BioWare should just get rid of "grey morality" in Dragon Age 4 or at least tone it down.

Personally i don't think it's possible to equate the templars to slavery. No doubt there are a great many Templars like Cullen who really wanted to help.

I don't see much middle ground for slavery. You either think it's alright to treat people like chattel or you don't, and i would feel very uncomfortable listening to my PC trying to come up with ways for it to be right but not right. By all means be a cretin and think it's okay, but don't come up with a way someone who is against it justifies it.

That being said, if my PC were to suggest that it wouldn't be possible to get rid of slavery without a full overhaul of the tevinter societal structure, and thus although it's not alright it's also not really possible to free them overnight? That'd be okay.

This is me bringing in my own real world beliefs, of course. No matter how well they treat them, anyone with slaves is morally reprehensible.

Dorian has a conversation about it, mentioning how slaves in Tevinter could be better off than some of the free people in the South such as the City Elves. But we know he later stops practicing slavery after his time with the Inquisition.

Problem is, Dragon Age handles grey morality terribly too.

Don't insert modern day politics into a fantasy world. Ok thx bye. I'm fed up with politics IRL.
Make compelling heroes and villains with shades of grey morality, Bioware actually struggles with black & white morality, that's what you see in their games.

I think you're   a word there.

The fact that the most interesting antagonists in DA are morally grey characters (Loghain, the Arishok, and now, Solas) kind of goes against your point. Not that fully evil antagonists can't be interesting antagonists (Howe is definitely an interesting antagonist, for example), but when they made one of such characters the main antagonist, Corypheus, it didn't go too well (although it's not just because he's not as interesting as the others mentioned, but also because of how the plot and events after the attack on Haven made him look weak. They made the opposite mistake of what they did in ME3 with Kai Leng).

Besides, the settings itself, in regards of most, if not every, organizations and countries, is about morally grey situations. There's not a single country or organization that you'd consider fully 'good', or 'evil', although some leans a lot more on the opposite end of the spectrum.

As ClarkKent said, it's a dark fantasy setting. Having morally grey characters and organizations and countries fits better with it then having the majority being either good or bad. And the setting is definitely remaining a dark fantasy one.

If slavery isn't "morally grey", then Loghain isn't "morally grey", because he participated in slavery.

Every single time this discussion pops up, it's clear that "morally grey" doesn't actually MEAN anything. People apply it inconsistently and hypocritically. When you say something is "morally grey", all you're really saying is that you personally liked it. It belongs with "dark" and "mature" in the box of "Meaningless Descriptors for Game Snobs".

Frankly, I have never found the series to be "morally grey". I never struggle to find the path of action I consider to be morally correct, and I never regret the decisions I made.

I do agree, however, that BioWare should stay RIGHT THE FUCK AWAY from doing or saying anything that might imply that slavery is Good Actually(tm). They do not actually have the writing skill to successfully pull off stories about complex political and societal issues, and they are writing for a modern audience that mostly agrees that slavery is bad, and they shouldn't want any members of their audience to start thinking that slavery is good. That would be extremely stupid.

---

---

Um... I think BioWare, and anyone else who attempted it, for that matter, would have an extremely hard time arguing that slavery is not an "absolute evil".

It doesn't really matter if someone treats their slaves "well" (however we define that). Modern society, by an overwhelming majority, believes that it is wrong to enslave people in the first place, regardless of how they are treated.  Freedom is considered a basic entitlement. And frankly, as crimes go, I dare say that slavery is one of the few crimes that it is impossible to justify or sympathise with under any circumstance. A thief can be sympathetic, if they stole essential food or medicine that they needed to survive. A murderer can be sympathetic, if the person they killed was themselves an awful person. I've even seen stories that successfully make kidnappers sympathetic, but the kidnapping never lasts for an extended period. I've yet to see any piece of media where a character "needed" to have slaves.

Slavery is not sympathetic, and even if the character is not an "abusive" owner (I would argue that restricting a person's freedom is inherently abusive), there's absolutely no justification for why anyone should have slaves. I highly doubt that BioWare will ever be able to create any sort of extenuating circumstance, however fanciful, where it could be argued that enslaving other people is a genuine necessity. They already gave it their best shot in DA:O.