What's your play-style regarding morality ?

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I usually go first like I would myself, which is pretty much Good Naive Fag.

 

[Kz3r0]

Depends on character.

Let me join the Larping Brigade.
I usually try different builds and paths, even if I tend to make the same choiches in minor quests.

 

[Xor]

Usually I play a good character on the first playthrough and an evil one on the second. It works well because most games with a morality system have an obvious direction they consider good and an obvious direction they consider evil, and I can see all the content if the game is worth another playthrough.

Actually, in Fallout 2 I was an opportunistic bastard, helping people and then fucking them over 5 minutes later for more XP.

 

[Zomg]

I make early choices based on whims or a preconceived notion of the basic stance of the character, then I make later choices based on the early choices and on how the game has played out, with hopefully the game being good enough for an interpolation of all those actions to suggest a resultant character with some depth.

 

[Chefe]

It's funny how many people are posting that they turn out to be good characters. I knew you guys were not so bad. :D

 

[bhlaab]

I call the shots as I see em.

 

[Relay]

You might say that the more I hate the NPCs in a game, the more I play the evil paths. I found it VERY hard to like anyone in New Vegas so I went full retard.
When I did the quest for Cass and saw that I lost reputation with the NCR for murdering murdurers it tickled my funny bone and I killed anyone who's on NCR side for being such slaves to bureaucracy.
The only people I found I could like if only just a bit were the Legion. Everyone else deserves a good beating in NV. I went full retard on the Legion too when I saw the "strange meat" (aka human flesh) in Cottonwood Cove. It seems like the typical Avellone game, I just can't bring myself to like anyone when they're all so degenerate.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

There's no place for sadistic glee in mass media, so I play whatever and all paths that make some form of sense.
"I'm evil because I am, mwhahaha!!! Give me your pocket change!!" not being one of them.
Neither is "I've lost an arm and been gang-raped repeatedly in a dungeon for the last three months, but I need no reward, ma'am! Here is your kitten."
Besides that, I'm p. disappointed that there still hasn't been a cRPG with proper neutral character accomodation. One could - conceivably - have some kind of motivation to save their world from destruction/enslavement/retardation, but do they absolutely have to be fucked up in some way (i.e., in D&D, anything, besides True Neutral, is) and possess all the outlook sophistication of an amoeba to keep the intended audience's attention powers in focus?

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Very evil satanist/pedophile/grandma rapist in most games. Good two shoes in Fallout since the setting is grimdark enough without me being a grandma rapist.

 

[scorpioo]

Neutral or being yourself and Occasional bastard something between this two character.

 

[BearBomber]

In my first play-through I always play the good character who does quests by the book etc. in the second one I try to maximise the death toll but without attacking people who are neutral and in crowded areas. It there is an option to kill someone

 

[Humanophage]

The perception of good is slanted in games. Kind acts involve regular actions such as convincing people to do something, whereas evil acts are all either strange, stupid, or extraordinarily and blatantly evil, such as assassination and betrayal.

A popular way for a kind-hearted character to behave is to strike a compromise between two sides without murdering anyone, which is always an pleasant challenge. Additionally, due to the limited amount of quests, one would always want to engage in a quest instead of sending the person away, as they would in real life. In order to overcome that, one actually has to introduce boring quests or a time limit, both of which are faulty. On top of it, material reward, often associated with evil choices, is largely irrelevant for the characters not only on the basis of gameplay, but because of their peculiar situation. Why would TNO need some pointless copper?

I generally try to kill as few people as possible in games, and perform as many tasks that do not involve obviously evil acts as I can. That usually makes me good.

 

[DalekFlay]

I never shoot for "evil" or "good," I try to define it more broadly than that. My first New Vegas character wasn't "good" really, he just believed in order and an organized society with laws and rules... those impulses can be "evil" often times, and that character slaughtered a lot of people who might have been more morally gray than true bastards.

My second character I started recently is someone who believes in power, who thinks the weak should bow down to the strong. That is mostly an evil and anti-social idea, but I don't consider him a psycho who kills for the fun it, only when he needs to and when it benefits him. For instance I left Goodsprings and came upon the guy who asks you to save his girlfriend in the hills. I told him to fuck off, then stabbed him and took his clothes, money and items. I didn't do it just to kill a guy though, I had just started out and needed funds and items, and if he was too weak to defend himself tough fucking luck.

Character 1 was "good" and character 2 is "evil" but I don't define it on those simple terms.

 

[DraQ]

A popular way for a kind-hearted character to behave is to strike a compromise between two sides without murdering anyone, which is always an pleasant challenge. Additionally, due to the limited amount of quests, one would always want to engage in a quest instead of sending the person away, as they would in real life. In order to overcome that, one actually has to introduce boring quests or a time limit, both of which are faulty.

