Games aren’t inherently trivializing, but when an author constructs a choice, the act of doing that does inherently represent the options as comparable. Thus, if you give the player a choice “to genocide or not to genocide?” it trivializes genocide.
To pick another example, for decades people have mocked the idea of making Shakespeare’s tragedies interactive, because they would be trivializing. (And, of course, there have been recent publications of interactive Shakespearean tragedies that are explicitly comedic/trivializing, such as those by Ryan North, “To Be Or Not To Be” and “Romeo and/or Juliet.”) The canonical defense of games-as-art is to say, “yes, you could make a bad game that trivializes the choice, but a good game (a great game) would not simply offer the player-as-Hamlet the choice of whether to be or not to be.”
That Dragon, Cancer doesn’t give you the choice whether to cure your dying child of cancer, and certainly doesn’t give you a choice whether to give your child cancer. That would suck.
Also, to be clear, we have a policy not to publish games that glorify sexual violence or racist attitudes, but you have every right to write stories/games like those. We just won’t publish them.