A friend of mine and I talked about this a while back. Many games now give you the opportunity to play as either a "good guy" or a "bad guy." My friend and I admitted that no matter how much we want to or intend to, we can NEVER seem to play the bad guy role. We always end up doing the nice thing instead!

Does anyone else have this problem?

I never end up seeing the Bad Guy campaigns even if I tell myself, "This time I'm going to be a jerk. I'm not playing this game a second time in the same way!"

But I still end up saving the little sisters, I still save Mega Ton, I still become a paragon, and so on, and so on...

No matter what game I play, I always side on the light first.

On the other hand... When it comes to the second try, I do go the bad route and make the most sinister choice that I am given. Is it wrong? Maybe so. But at least I get to experience the game as a whole.

Infamous, Fallout, or any Bioware game... I've beat them every way I could.

I think some people have a problem doing that. Some might feel too bad about doing something evil, and they do good instead. Some escape reality by committing evil, knowing that world is a fake.

I don't know really. There's millions of different reasons why some do one way and the others to the next.

I have to admit that I tend to play the "nice" role the first time through. I think it's because I generally assume that it will be easier, since there are bound to be more people willing to give me a hand at various points than if I played a jerk. Ultimately I end up playing evil later, and find that aside from a few cosmetic differences, very few games change significantly based on your actions.

Mine answer is about the same as inkmonkey's. I usually end up as good the first time through because I assume that will make things easier somehow. Then when I'm familiar with the game I'll start making evil choices or do a second evil playthrough. As inkmonkey mentioned, most of the time the game doesn't change much. Fallout would get rid of a town, make some people hostile, etc but it didn't really affect gameplay. And on my evil playthroughs, there just weren't as many evil options as there should have been. The only way to stay evil in the game is to occasionally steal a bunch of useless stuff or hack a terminal over and over. most things were geared toward good no matter how you completed them. You had to work to be evil.

Strangely, games like Prototype where you run around constantly doing 'evil' things (light slaughtering everybody) stop feeling evil pretty quickly. Then again there's no morality attached to most of those, so wholesale killing just becomes fun. Fallout did a good job sometimes of making it really difficult to choose one route over the other but those choices didn't come very often.

skoolmunkee
The only way to stay evil in the game is to occasionally steal a bunch of useless stuff or hack a terminal over and over. most things were geared toward good no matter how you completed them. You had to work to be evil.

I found that packing up on medkits and wandering in to a town and slaughtering everyone there tended to keep the evil points pretty high.

Yup - I definitely have this problem!

Although I did recently play Mass Effect again and forced myself to make all the grouchy, evil responses. As a result, a couple of quests/missions closed before I could attempt them and one of the characters (Wrex) wouldn't even join my crew (until I sought him out a second time and gave him some more amicable answers!) Oh, and the sexy blue alien wouldn't sleep with me ... Definitely a game which is better to play as a good guy!

On the plus side, all the dialogue in Mass Effect is actually spoken (even the player-character's) and hearing the abrupt, sneering remarks triggered by the "bad" choices was definitely a lot of fun.

Due to 13 years of Catholic school and the residual guilt that I'll probably be working off until I'm in my 40s, it's difficult for me to be "evil," even in an RPG. Or, at least, it used to be, until Dragon Age. There were some fantastic upsides to acting out of enlightened self-interest (or jerk interest) in that game. Plus, it was entertaining as hell.

I tend to play the good guy. I usually attempt to go evil second time through, but eh, it's just not the same. Typically, the 'jerk' decisions are kind of shallow (kill questgiver guy/populace or make basic selfish decision) and impulsive, instead of actually being interesting. Where's the clever or complex evil? It's never there. I realize that's harder to write for, but I get the impression they add the jerk option almost as an afterthought half the time to make the game appear more dynamic at a distance.

And while it wasn't composed of easy good/evil choices all the way through, Shin Megami: Nocturne managed to pull this off beautifully with the several philosophy endings.

I'm another guy who can't help but be the good guy. I like to feel like I'm saving the world, not destroying it. It's a habit that prevents me from enjoying games like Grand Theft Auto. When I was playing Warcraft 3 and you have to switch to the bad side for a while, I absolutely hated it.

The problem with choosing the "evil" option is that, in most games, you're still saving the world. Even if they do present it as though you're doing it for selfish reasons, you're still sneaking into the dragon's lair and freeing the people from the tyranny of blah-de-blah-de-whatever. Though, really, the most "evil" thing to do is sit back, do nothing, and accumulate a pile of gold, which doesn't really make for interesting gameplay.

I'm always neutral. I don't even try :\

I seem to have the problem that I always take the dark side. I'm really a nice guy but if I can choose between slaying a dragon and getting 20 gp and a cape for it or killing the person giving the orders and getting 50 gp, a cape and an easy fight I always pick what is best for my inventory, not my alignment.

and evil characters are just cooler... anyone who has ever played baldurs gate II knows that...
Edwin totally beats Minsc.

Playing Dragon Age right now, and intentionally going the lawful good route (though I'm not above taking quests from criminals, on a case-by-case basis). I think Bioware gave my organization the name Grey Wardens on purpose.

In DA, I can see the potential in the evil choices that I do not make, such as striking deals with bad guys rather than fighting them, lying to my teammates (it'll come back and bite them down the road, but not before their usefulness to me has ended). It's not just "kill everyone and get evil rating," so I'll definitely try it.

It seems to me that the trouble with the "evil" options is that they're not really evil, they're just being a dick, mostly.

Being "evil" tends to mean you're doing "good" for the wrong reasons, or not fully considering the implications of what you do- you don't have to ever actually intend to be evil to be evil.

Maybe that's what the games should focus on instead of "being a dick" type cartoon evil.
----------
Although a good honest "being a dick" alignment would be cool too. Then if you choose the dick options too much, in the end you actually turn into one :)

I think Dragon Age has the "doing good through questionable means" well covered. You don't have to be a dick to strike deals with evil factions, or playing multiple sides with false promises of allegiance, or accepting some "collateral damage" rather than going out of your way to avoid it.

In the end, you're still saving the nation from the trope of "invading demonic horde." But at least your methods can differ.