We tend to treat morality in games in a way that is black and white: one is good, and the other is bad. But real people aren’t that simple, and neither are their virtual selves. Some players might not act out in games to hurt others, but rather to explore difficult feelings in a space where consequences are limited.
That brings us to a pattern we’ve seen for decades. From the early days of online gaming, there have been players who bend or break the rules, whether through griefing, trolling, or exploiting game mechanics. We’ve been quick to label them as toxic. And often, they are.
But what if, in some cases, that behavior isn’t just about causing trouble? What if it’s something emotional — even personal?
This becomes easier to understand when we look at the games themselves. Some of the biggest and most beloved games actively encourage chaotic choices. Just think about it: in Grand Theft Auto V, you’re encouraged to steal cars, cause mayhem, and wreak havoc on the city. In The Sims, players sometimes remove the pool ladder just to see what happens. These actions would be unthinkable in real life — but in a game, they’re part of the appeal. They offer a chance to test boundaries without real-world repercussions.
So maybe we need better language for this gray area. In 2023, researchers Katie Seaborn and Satoru Iseya introduced the term “maldaimonia” in their study published on arXiv. The word defines a form of self-expression or self-actualization through egocentric, exploitative, or destructive in-game behavior. It’s basically the opposite of eudaimonia, which describes virtuous, moral choices in games.
Their research revealed that 35% of players had engaged in maldaimonic behavior, and 14% did so out of curiosity, to test boundaries, and out of a desire to test their moral limits. In other words, not everyone playing the “bad guy” is doing so for harm. Sometimes, it’s a way to safely explore something inside themselves.
Other research supports this idea. A 2021 study by Ayushi Ghosh on Proquest suggested that players sometimes engage in toxic behavior as a way to process emotions like frustration or powerlessness, and even anger, notably in virtual spaces where they face no real-world consequences. Games like FIFA, which had the highest measured racism score (0.0472), and Dota 2, which showed the highest sexism score (0.0577), highlight how some players act out in ways they can’t or won’t in real life.
And this emotional outlet isn’t rare. In a 2024 study published in the ACM Digital Library, Seaborn and her team found that 72% of surveyed players used games to process difficult emotions, and 65% said they explored aspects of their identity they couldn’t express elsewhere.
Still, we have to be clear: this doesn’t excuse toxic behavior, nor is it a free pass for cruelty. Seaborn, Iseya, and Ghosh are all careful to emphasize that their work is about understanding, not justifying. There’s a major difference between exploring dark impulses in a single-player game and deliberately ruining someone else’s experience in a multiplayer lobby. The former can be therapeutic. The latter is just straight up harmful.
We’ve spent years assuming that players who act badly in games are just being bad. But sometimes, they’re working through something — quietly, privately, and in a space that doesn’t judge. Maybe it’s not about defending villains. Maybe it’s about understanding the human reasons behind why someone might choose to play one.
