I like when video games give me moral choices to make. I like it because I hate being forced to fight for something I don't believe in. That is actually the reason I dropped Dragon Age: Origins, an otherwise decent game.

Yes, in general, moral choices in video games are a good idea. The way they're generally implemented, however, I really hate, because they tend to give you a false dichotomy. Whenever you are given a moral choice in a console RPG, you will have exactly two options: one extreme lawful good and the other extreme chaotic evil, or worse, based on an absurd strawman version of chaotic evil that is just pointlessly cruel and that not even a real badguy would do. That is not what I call a moral choice. When I play a game that gives me a choice I want more options than just being some kind of idealized 100% selfless all-loving hero or being this 100% heartless all-hating omnicidal maniac that just likes to kill and steal and do everything else we find abhorrent, even when there's nothing in it for him. Where are neutral, chaotic good and lawful evil choices?

One game I'd like to praise for finally breaking this convention is Fable II, which, for all its flaws in other areas, gave you a record three choices for the ending. You can either resurrect all the innocents that were killed by the villain you've just defeated except those that were close to you, you can not bring anybody back to life but instead give yourself an enormous amount of money, OR you can resurrect only the people that were close to you - Sacrifice, Greed, and Love, the game labeled them. I actually picked this intermediate choice, because I was tired of always being the flawless paragon of virtue in every game I played but didn't want to be completely evil either.