What type are you (good, netural, evil) and what is your play style?

[Zalpha]

I would say my personal play style is Law Evil, I always take that but in truth it is Chaotic Evil. I am the kind of player that takes the quest to find the missing husband and/or return his wedding ring if he has meet his demise (always has!). So I take the quest (I want the XP and quest reward), I find it and return. Now I do one of two things, I either say no I didn't find the ring (I will sell it or keep it if useful) and get half the XP and quest item/money (or none) reward or I will say here you go, get full XP reward and quest items/gold. I then proceed to kill her and hopefully get back the ring (sometimes some how vanishes) and what ever she was carrying (gravy) for even more XP. Yes I am an evil player.

[Gfted1]

I almost always play "good" and do the right thing although I played SWTOR as an evil bastage that took the dark side choice every time.

 

In case you aren't aware, there is no alignment system in PE, only "reputations".

[Sensuki]

HAHAHAH this guy, troll account confirmed

[mcmanusaur]

I tend to forgo the whole morality question in favor of collecting candlesticks and other miscellaneous tableware.

[JFSOCC]

I usually play rogue. She tries to maintain a friendly and dependable outward appearance while calculating what will get her the greatest advantage. Her philanthropy garners her allies and friends, favours. But if she really want something, she'll fluff you up.

Longtime friendships are more valuable than gold, and she'll invest in them, it's the only thing bypassing the selfish nature of my rogue character.

Edited July 8, 2013 by JFSOCC

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I took the title to be a sex ad.

[Zalpha]

I almost always play "good" and do the right thing although I played SWTOR as an evil bastage that took the dark side choice every time.

 

In case you aren't aware, there is no alignment system in PE, only "reputations".

 

No I didn't know that, intresting. I am used to the alignment method in games, BG2 had a reputaion system as well, going to be intresting.

[LadyCrimson]

---First runs through rpg's I'm almost always "average good," but with a lot of thievery tossed in. Or at least morally neutral/non-committal. If there's a decided gameplay advantage to not being good (better gear reward vs. just gold/xp, or I'd get to keep a companion I want, say), I'll do it.

---Second runs, usually the same thing.

---Third runs ... I might start to take more of the "evil" options just to see what happens, then once I know, go back to being mostly good/neutral.

 

...generally speaking, while I love a good bad guy in movies/books, I don't find it all that entertaining to be one in video games - altho sometimes, it can make me lol.

[Pshaw]

First time through I tend to a bit of a mixed character. I'll do 'evil' choices when dealing with situations where I think a harsher punishment (usually death) is more deserved than simply letting them go or turning them in to the authorities. I also tend to deal with shifty or annoying characters in 'evil' ways because I like to cheat cheaters and annoying characters have just earned my digital-ire. Beyond that I tend to do the 'good' choices. My second playthrough I tend to do straight up evil though I'm never a **** to my party members. After that I usually just ping-pong back and forth between good then evil.

[Sacred_Path]

Unless I try hard to stay in character, I tend to be p. erratic in CRPGs. Chaotic neutral erratic.

 

I think this is mostly because most CRPGs aren't very good at immersing the player and so I just choose my options on a whim.

[Walsingham]

The problem, as has been discussed here before , is that the 'evil' option is mainly just the 'I have the short term perspective of a gnat' option.

 

Being a douche and being evil are two rather separate things.

[LadyCrimson]

Being a douche and being evil are two rather separate things.

Palpatine = evil

Young adult, pre-Darth Vader, Anakin Skywalker = douche

[teknoman2]

well im definitely a chaotic character. all 3rd edition dnd games i played, i started as true neutral (50-50) and ended up somewhere between chaotic neutral and good (0-70 or 0-80) by making the choices i would do if the in game situations were real.

Edited July 9, 2013 by teknoman2

[Walsingham]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that evil takes project management.

[Amentep]

It kind of depends on the game. Usually for fantasy RPGs I play Neutral to Good though and maybe multiple runs through might try some of the evil options. I'm not a fan of "whack a villager = +1 Evil" systems.

[VixRaine]

Even though there are a lot of issues with the standard D&D Alignment systems, I generally gravitate towards a mix between Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good. It makes firing into a Melee a whole lot more entertaining. 