Procedural generation? Also, there should be quests, that will screw you over somewhat (not irreparably, but sufficiently to make you significantly worse off than if you just declined them), without being boring.

On top of it, material reward, often associated with evil choices, is largely irrelevant for the characters not only on the basis of gameplay, but because of their peculiar situation. Why would TNO need some pointless copper?

I generally try to kill as few people as possible in games, and perform as many tasks that do not involve obviously evil acts as I can. That usually makes me good.

Additional problem is that most games fail to provide any incentives to being a bastard other than lulz. In a well written game player will generally have psychological incentive to be a good guy, there is no need additional rewards. If anything meaningful material rewards should await bastards, but not the usual stupid evil bastards - actual scheming, ruthless fucks. Witcher did a decent job here, as there are several rare or unique items that can be very valuable, but require being a prick. Another good way to avoid forcing player to be a typical 'calculated paladin', is to introduce conflicts, which are zero sum or at least still on the 'dilemma' side of prisoner dilemma, but have no designated good guys and bastards - TES II and III do it in a fairly satisfactory manner.

 

[JarlFrank]

I really do miss the opportunity to be a fucking double-crossing schemer who lusts for power above all and wants to eliminate the people in power not because he's evil but because he wants to take their place.

"I kill puppies" evil is stupid.

 

[ChristofferC]

I always play as a "good" character. Somtimes I decide that I'm going to play an "evil" playthrough but somehow I always end up on the "good" path anyway. It might be because the "evil" path always is so much more retarded or it might be because I'm such a pussy or because the "good" path tends to give better rewards or maybe a combination.

 

[Dragula]

Count Fuckyouall

 

[Multidirectional]

I do good for those whom deserve.

I unleash hell on those whom ask for it.

Usually this for my first playthrough. Unless game is full of retarded NPC's like Fallout 3. It would count as "being myself" if I had capabilities of unleashing some hell in real life.
I don't shy away from playing a psychopath on repeat playthroughs though.

 

[visions]

Procedural generation? Also, there should be quests, that will screw you over somewhat (not irreparably, but sufficiently to make you significantly worse off than if you just declined them), without being boring.

That's a good idea, the player should be made more discerning regarding the quests he accepts, accepting a quest should not be the default option always, rather the player should be made to think whether to accept the quest or not.

 

[Marquess Cornwallis]

I ask myself: What would Clint Eastwood do?

Very few games have interesting moral choices (i.e. mutually exclusive, each with its payoffs and drawbacks, and a motivation that actually makes sense).

The (otherwise pretty insignificant) "four eyes" trait in NV reminded me of this recently. It could make for an interesting choice down the road if glasses were sufficiently rare, worn mostly by friendly characters and the bonus (+2 perception effectively) was offset by a big karma/reputation hit. As it is, you can find a pair in Doc Mitchell's house.

 

[Mastermind]

I ask myself: What would Clint Eastwood do?

Very few games have interesting moral choices (i.e. mutually exclusive, each with its payoffs and drawbacks, and a motivation that actually makes sense).

The (otherwise pretty insignificant) "four eyes" trait in NV reminded me of this recently. It could make for an interesting choice down the road if glasses were sufficiently rare, worn mostly by friendly characters and the bonus (+2 perception effectively) was offset by a big karma/reputation hit. As it is, you can find a pair in Doc Mitchell's house.

Haven't actually checked but unless it changed from fallout 3, wearing glasses and wearing a full head helmet (IE: power armor) is impossible.

 

[Mastermind]

On topic: I help people I like, kill or ignore people I don't like, and shamelessly steal from anyone that has something I want.

 

[SCO]

I never kill if i can.

 

[Blackula]

Between "Kind Hearted" and "Neutral". Sometimes dropping to "occasional bastard".

this

Bastard opportunist, who doesn't kill unless there's no other options, but goes for maximum profit otherwise.

and this sometimes

 

[Miew]

Sometimes the evil options are just too tempting or funny.
In real life I wouldn't screw someone over just for fun, but in games I sometimes do something really bad (as in stupidly evil for no real reason) and then I go "Oooh, the tragedy!!" in front of my computer.

Recently, in New Vegas there was a guy running away from this city being raided by Caesar, babbling something about a lottery. I didn't know what he was talking about, since it was my first time there. However, I noticed his glasses were prettier than mine (I had the four eyes perk someone mentioned here, as well as the first pair of lenses I could find), so after the conversation I shot him in the back of the head as he was running off, took his glasses, wiped off the blood and went on. Thought he might have been insane and I was expecting some kind of new experimental drug on the loose in the city.

Of course, I later found out about the lottery, and why he had indeed been a lucky guy. At least up to the point he ran into me. Oooh, the tragedy!

By the way, I wonder: How many of you have returned to Shady Sands to slaughter the whole village later?