Noble or commoner human

You have a point but DA2 came out 10 years ago and even in that comparatively short time attitudes have changed about what is perceived as acceptable in products for entertainment. Also, many of the people involved with those early entries in the universe, including the lead writer, have now left so the way things are depicted is going to be entirely at the discretion of those on the current writing team.

What is noticeable from Tevinter Nights is that there is now an anti-slavery faction in Tevinter when there has never been any suggestion of this in the past. (Why would Dorian have considered slavery in the way he did and never thought to question it if there was an anti-slavery faction promoting the southern viewpoint in Tevinter?)  Yet apparently some members of the Venatori only joined that organisation because they thought it was anti-slavery. I know Calpernia had a personal ideal of this sort and did free a number of slaves to be on her team but I find it hard to imagine Venatori like Erimond buying into her aims or anyone who was trying to restore the glory of Ancient Tevinter. This seems borne out by the fact that with Calpernia out of the way, the leaders of the Venatori have now no qualms about abusing the slaves in their ownership and those few who allegedly did think slave freedom was part of the agenda, have now left the organisation. So it does appear the writers are now framing the situation as the bad guys favour slavery and the good guys don't, bearing in mind Dorian has now freed all his slaves, having been persuaded of the error of the attitude he expressed to the Inquisitor. At the very least I think they are going to play down the fact that certain people, like Maevaris, still think Dorian's action was rather quaint.

So I think it is highly unlikely that will be creating a human noble protagonist who starts the game as a keeper of slaves, unless they use that to introduce the idea of them experiencing a dramatic fall from grace at the very beginning, so they are stripped of their citizenship and end up in the slave market. That would fulfill the requirement for them to start the game with no power and be able to show the power structure within Tevinter at the same time. In fact, if they were going to allow different races, they could all start off within the same introductory story but as different roles within the household. For example, they could be a Tal'Vashoth bodyguard, an elven slave or a dwarven overseer. All would end up in the slave market along with their master. Then either the city is attacked by the Qunari with the PC escaping in the ensuing chaos, or (if we start off in Minrathous) the PC is "purchased" by an interested party, who promises to liberate them but for a price.

That wasn't a problem with the city elf and casteless dwarf origins in DAO, BioWare is never going to have a protagonist who can't read, and they're not going to go out of their way to explain the protag having literacy skills either, players will just have to accept it.

Was this in the comics? I don't remember her having that attitude regarding slave freeing, one way or the other.

It doesn't necessarily follow that the commoners are illiterate. Many professions require a degree of literacy. Illiteracy is more likely to be common among rural villagers but it is possible that there is at least a basic education if it helps them serve the state better. Alexius was arguing for better schooling and places of higher learning for the Soporati, which does suggest that citizens can access some form of schooling if he wanted it to be better and there is no point in universities for Soporati if they are not getting a grounding in education at the lower levels. Even slaves may be taught to read and write if it means they can be more useful to their master. The elf interviewed at the end of the Long Walk says as much in -140 Ancient: "I used to have a master, a mage. He.....even taught me how to read so I could do his accounts." If he was doing his master's accounts then it would seem he was numerate as well.   What was true then is likely still the case today.   

I voted for commoner, but would be ok with a slave too. Anything but a boring human noble origin again. There was a human commoner orign mod for DAO and it really did a great job and showed, that you don't always have to be of high birth to change the world.

ANd what panda was talking about: It would be nice, to finally have some consequences for doing something evil. I agree, that you can get away with too much in the games.

I would as well, but there would ideally be some kind of balance to it.

As an example, in Pillars of Eternity, you have an option to sacrifice an abandoned child to some kind of hellspawn machine in exchange for a boost to one of your stats.  (It has been years since I played, so those details are probably not completely accurate, but you can definitely kill/cause the death of a helpless person in exchange for a stat boost)

There are zero consequences for doing it and the most pushback you receive is a couple of your companions reacting with their version of "uh, well...that's definitely a choice".  So that is the 'smart' decision gameplay wise, right.  But it is objectively bad.  Companions should've left you, or tried to kill you, not gone "....dude, please".

But I think that, for the most part, the fantasy in fantasy gaming should be limited to the physical laws of nature of the setting and not the moral centre of the entire population of the world.

