Not solo, but I chose other characters.
I think that in the end I had 2 fighters, 2 mages, 1 thief.
I skipped BG1, sadly : (

'Cause humans are the easiest to roleplay. Especially if the RPG I'm playing for the first time features some zany alien races I don't know much about until I've seen more of them in the game.

I usually play a magic-user of some sort:
- in a party-based game I can't rely on the devs to provide capable NPC mages;
- in a single-character game, fighters are usually boring or look boring;
- fighters are typically more gear-dependent. Losing because of bad luck sucks way more than winning because of good luck rocks.

As for the race, I pick the one that makes better mages, duh.

How come? A new axe will merely increase hit rate, damage or perhaps some unique ability that makes combat easier. Spells usually have far more diversity to them (pity that most spells are used for damage/offensiveness).

I prefer the Human paladin. Always have, always will I think. I really felt like the story of BG 1 and 2 were tailored for the paladin class with the whole inner conflict and such. Could just be my interpretation, but hey, that's what the games are for.

How would you feel like playing a pure spellcaster in a game that reversed the resource issue:
- Spellcasters have infinite or quickly regenerating mana
- Physical attackers, in order to do decent damage, have to carefully manage resources that don't easily regenerate, like weapon durability and something like stamina. However, they are capable of outdamaging spellcasters, but run out of resources more quickly when doing so.

In case you are wondering, I can think of a game like that: SaGa Frontier 2.

SaGa 1 and 2 also were a bit unusual; every weapon has durability, and the durability of spellbooks (which tend to scale better than weapons due to the way defense works) is the only limiting factor on their use. Later on, it is more economical to use magic than physical attacks (ignoring SaGa 2 Robots here).

Incidentally, I have been playing Dungeon Hack with a cleric, which is the best single class in the game. The playstyle boils down to:
1. Rest
2. Cast a bunch of spells, including 2 Spiritual Hammers.
3. Start killing enemies by throwing Spiritual Hammers at them (very good spell in this particular game).
4. When spells start wearing off, or later, when out of casts of Heal, go back to step 1.

I usually go for human paladins. And I tend to make them around 50 years old with grey hair and beard. I also love giving them a fanatical aspect (like being intolerant of the smallest crime). They see the world as black and white and can't really deal with shades of grey

Planescape Torment's highest level spells might change yourr mind :)

Its called the OAP approach:
1) Rest
2) Wake and mumble incoherent things
3) Remember the good old days
4) Go back to 1

Noooooooo

I usually play Half-Elf Rogue with dual wielding. Mostly trying the stealth way.

If the game has an expansion, I go for the mage. Still Half-elf.

On MMORPGs tho I always go for the healer. I am the best healer ever.

I try to read the manual and then pick what sounds the most fun to play.

Dragon Age -- I'm always a rogue. The first time b/c I liked the female city-elf rogue story (new husband kidnapped, you're taken for rape-fodder, and you leave a bloodbath in your wake).

Some games have such difficult or boring magic systems that I stay away from magic. Some have really interesting fighting mechanics, so I go fighter. It just varies.

In Fable, the fighter was far too powerful, so I went mage to make it a challenge.

As someone else said, waiting for mana to regen is boring, so I'll often pick up some fighting abilities if I play a mage in those games (Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance comes to mind).

What I like is that you can always play a fighter if that's what you like. That's why people love RPGs. You get to play how you want and find your own way through the dangerous world.

For race, I usually pick Dwarf, if available. Class is usually a bard or rogue type.

I'd like to say it really depends on the game, since there are several different ways magic is handled. But I typically find magic to be so 'fiddly' that I don't want to bother with it as the main focus of my character.

Further, so many games almost require some sort of lock-opening capability that I usually end up leaning toward... a rogue / thief / etc. And this then leads me to ranged attacks via bows and the like, since thief classes often can't wear the big armors, wield bigger weapons, or use the more potent magics, and will thus get crushicated in combat mano a mano.

For those games that let you mix and match capabilities I usually end up with a fighter with thief tendencies and some magic spells that make life easier. But I think it's a drag to have to cast buff spells every once in a while in order to be competitive as a mage. If they put this stuff in macros, I might try mages more often.

Race-wise, doesn't really matter so long as the particular race makes a suitable lock-picker. ; )

When i was younger i also always picked the human fighter because i grew up watching those guys being the heroes but it get to a point where it was just boring. I still pick the human since i'm "role playing" but i choose different styles, sometimes i go for the archer and others the mage but if it's available i prefer the necromancer type of character, some minions to soak the damage while i use my spells from the distance.

As coop/multiplayer i rather go support, so the healer or tank/buffs.