you still are choosing to make decisions as yourself. No one forces you to choose the good option or the evil option; you pick which one yourself.
yet you seem to not understand at all what i mean, yes we are not forced to choose good or bad, however we are forced to choose between good or bad so that is contradicting in itself. there is no 3rd choice, either you choose bad or good no middle ground here.
I do agree that there could be more choices that aren't good or evil per se, but the alignment mechanic is a sliding scale between amount of evil and amount of good. "Neutral" doesn't actually exist: there is evil and there is good; "neutral" is just a label for having a balance between the two.
while that is kinda true, it is not all true, from my point of view a neutral path can also be choices that are good and bad at the same time.
when you have the choice to
"save the girl" Good choice
"Save the gil for x motive" Neutral choice (since you are saving her for your own gain)
"Run and let her here" Bad choice
Consider your example: "save the girl because id like to bang her". You could consider part of that good (don't let her die) and part of that evil (you want to sleep with her). That would be +1 good and +1 evil, making your net score 0. You achieve the same thing by making a strictly good choice and then later making a strictly evil choice. The thing is, though, the vast majority of choices anyone could make are already a blend of good and evil motives.
that hints my point, id like a middle ground , a 3rd choice here as i said in my other quote.
Let's use your example, "save the girl because id like to bang her". While the outcome of your choice may be good (she lives another day), the reason for your choice is actually pretty selfish. Alignment isn't a reflection of results, but a reflection of your personality, the internal attitude of your character. (In The Lord of the Rings, Gollum did many things with good outcomes, but it didn't mean he was a good character.) Since your whole point in saving the girl is to bang her later, it also implies that if there were no way of getting with her later, you'd leave her to die. Doesn't sound like there's any good intent in your choice.
i put an example, you can always help people for money yet still you are doing good, maybe something like witcher 3.
You can like to help people but you also can have selfish reason and that doenst mean is bad in itself. Lets say that if i cant bang her , I saved her because she is a girl it kinda is selfish too but not bad either.
I'm not saying choices are black and white, but I'm also not convinced there's really a "neutral" choice, at least in many of the cases. I get that you're wanting more "net zero" options. I just don't think that there are choices that balance out generally; almost every choice will be more heavily good or more heavily evil. I also really don't see the need; you demonstrate you're walking the middle by alternating between being a nice guy and being a prick.
the main problem is that at some point you have to make forced choices to balance between good and bad to get neutral so that point still stand, while there is choices that balance more to good or bad it can be considered neutral because they dont fall at all in that category of good and bad.
A mercenary saving a girl for example is good but its also bad if u accept money for it. that choice will never reflect more good than bad, only the moral of each player. For me that choice can have bad intentions because you saved her for money, yet for other people it can tend more towards good intentions because you also need money.
choices are always based on the players views and morals, my views kinda differs from you in that aspect.
Im glad you kinda understood what i mean, and i really understand what you mean but this my view on this, there is no wrong side here, both are aceptable.
As for me id like for kthulian to really consider it in future updates.
.
