When a video/computer game offers you a choice between good and evil, which path do you try to follow during the first play through of that game?

Good, only to see the proper ending, then Evil to get the other ending. Depending on the game also depends on which side I prefer better. In JK it was much better to be an ******* and kill everyone. In ME however, I have a feeling paragon will play out better for you after the 3rd, 4th, 5th etc installations.

I'd wanna go Good, but always go Evil on accident... just like in Jk

Evil. Always set a save point though if I want to go back and change my mind.

I follow the path of the idiot.

Good!

I always end up going the good path, even when I want to do the bad path. I just end up feeling guilty I guess. Evil is only fun if it's got a wide range of freedom so I can act more like an ass than Satan.

I usually choose the good path. It often seems that the "evil" path is the simplest, whereby you complete goals and overcome obstacles mainly by destroying them. Being good means you have to screw around all over the place, which takes more time and often takes more thought as well. So, it seems like you're having a fuller experience if you are good.

Now, sometimes when there is an opportunity to really cleverly screw someone over, or be truly deviously evil....well that is a game that would be interesting to play. Hitman sort of had this...where sometimes you could come up with evil plans that were almost as convoluted and fun as the "good" ones.

I find it hard to be a dick.

So... good, mostly. Tend to be more neutral if I can, but...

Always good on a first playthrough, pretty much for a combination of some of the reasons already posted. Being an arse makes me feel uncomfortable, especially if I like the characters I'm interacting with, and you do seem to get more out of games (at least, the ones I've played, and that's a lot) by playing the good path.

I've talked about this with my brother before and he does a "good" playthrough first as well, pointing out that the rewards for being evil are never as good or fleshed out as you get from being good. Even the times when you pass up a monetary reward for doing something generally seems to provide a bonus later on or something extra instead.

I never finished KOTOR as Light. Went Dark three times.

Good, because I don't like being an ******* for it's own sake. A more morally ambiguous game that allowed for a more subtle, realistic dichotomy would be a different story though. Everything is either lawful good or chaotic evil. Neutral evil would be far more interesting.

Good.

Almost always good. Fallout 3 is the major exception to this. I just kill everything I see in that game. Mainly because it's so hilarious to smoke someone in that game when they don't see it coming. Or to just throw down proximity mines in a populated area and then start shooting. That **** is awesome.

I came here to say this. Damn you, Michael!

I always -want- to go evil, but then I end up going 'good' because generally it's more rewarding. Not exactly in terms of more XP, but you get more 'quests' to do if you're not being rude to everyone. Which boils down to more XP anyway. Generally speaking, though.

Evil on second play.

Good, but not lawful good.
I'll do what's right, and **** whoever gets in my way (They will be taken down in the most badass way possible)

Good for the most part in pseudo-linear RPGs like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, etc. Pretty evil in sandbox RPGs like Fallout/TES series. Mainly because being evil in sandbox RPGs is highly rewarding (financially speaking) with minimal consequences.

I mostly go good in games because that's usually what you have to do to get the most rewarding gameplay/storyline/ending.
But games where it's more like an actual choice of preference (instead of a choice of whether you want the 'proper' storyline or whatever) I tend to go evil, because it's just more fun.
In other words I'm more like Ragna, except in Dragon Age I went more neutral... I did good things or evil things depending on what suited me most at the time. I knew I wasn't going to be fully good because my main goal right from the start was to get blood magic. Plus in Dragon Age you can still get the most rewarding ending despite being a *******.

Mostly in Dragon Age I did good things, except when you go into the childs dreams to stop the demon... I chose to sacrifice the mother because I didn't think you'd have enough time to go to the mage tower before the demon fully took over or whatever... and of course when the demon asked me if I wanted to get blood magic for leaving it in the child I agreed, and then to make sure the demon never struck again I ordered the child killed. So the poor king lost his wife and his son because of me... that was pretty evil, but I felt justified in my actions... mostly. The only bit I saw as actually evil for me was making the bargain with the demon... killing the kid afterwards was the kindest thing to do in the situation.

Same here. When I played through NWN co-op, evil was a heck of a lot of entertainment and still had lots of choices and options. On the other hand when I remember playing KOTOR, the "evil" choice in any situation always boiled down to "insult their mother and then kill them", and not really leave you any story or NPCs if you insisted on it.

Usually Good, but my karma is kinda low on Fallout because I steal everything in sight.

I usually save before the major hinge point (Maw in JK, Rosh in JA), and do both. I've found that Evil is really more fun in terms of how many people you get to slaughter.

Usually good. It's been cited before that the rewards for the 'good' path a generally better, even if not right away. I've played a lot of games where the game developers pretty much just threw tons of guilt at you for even the smallest 'evil' decision. I never liked that... It's like the developers are scolding parents. It's kind of annoying.

I usually try to go the evil road on my second playthrough though. Never been one for mass slaughter so it takes even longer for me.

Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun.

Fallout 3 was awesome for being evil in. Loved when I got the ability to kill people silently in their sleep (accompanied with quirky music). Not to mention the ability to EAT DEAD PEOPLE.

Fable3 tried so hard to get you to make 'evil' choices to save the realm, with it's absurd 'you need X amount of money to save everyone's life' mechanic. Except that with the realestate system, I just financed the whole thing from my own pocket and kept on making the expensive 'good' choices.

Also, all games that try for subtle moral systems suffer from the same problem; that the game developer doesn't have the same subjective morality as me.

Evil at first because you got all the offensive attributes and if the game does it right, get to be a royal ******* in the process. Good for any first plays as you just power through the game. Then replay as a good person where you can explore more dialog, story, etc without having to aimlessly wander around trying to find the end goal of the quest. You know what you're SUPPOSED to do to progress the game but you have the added bonus of exploring.

But as Dormouse said, most games make the distinction of good/evil quite black and white. To go evil, all you do is just kill people instead of help them. That's just boring as you just slaughter everything in your path as if you were in a constant and uncontrolled rage. However, and I wish more games did this, there is one part in KotOR II where you as an evil character, break the will of the refugees on Nar Shaddaa by causing various forms of despair (esp. the bit where you force the mother and child into slavery) and then they have no choice but to accept a life of slavery and a horrific existence before them. That was pretty diabolical. I think doing that pits you pretty much 100% dark side.

good, because i feel guilty

EVIL

Same here.

There's no reason to feel guilty about touching yourself.