Many times when I play a game with some kind of "morality code" or "morale consequences" for actions, I often wonder if I agree with thwe3 developers' interpretations. Some morale codes are easy to see, like outright murder and butchery, but others are more personally defined, like all killing is evil vs self defense is OK.
The old D&D games were where I first questioned this aspect of games. D&D has a "possibly rigid" (open to interpretation) alignment system. Picking any lock anywhere results in a chaotic behavior. I disagree. There is a difference between picking the lock on an owned chest and a lock on an unowned chest or chest where the owner is dead, like deep in a dungeon or crypt. Others will certainly disagree with my interpretations
I'm not a pacifist, so killing in defense is not "an evil act" in my book. Unless I'm playing a stealth archer, I always wait until attacked to attack an opponent.
Skyrim plays this dirty trick on players. If you get the "Voice of the Wild" buff while going to or from High Hrothgar (the stone tablets you read), do NOT enter a dungeon, or you will lose that buff. Animals in dungeons WILL attack you and if you defend yourself, the buff is gone. Out in the wilderness, all is OK, though. This may just be a bug and not intentional, though.
I enjoy "morally gray" dilemmas from time to time, but also enjoy clean, cut and dried good vs evil. I often get frustrated because an action I take that I think is "morally just", the developers decides is not.
Anyone else feel similarly? Anyone have no troubles with morality defined by some games?