>Thief series, and (ironically) dishonored. They're made by the same devs. So if you can stomach the usual poz, you can notice that no faction are "truly" the bad guys. If you stand and listen, the hyperreligious zealots are much more reasonable. Kind of a remniscence of the hammerites from a better game.
>The witcher series, especially witcher 2, in which you have to pick a side between human hitler and elf pol pot.
>KOTOR II is a sequel to a bioware title, the company whose choices are, like you said "be a liberal hillary voter" or "edgy mcgee the town child rapist". But the sequel elevates the series and probably the whole franchise. A certain NPC shows how both the light and dark side are two sides of the same coin, and offers you a third way in what is probably the most interesting (official) way to look at the star wars universe.
>Gothic, there are 3 factions, and all are different shades of asshole. They're interesting once you realize they're 3 different ways to deal with imprisonment: Trying to make the best with what you've got, escapism, and blowing the place up.
>Stalker and Pathologic, and I guess most slav games, have all factions either lie to you, or in games like Patho, outright manipulate and deceive you.
There's many more, this is just off the top of my head. Just search for a game with factions next time.
I hate "grey morality" in games. Most of the time, there's nothing grey about it, and it's just a matter of contrasting the objective moral truth, to temporal self gratification.
Since I can't do anything "right", there's also a feeling of disinvestment. Every choice I make is "different shades of grey".
Had this problem in the witcher 3
A typical quest would go like
>you let this thief go!
>but he was stealing food for his starving mother!
>but his starving mother is actually a werewolf that kills virgins every full moon!
>but if she doesn't sacrifice virgins, a plague will curse the entire city!
>but that plague might be good because it prevents overpopulation, and saves more lives in the long run!
>but one of those saved will grow up to be a pedophile!
>but if he rapes baby ghenghis khan, the baby will be too traumatized to conquer the world!
>etc.
Of course everything we do, or has been done to us, has causes and consequences that might be good or bad. That we know nothing of.
Morality is A) us acting in a way that we believe is correct, not one that might elicit results we demand. I give to charity because I want to do good for its own sake, not because I really think it can solve world hunger.
Of course there's also B) an argument to be made for the opposite: The end justifying the means. A morality that isn't concerned with correct conduct, as much as changing the world itself to be correct.
Unfortunately, "grey morality" type games (and witcher in particular), prevent the second option: I know for a fact that everyone in this quest is going to be a cunt, and all my well-meaning "end justify the means" choices are going to backfire.
So all I'm left with as a choice is "follow a moral code" or "let this crime go because the criminal has feelings too". Basically be a moralfag, or a softy.
Games with clearly defined moral codes are much more interesting to follow. Because the author gets to play with testing the limit of a character's morality and put his moral uprightness to the test in more advanced ways than "kill the baby or cut off your dick". Although it's so cheap that even games with a non-grey moral system use it too.