I am generally 'Barymore'. I play who I am in this life in the game

With the alignment tests you can do, I'm Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral, depending on my mood/day

I usually play chaotic good. I like to play a Dirty Harry type, who acts for "good" as they perceive it and with ruthless disregard for the people they see as "evil," That's what is fun for me.

Often when replaying a game I go a more evil route, to see how it works out. It's very hard for me to play pure evil in most RPGs though, very few of them give a proper motivation to do so. Similarly I almost never play a goody-two-shoes that tells people no reward is needed or whatever, that doesn't make sense either. Cool, calculated and realistic chaotic good, that's the ticket.

Edit: Oh, and I usually play female assassins in action RPGs, mages in tactical RPGs.

I typically always play D&D or similar themed games with Halidur Trueblood, a Paladin type character. He's kind of my interpretation of what a Paladin is; someone who never ceases to right wrongs he encounters and while he has charm and cunning, he has little desire to dabble in politics or the other trappings from other "elites". A lot of Paladins often have this pompous attitude or superiority complex or even willing to back the machine over people. Halidur's the exact opposite and while he obeys all laws, he's not afraid to get his hands a little dirty to aid people in need. To me, a Paladin is a character who always tries to do the right thing even if he or she is wrong in that assumption, they live by a code, be it from institution or their god and fight to uphold all that they believe in at all times at any cost even if it means their own life or status. That's what Halidur Trueblood is and why I always go back to him as a character.

It's particularly good with Baldur's Gate with the whole Bhaalspawn issue. You're fighting to figure out what you are and your true nature while trying to live by your own code of ethics and belief.

Another character I go back to a lot is Balkin the Barbarian, a Halfling Berserker dual wielding maniac. Just the idea alone amuses me, and he typically proves to be pretty effective

The thing is, playing a Goody Two-Shoes is the best choice from the metagaming perspective as it nets you the greatest rewards. The game is usually written around such characters, with the evil path being an afterthought because it is assumed that fewer players will take it. There aren't many games where acting with the best intentions in mind will leave you feeling awful and like a sucker in the end. Biowarean RPGs are the worst in that regard.

That said, for me it's more important to be lawful than to be good, so I oscillate between neutral and good, as long as I'm on the lawful side.

Pretty much exactly this for me as well. If I really get into the character's headspace I'll often find myself making decisions that I know aren't optimal from a metagaming stance (which is one thing I often find myself doing), but are what the character would actually do.

Started to play D&D when i was seven and played some form of pen and paper or pc rpg game from then on and when i was younger i favored the more aggressive and evil alignments.

More often then not but no matter what i usually had some sort of soft spot though and if i ever play anymore i tend to be the more neutral/chaotic good sort very protective but usually uncaring about how society views it.

Usually i start off with a plan and events tend to mold the character unless i am dead set on playing a set type of character
but there are most usually some things about them that never change.

Typically a Chaotic Good character. I hate playing as a goody-goody Paladin, and I have a hard time playing as someone evil. So, my character is usually a Rogue of some sort. I used to play as a Neutral Ranger, but there wasn't much profit in it and I didn't like being a bowman.

I guess I'm Barymore then in in most of my games. Sometimes Lazarus.

I usually try to get into the mind of the intended character. When I played the Witcher (1st one), with such a dynamic character. I stopped and read all books published in English in order to understand the mindset. Lacking such an intended character, I'll make one up. Heck, use the what would Captain Kirk do in this situation or Walker: Texas Ranger...

I also end up most of the time as chaotic good character with a tendency to go more morally grey but not outright evil. Kind of a Robin Hood type that also helps thieves and smugglers but will not i.e. kill innocents for personal gain.
If there is an intended character (I think The Witcher one of the rare cases) I will try to do the same. I played the first game, then read the books (twice, fortunately, except for the latest one of last year they're all available in German) and then played the game again, trying to "think like Geralt" for every decision. Interestingly it played out almost the same like it did the first time without the knowledge of the books.

I'm a Lawful Neutral kind of player, and I like to act "pro-style". ;)
I almost always avoid to take sides, but if I absoultely need to choose I try to help the defensless and the "nice guys"... never without asking for something in return, though. No payment means no work, but once accepted a contract MUST always be respected, no matter the consequences: you need years to build your fame, but seconds to destroy it!
I don't care to be employed by evil-doers, as long as my actions are directed against other people of the same kind.
That said, I despise violent criminals: if I find one red-handed, I'll gladly intervene for free.
That is probably why, apart from this kind of RPGs, I absolutely love series like Hitman, Thief and the Witcher.

Most computer games that sorta try to do this fail somehow. Bioware is a good example as they give you 3 moral options in conversations and choices: Good, Neutral, Bad.

True Roleplaying is not really easily possible on such limited options. So i'm not sure i can answer this question quite right. I've played very in depth players in a D&D tabletop or PbP (Play by Post). But in computer games... way too limited...

When I play myself (or at least do what I'd do in that situation), I guess I'm a "Paragade", to put it in Mass Effect terms (for those not familiar: predominantly paragon and a bit of renegade :D). I usually do the goody goody stuff, but it's not below me to sometimes feed them evul guys their own medicine.

I play purely good/evil characters just to see the ramifications/be a completionist.

And of course, it depends on the game and how many liberties it gives you. That might also change the way I'll play my character.

It was same with me. Befor reading the book i'v played both Witchers. In the first one i was always trying to be neutral because Witchers are supposed to be like that. After reading the book i saw that i was more or less spot on with that choice.

With other games I was always something like Barymore, but later there is more tendency toward playing like Koll or some kind of grumpy Dirty Harry character.