[Keyrock]

It depends on the game and the game world and characters and just my mood sometimes.  If the game is really generic and I don't find any compelling characters or causes, I'll usually play "standard good guy" and be done with it.  If the game has interesting enough factions and characters and gives me the freedom to explore different avenues then I'll often get latched on to a certain faction or cause and play accordingly.  If it's a compelling enough game I'll come back to it and play through again and again taking different approaches and "alignments".  I'm not sure what I'm going to do in Project Eternity, but I've sort of made up my mind that in Torment: Tides of Numenera I want to play as pacifist a character as possible, even if avoiding violence ultimately leads to far greater amounts of suffering and violence through my inaction.  Basically in the scenario of "A runaway trolley car is heading down a hill toward a group of 5 people.  You can push an innocent bystander in front of the trolley car which will kill the bystander but save the 5 people at the bottom of the hill (don't ask me how his body will bring the trolley car to a stop), or you can do nothing and the 5 people at the bottom of the hill will die." I would let the 5 people at the bottom of the hill die.

[KillerClowns]

Ignoring the old DND alignments, I'd say the Sniper's credo from TF2 sums my default play style up well. "Be polite, be efficient, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet." If there's a peaceful solution, I'll usually go for it. I'll be civil to everyone who isn't actively obnoxious. I'll help the poor just for something to do, but anybody with a fat coin purse had better be willing to part with some of it before asking my aid. But every so often, some people just need an ax to the face, in which case I'll deliver it as soon as an opportunity presents itself, with the only mercy being a swift death.

 

Although, like Keyrock said, sometimes for a change I'll pick an interesting faction/religion and make myself a paragon of its credos and goals. It can be fun to work within constraints like that, and the PE Paladin class, from what I've read, sounds perfect for such game play.

[rjshae]

Usually awful good; occasionally neutral smart-ass with good leanings. I don't find evil characters appealing, but the anti-hero role can be interesting.

[JFSOCC]

Basically in the scenario of "A runaway trolley car is heading down a hill toward a group of 5 people.  You can push an innocent bystander in front of the trolley car which will kill the bystander but save the 5 people at the bottom of the hill (don't ask me how his body will bring the trolley car to a stop), or you can do nothing and the 5 people at the bottom of the hill will die." I would let the 5 people at the bottom of the hill die.

Someone has been watching Justice. Excellent series btw, wholly recommend it. Michael Sandel is fantastic.

[Keyrock]

Usually awful good; occasionally neutral smart-ass with good leanings. I don't find evil characters appealing, but the anti-hero role can be interesting.

[rjshae]

On purpose.

[Karkarov]

My favorite alignments to play are Neutral Good because it lets me be a good guy without having to consider BS like "But I promised this person...." etc etc.  Neutral Evil for the same reason as Neutral Good.  Lawful Evil because it is an interesting role play opportunity and allows for some really neat situations and actions.  But my all time favorite alignment to play is truly possibly most morally repugnant and potentially evil alignment of all time, Lawful Neutral.  They are just fun, great character to play.  They can go from being kind and generous to ruthlessly cut throat and brutal at a moments notice.  They have a code, they aren't necessarily morally bankrupt, and they aren't really out for number one characters per se.  They just have tons of flexibility and room without being completely without depth unlike Chaotic Neutral.  I just love playing Lawful Neutral.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Karkarov

[nikolokolus]

Every true role-player knows that there is no such thing as good and evil, only Law, Neutrality and Chaos.

[jamoecw]

well in games you generally are saving the world (or a small portion of it), so if yo murder some old ladies to help you along you end up neutral, not evil.  most games get that wrong.  heck they always forget that you are saving all their lives, merchants want you to give them money up front before you grab one of their swords and kill the men trying to kill the shop keeper.  so most 'goodly' npcs are really just neutral, and the neutral ones are mildly evil.

 

take mass effect for instance.  things start killing human colony worlds, human government sends you out to deal with things, future UN sends you out to deal with things in secret.  you save them all on a tight budget, then they discard you.  you return and say **** is about to hit the fan, humans see something is going on, but they ignore your work so you turn to the mafia to save their lives.  after you get proof they ignore you again, even though all trillions will die as a result.  thus the galactic leaders knowingly helped in a genocidal war, they are evil.  if you mugged every person you came across (game won't let you, but what if...) that would help you save the universe, and thus you would neutral at worst.  in BG you are saving the whole region, you would have to be pretty evil to cause more harm than good, the slider doesn't go anywhere close enough to achieve such levels, thus you can't really be evil in BG.  i could go on.