Meanwhile, the "master branch" in GitHub (code repository) was renamed to "main branch".

Our team lead went "wtf" and manually changed everything back to "master branch".

The most obvious one is the decision over Connor, particularly if you have not yet been to the Circle Tower. Now the demon controlling him has been nightly releasing undead on the village until you show up. If you leave without dealing with the problem the village is destroyed (except Teagan), so that is a bad consequence for a bad decision. However, you can go up, discover what has happened to Connor and have 3 choices: sacrifice his mother in the hope that the novice mage who has already stuffed up big time in Connor's training, plus poisoned Eamon, can somehow deal with the demon in the Fade; kill Connor, so problem fixed; (both considered bad choices but killing Connor is the common sense option) or head off to the Circle Tower to get their help in the hope that having Teagan to play with will somehow keep the demon from doing anything bad until your return (the good choice but incredibly stupid because demons are so accommodating like that and chances are it will return to its former mode of enjoyment). If you opt for the latter, you arrive at the Circle Tower to find it is overrun by demons, so it takes you even longer before you can return to Redcliffe to deal with Connor's demon, yet surprise, surprise, the demon has done nothing untoward in the time you have been gone. Whilst no timescale is ever given, I think we can reasonably assume it was longer than 24 hours. The consequences of the bad but common sense choice aren't that serious; Alistair throws a hissy fit and you lose points on the approval scale and may be some disapproval from other companions, but that is about it. However, the consequences for taking the good but stupid choice are zero (or may be some disapproval from certain companions if they are actually with you at the time).

Another one: the decision about the Grey Wardens in DAI. With that, the common sense choice is to banish them (temporarily) for their own safety as much as anything else. Just because we have cut off the support of the Nightmare Demon, doesn't actually mean Corypheus can no longer control Grey Wardens, he just does it over a shorter range. The wording to the choice actually confirms as much. So the stupid but good choice is to bring them into the Inquisition. Taking this choice means you get a whole string of War Table missions connected with them and a good outcome for the Grey Wardens in the epilogue but they never betray you. By contrast, if we take the common sense option, we get no extra War Table missions and the outcome for the Grey Wardens in the epilogue has them being shunned throughout Thedas, even though I specifically told Leliana not to bad mouth them to others and the banishment was only intended to apply to Orlais whilst Corypheus was still a threat. We meet the same Grey Wardens in the Arbor Wilds whichever choice we make so it has no bearing in that.

The outcome for the Grey Wardens choice particularly irritated me because they flagged up apparent negative consequences of keeping them with the Inquisition and then didn't follow through with it. This is why I wonder if your choice to maintain or disband the Inquisition is going to have any impact whatsoever next game but what is the betting that, if it does, there will be greater benefits for keeping it going, even though it could still be riddled with Solas' agents, rather than disbanding it even though that means you should be able to rely on the people you have left. Unless the negative consequence of keeping the Inquisition has already played out in Tevinter Nights; after all how did Solas know about Charter's supposedly secret meeting?

I agree, it would be fun to get the whole "Anakin Skywalker and the younglings" experience, but unfortunately video games can't really let you kill children because it would affect sales negatively and that's what ultimately matters the most to companies like this. 

That's true and there's also Amelia. They both turn into desire demons if you choose to fight them though (and I don't remember if Connor's death happens off-screen or on-screen). 

Fun isn't really my primary concern, so much as being intellectually honest about what certain choices entail. BioWare could still have forced players who opt to annul circles or slaughter elf clans to kill unarmed people who pose no threat to the PC and only cower and beg for their lives. I think the main reason they gloss over what those choices actually mean is because a significant portion of their audience wants to be able to make those choices without being made to feel "bad" or "wrong" for doing it.

I think this is also the real reason they make narrative choices like, for example, Orsino turning on the player and becoming a harvester and giving him an extremely vague, tenuous connection to Quentin the mommy-killer. Because otherwise, it's impossible to justify annuling the mages with even a pretence of rationality, and the people who make that choice would whine about BioWare's "sjw bias" even more than they already do. I've always suspected it was less about "needing another boss fight" and more about "we need to throw mage-haters a bone because their position barely makes any sense as it is".

A commoner so I can kill evil super rich slave owning bastards.