To ease my notation, I will use the convention that $n = \{ 0, 1, \ldots, n -1 \}$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$. (This is standard in set theory, but less common in other branches.)
Let me first address the set of natural numbers $>1$: This set is indeed good. Let $\{ p_{n} \mid n \in \mathbb N \}$ be an enumeration of all prime numbers and let $S$ be the set of all finite sequences $s \colon n \to \{0,1\}$ such that $s(n-1) = 1$. Fix an enumeration $S = \{ s_n \mid n \in \mathbb N \}$ such that for all $n \in \mathbb N$ there is some $i \in \mathbb N$ such that $s_n(i) = 1 = s_{n+1}(i)$. Such an enumeration exists and can be obtained as follows:
$$
1, 11, 10, 111, 100, 101, 110, 1111, 1000, 1001, \ldots
$$
Note that this is just counting in binary with a slight twist: Whenever we have to introduce a new digit, we first assign a $1$ to all these digits, hence obtaining $2^{n}-1$ for some $n \in \mathbb N$, and then continue to list the numbers below $2^{n}-1$ in ascending order that haven't been listed yet.
Now let $c_n = \prod_{i=0}^{\operatorname{dom}s_n -1 } p_i^{s_n(i)}$. It's easy to check that $\{c_n \mid n \in \mathbb N \}$ witnesses the goodness of $\mathbb N^{+} \setminus \{1\}$. (Clearly $\{c_n \mid n \in \mathbb N\}$ enumerates $\mathbb N^{+} \setminus \{1\}$ and $(c_n, c_{n+1}) > 1$ follows from the choice of our enumeration $\{s_n \mid n \in \mathbb N \}$.)
As P Vanchinathan pointed out in his comment, this immediately implies that $\{ n^2 \mid n \in \mathbb N^+ \setminus \{1\} \}$ is good as well.