While this can be common on tabletop I feel like it happens less in videogames.
From what I've read, and my own personal take on evil playthroughs, it's less that you aren't a specific sort of evil, but more than the specific sort of evil that actually gets implemented is bad.
Whether on tabletop or in video games, for every event a player can trigger in the game, there has to be somebody preparing it - imagining it, writing it, programming it, animating it. That often means that after they've already written several versions of the story, they have to look at the same map with fresh eyes and go: "Hey, somebody may want to murder the puppies and blow up the loos." That's my guess why niche runs are often underdeveloped and may feel badly written when compared with going down Vanilla Road. The murder hobo is also often rage quitting with extra steps, so it at least gets some developer attention, while a smart villain PC may be seen as a monster by some, as a necessary evil by others and as the actual hero by supporters. The game, whether its paper or video, has to be able to reflect such a complex character into the most remote corners of the gaming world. But of course you're right that tabletop is less static than a programmed game. There's no technical aspect, no budget concerns and no legal issues. I can skip the entire step of motion capturing and voice-overs for new scenes and won't get bugged romances when introducing new monsters. On tabletop I also now have the luxury of knowing my players well and having learned what disruptive actions I should expect, that I can rely on a quick and vivid imagination and having long experience with bringing derailed campaigns back on track thanks to numerous train wrecks. Unless I've missed the memo, the video game keeps developing itself with graphics and new NPCs based on player actions has yet to be created.
