Being the good guy, or being the bad guy?

[Clearwater]

There's a lot of good games out there which allow you to pick your side as the good or the bad guy (Many of the good Star Wars games come to mind, especially the brilliant Knights Of The Old Republic). So, out of interest, I'd like to see what side you guys would normally pick. Me? Well, so much as the lure for power by being bad is tempting, it's always the good guys who win. So I prefer staying on the latter side.

[Vy'drach]

May want to change the poll options' wording, at least on the last one, because that describes chaotic good more than neutral. You have nine main alignment types: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil.

 

Lawful Good - Your uncompromising pillar of morality, the Dudley Do-right type. An example would be Captain America, at least in the Avengers movies.

 

Neutral Good - Your rough edged hero, examples would be Tony Stark and Indiana Jones, they don't always go through proper channels, but they're intentions are good.

 

Chaotic Good - This is the realm of Wolverine, Hulk, Blade, the entirety of the Guardians of the Galaxy, and other folks like that who tend to actively avoid proper channels on their quest for the good.

 

Lawful Neutral - Best example I can think of this is things like executives, lawyers, bankers, things like that. Old lady owes on her home, defaults on payments, and the house is foreclosed on and she's evicted. May seem mean but it's not malicious and is just business.

 

True Neutral - Can't really think of any examples other than say mercenaries or assassins that are strictly business, or the kainde amedha, xenomorphs, aliens, w/e you call them. Yes, they're brutal in every aspect of their being, but it is pure instinct. They ARE nature. There is no greed, no ambition, just pure survival.

 

Chaotic Neutral - This is one of my favourites, for it is the realm of the anti-hero, and includes Deadpool, Kain, Boba Fett and Lobo. They're not good, far from it, but at the same time far from being the worst out there.

 

Lawful Evil - Darth Vader. That is the best example of it that I am aware of.

 

Neutral Evil - Generally these folks don't want to destroy the world or what not and want it to remain as whole as possible, but want to up their state in it by any means.

 

Chaotic Evil - Khorne and his followers, The Joker, generally folks that'll watch the world burn and laugh provided they get what they want out of it.

[Dr. Orange]

It always seems that the good guy choice usually proves in the long run to be a better decision than what you get from the bad choice. Not always but on a more than often basis.
I usually go neutral just because the bad guy choice doesn't always come off for me as "Oh man X is so evil and powerful!" But more as "X just got angry and became a douchebag." Then again there are those games, Fallout is a good example, where even though you might save so and so from a wrongful death or some shit, in the long run they just aren't that supportive or helpful and I'd really rather have that cool gun. Neutrality; is the cool guys way of being good while still being a badass.

[Vy'drach]

It always seems that the good guy choice usually proves in the long run to be a better decision than what you get from the bad choice. Not always but on a more than often basis.

I usually go neutral just because the bad guy choice doesn't always come off for me as "Oh man X is so evil and powerful!" But more as "X just got angry and became a douchebag." Then again there are those games, Fallout is a good example, where even though you might save so and so from a wrongful death or some shit, in the long run they just aren't that supportive or helpful and if really rather have that cool gun. Neutrality; is the cool guys way of being good while still being a badass.

 

[LazerMaster5]

I am more chaotic neutral. I enjoy chaos sometimes, but I do not desire to watch the world burn.

[Flare]

I always feel as though playing as good gets you the better story and ending, but I also enjoy playing as evil. Games that give you a choice I tend to play twice.

Since I always do the good guy first I picked that one.

[StarFoxfan-FUR_ever]

I think it really depends on the context surrounding the battle of good vs evil. In the Star Wars series as an example, I would pick the Jedi because the enemy does a great job at legitimately making you hate them. In the context of superheroes and super-villains as shown in DC or Marvel comics, I would opt to pick the side of evil purely based on the fact that you kind of expect the good guys to win anyways, so by choosing the side of evil, you have the chance to change that for once. I really can't answer the question because of this.

[Robert Monroe]

90% of the time in a game playing a neutral just means being an asshole who unrealistically plays every side he can for maximum profit at best and at worse is just a minmaxxer who doesn't care about role playing to begin with.

 

Evil characters similarly are 90% just characters who senselessly and needlessly kill everyone they see because 2 GRIM 2 EDGY 4 U. A lot of times in games selfish and what I would consider "evil" are at best considered neutral and worse considered "good" because the NPC you just mercilessly shot in cold blood was "bad".

 

Also being "neutral" isn't "doing what's right" unless "what's right for my interests". The idea of a slippery faction-jumping asshole who does what's pragmatic without consequence is a trope that needs to DIE HORRIBLY. Being neutral means being avoidant and selfish. You wanna do good, commit to ACTUAL do-gooding and suck up the drawbacks that come with it. Be selfless, be virtuous, be lawful, stop being a putz.

[Redeemer]

I'm very much neutral, I just try to do the right thing and if that pisses people off, tough titties.

[Pharaoh Shadon]

Generally the fully good progression of a story is the most cannon one (That I've played anyway) So I generally do a pure good playthrough of games.

[Vulvokunvrii]

I think I'd be chaotic neutral. I wouldn't want to really upset the balance of things but if someone needs to "go" then off they go -even if they were good or evil.

[Arminius H O Fiddywinks]

I do what I feel like doing. Sure, some innocent bystander and puppy may get hurt, but it's just a side effect of my one speed, and that is "Go".

[Ori]

When presented with choice in games I try to pick the choices that involve more talking out and rep. building issues (think Paragon on dialogue wheel) than simply getting to all-out Michael Bay gameplay. While some choices may be morally grey in the process such as sacrificing soldiers to save civilians (and vice versa) I try to look at how the outcomes for one each will tip the balance and change the story both long and short term in the game.

 

Generally I try to follow through the course that has decent amount of personal gain but doesn't interfere negatively into other parties than the obvious antagonist (see Mass Effect), when I'm not trying to just outright help (see 75% of my Skyrim characters) or do what I'm supposed to (see Deus Ex: HR). So I'd say 'logical-neutral' due to the occasional falling outs of pressuring others into doing something for their own good when they refuse to talk out through it (see some persuasion fails in KOTOR when you're trying to make someone not get killed), but I'm definitely leaning to the 'light' side as general rule.

 

Things get interesting when two or more protagonizing parties are involved in the story though. In that case multiple characters and playthroughs are obligatory.

 

(As an unrelated note I personally find those a good character-building exercise and a nice way to elaborate how your own characters would align with each other - as I tend to imagine with the Skyrim characters of my own)