As a young lad I got pooped on by a bird, kicked some chickens, found a magic music box, and watched my sister die and got shot out of a window. After being nursed to health by a creepy old woman and growing up, I embarked on a journey of revenge with my faithful dog that I had saved as a child. I quested to the ends of the earth and back, bringing good and peace to all (except for the occasional 'accidents' involving the really annoying citizens). Eventually meeting other heroes like myself, we banded together and prevented Armaggedon (see below).

After saving the world, I had a decision to make. To be a saint, a layman, or a devil. I opted for the layman.It was an understandable decision, but the people still felt wronged. Some even jeered me in the streets. Luckily I won them over by donating a few thousand dollars to a hungry beggar.

After playing through Fable 2 completely, I had an epiphany about what is known as 'the morality system.' Allowing players to make 'moral' decisions that they can undo easily, is not a moral system. In fact, allowing players to make decisions that have no shades of gray, only clear good, evil, and neutral options isn't calling into question morality. I have heard many people say that they decide the kind of character they want to play at the outset, allowing that decision to shape their in-game decisions. If a game really wants to give players a real morality system, it should implement a series of choices that have a very ambiguous effect, maybe even forgoing rewards for good deeds (since when do actual good deeds net you the same amount of real world benefits as bad ones?). I'll edit this post later, since I feel like it's somewhat garbled and incomplete. Just some thoughts that were kicking around in the ol' noggin.