Finding some civilians..
1. Die trying to protect them
2. Leave them to die.

I do agree this is an obvious choice, but I think it would be interesting if a game explored moral choices like these. As this blurs the line between right and wrong,

But as you said:

I still wouldnt feel like im doing anything evil/twisted/badass things.

This hits an important point about knowing your audience. In most instances, players don't want to make a choice without obvious answers/rewards because it brings the player to "What's the point of the choice?". I think this is an interesting concept that I do not know the answer to. How do you give the player 'meaningful' choice?

Personally, I kind of enjoy the 'looting' aspect of RPGs. Namely, if I'm going to invade some bandit camp then I want to be able to grab everything not nailed down or on fire, then pry up and extinguish the ones that are.

If I could 'enslave' some of my enemies and use them for pack mules to carry the loot back to sell (and then sell off the enslaved enemies) then I would probably do it. The only real limiters is how unsavory the people I'd have to make these deals with and the difficulty of moving the slaves around.

I'm actually reminded of the game Space Pirates and Zombies where you can destroy enemy space ships, then scoop up the escape pods and recruit the survivors into your pirate crew and dump the ones who complain out the airlock (actually, its kind of expected since 'goons' are a resource right along the material used to build ships), there is a technology tree you can research to increase the percentage of those you recruit vs the ones airlocked but I tend to put more points into weapons and such.

So, if there was an RPG that allowed capturing your enemies as slaves (or maybe vampire cattle or whatever) then it would be interesting. I'm sure there would be plenty of of players using it to grab civilians and innocents and whatever (obvioulsy) but if it could be used alongside or instead of the 'kill everyone and loot their stuff' often seen in RPGs then it would be a nice change. Perhaps some of the 'good guys' ask you to go to a bandit camp and capture as many as possible to bring them back so they can serve their sentance.

The only real difference between grabbing crimminals to bring to prison and have them work on chain gangs, and selling innocent civilians into slavery is who is the 'buyer' and who your target is.

You could have similar 'enslaving' missions one run by the good guys to grab bandits and one run by slavers to grab whoever. They don't have to be 'good' or 'evil' just that one mission gives you reputation with the police and gets you hated by bandits while the other gets reputation with slavers and hated by civilians.

Though the act of keeping all these captured prisoners in line could lead to moral questions. Things like beating them up, using magic to mind control them, fitting them with explosive collars, lying to them, or whatever you have to do. Also, being sure to have your own team fitted with the weapons to keep them in line and make them think twice about trying to break free.

Also, another thing about moral dilemma in video games is that often you can just reload a previous save if you die. The 'die trying to protect the civilians' option isn't really viable when you can't really 'die' and you're just a 'continue' button away from trying the mission over to get it right.

I suspect games with a permadeath option would discourage people from just going for the 'heroic' path and keep reloading from saves until they complete the mission. If risking your live to save an NPC carried the real risk of the death of your character it would have more meaning.

I agree with the permadeath option to give more risk to the game, but it also discourages the player from doing anything because if they spent so much work on a character and suddenly died, most players would drop the game and never play it again.
Instead I think that the player can die but you get revived right after the quest and you cannot go back. This ensures that you only have one chance at it and if you fail, you do not get the ultimate punishment of permadeath but rather a hardy slap on the wrist.

Of course this can get frustrating but I think there needs to be more risk in games. If there is no risk there is no 'true' reward to finishing the quest.

I don't like it when I'm given a list of things to say to an NPC, but I don't have a clear recognition on just how each choice will affect me. If I'm going to have the choice to be evil, neutral, or good, I'd like to know clearly what I get from each choice.

So true. I'd rather have an anti-heroic protagonist who picks all the (wrong) moral choices for me, than me having to choose an answer without being able to negotiate on the outcome.

Also, too many choices make your plot an ugly, tangled mess, I think. If you do decide to include 'extreme' moral options, be sure that the player gets the 'psychological maximum' out of it - without leading him too far from the main plot.

Quick point I'd like to make here.

There are some games, maybe RPGs, or maybe not, where players get to do the evil stuff as well. Even though it's not a choice. Take a look at Dungeon Keeper or Evil Genius. They both are RTS game, and it's all about being evil. So then, the choice is not , "good or evil", but instead the choice is "how evil you wanna be". Similar thing with Overlord, an RPG game. And some others.

Will this fit your boat better ?

Quick point I'd like to make here.

There are some games, maybe RPGs, or maybe not, where players get to do the evil stuff as well. Even though it's not a choice. Take a look at Dungeon Keeper or Evil Genius. They both are RTS game, and it's all about being evil. So then, the choice is not , "good or evil", but instead the choice is "how evil you wanna be". Similar thing with Overlord, an RPG game. And some others.

Will this fit your boat better ?

Good question..

I would for sure enjoy it if its well done but i didnt like overlord it felt too childish kindof.
I loved darkness 2 at least.

But I think I would enjoy it more if theres a choice between good and evil because of what we agreed on in this thread its i dunno how to explain..
its just feels greater doing an evil thing when you had a choice to be good instead.

Here is a good video that is related to this topic. It discusses many of the questions that are in this thread.

I'm not a big fan of evil quest options in RPGs really. It's not because I'm afraid to be evil, but rather that the evil options are often embarrassingly contrived and make no real actual sense. They're just there so your character can be "evil" in the most shallow and superficial sense of the concept.

The other problem is that this polarised system totally breaks as soon as your evil character would be advantaged by taking "heroic" dialogue options disingenuously, which in reality, would actually be happening all the time unless they're a moron.