I think you have to take it a step further than thinking, "if I save this guy then I get money but if I hand him over to someone else, they'll kill him and I get a bunch more money (or some other form of reward)". I would typically expect that choosing the first option (the theoretical "good" option) will probably open up more opportunities for me than the second. In my experience, letting the guy die will also probably close more options than it will create. The second option needs to open up more possibilities than just money and ultimately build to something.
I really agree with your post specially this.
Which actually is what I've said in OP.. that I don't like how they put in no effort at all in some rpg's to add in goodvsevilvsneutral choices.
All they do to give neutral choices is adding demand for money.. pretty boring and doesn't make much of a difference imo.
going to bed now but ill read any new replies in morning and maybe respond if i think i should
