It's about picking alignment-neutral choices that are neither good nor evil, but maybe attest to some other goal or are simply "normal decisions" that your average peasant would make.

There's no reason to reward the latter. It's normal. It's boring. It's not the point of an RPG. The former could be rewarded and in some gaming systems it is. In one of the older editions of DnD, Neutral Clerics could do either turn or control undead (good/evil respectively), and could ask for free healing spells OR free harming spells.

Then of course, you have those who pick "neutral" as a moral ground and will consciously always pick the side that is neither good nor evil. This would also be worth rewarding because it takes a lot more effort than doing either good or evil, really.

However, none of that is picking good and evil choices because it entertains you I don't think, in an RPG, there's a justification for rewarding it because it's poor role-playing. The only alignment that really suits such behavior are particular ways of playing a chaotic-neutral-type character...and why should only that role be rewarded as opposed to people who pick every OTHER un-rewarded permutation of good and evil? And of course that's assuming that's what you're DOING instead of just wanting to randomly be evil.


I do agree with you about needing some more options, though. I want to be able to be an evil baron who APPEARS to be good...but does all the good things for the wrong reasons. Or, in your example, someone who takes the "evil" option for the greater good.

I can't think of any games that explicitly do this, but it'd take a lot of grouping and anticipation on the part of the developers so I'm not sure it will ever be delved into. You'd have to pick dialogue options like "I kill this peasant (for the greater good)" or "I kill this peasant (Because it amuses me) or "I kill this peasant for resisting the law", etc...etc... which would kind of put a cramp in the flow of conversation mechanics.