe...slit-our-wrist society, man that is a good one! You have Darkside's approval. All hail Darkside! 203.45.127.20 (talk) 05:25, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the moral grey ground is better than bioware's "Champion-of-Light-and-Holiness or Scourge-Of-VomitPuke-Underworld and nothing between" old standard. It leads to less decisions made on the PC's side only for the sake of some alignment bonus and more interesting and complex NPC's. Blightpig (talk) 06:44, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

EVIL! It's fun. --188.67.167.106 (talk) 16:17, June 12, 2012 (UTC)Jak Darckner

Moral grey areas are PHENOMINAL when properly implemented, but BioWare has never failed to paint itself utterly inept at doing it properly, so there's no point wishing for it in Dragon Age III. I can't recall what game it was, but I remember playing an RPG in the vain of "The Witcher" where one couldn't be a naive hero all the time. For example, the "Bring Down the Sky" DLC for Mass Effect ends with you choosing to either sacrifice some innocents to stop a terrorist, or let him leave to save the dozen hostages. Common sense would dictate you need to assess whether or not he'd be a threat to more innocent people and act accordingly. But BioWare's handling of it? Letting him go (After he's already killed numerous unarmed civilians) results in him not only remaining peaceful but he actually comes to the aid of humanity in the third game. So, again, BioWare should just stick to the cut and dry, because they're AWFUL at the subtle in-between. RomeoReject (talk) 16:34, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with either. Black and white are less realistic, but it's nice to have that kind of choices once in a while. On the other hand, grey choices make me think a bit more than an intuitive mouse click. - 18:13, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Gray all the way. Assuming they can implement it well (I have my doubts on whether or not they can, for many of the same reasons mentioned above), it makes for a more interesting game. It makes you think more about the choices rather than just clicking the red/blue one and puts you more in the mind of your character (what would I/this character do?) rather than having you just watch your saint or demon dance about the screen. Furthermore, it makes the world and characters more realistic and relatable as most people consider themselves good and right in their choices. Few consider themselves evil maniacs. On the topic of DAII's moral system, it was really more just mages/templars choices. While the choices are occassionally grey, it often comes down to the aggressive option suffering from the same thing as the renegade one in that it's sometimes justifiable and sometimes just being an ass. Your goal with grey moral choices is to make two sides with convincing arguments so that you side with the one you think is right rather than the one with the less crazy argument as DAII did. Moses Killwind (talk) 01:44, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Aye, that's my problem though. Historically, they've shown they can't handle it well. And as much as I'd like more "no win" situations, I'd rather they didn't implement, than implement it poorly. That's just my opinion, mind you. RomeoReject (talk) 06:14, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Stick with grey, I don't want some bar telling me that the majority of my choices are "evil" when everything is up for interpretation. Mercy isn't always a good thing, nor is killing a bad thing.--R0B45 (talk) 09:49, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

If we end up getting a Paragon/Renegade bar for DA3, I'm done with this series. Being a hero sometimes involves doing things not included in the storybooks; the things that were too gruesome or harsh for young ears to hear. I'd prefer having a character who is capable of walking the fine line between "good" and "evil". Real people have to cope with that a lot, and I wouldn't want a fantasy character in such dire circumstances as they usually are, to be any different. DAO would've been only half as fun if you could not play ruthless calculus with the lives of Ferelden. Please, Bioware, I implore you to return to those roots. EzzyD (talk) 15:10, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Where did people get a bar from? Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age II had some pretty blatent "This is the good choice, this is the evil choice" set-ups, and they didn't have a scale or bar from it. No reason to suspect that trend would be bucked for the third... RomeoReject (talk) 19:32, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Grey, cause I guess I forfeit Goodie Goodie for throwing a knife into the back of whatshisnam's head and stealing things. Plus pure good/evil people are boring --Xxellenmaysongxx (talk) 19:38, June 13, 2012 (UTC)