For the umpteenth time, peaceful solutions often give you more xp than violent ones and often also have other benefits. Why is this so hard to understand?
Baldur's Gate did this almost perfectly.
No, and No.
You've fundamentally misunderstood how the mechanics of D:OS work if you think this.
The reason is simple: there is
no NPC magical immunity. You can, if you want, complete all quests then massacre the entire inhabitants of cities (something I did in Beta to prove a point about the non-functioning criminal code). That achievement for killing Arhu is there for a reason.
To put this more succinctly - Quest Reward flags [Xp, Items et al] and Kill flags [direct XP] are not really entwined in a meaningful way. Look at the code if you want to know why.
And, no. BG didn't do this at all. Despite the rose coloured spectacles, BG is an incredibly limited engine. AKA - why everyone tried to kill the Drizzt character for those sweet swords / items. Yes, you know you did.
You can make an argument that by
not being peaceful you miss out on certain XP / item awards, but you're not really understanding the mechanics. This only works
if the game is counting a NPC as an unique NPC and not a mob. The flags don't care if you hand in a blood stained panties or a perfumed panties.
TL;DR
You need to parse out the difference between XP / Item >>Quest<< rewards for completion, and incidental >>kill<< XP. Also you'll need to parse out what exact # XP is given for winning the Paper-Stone-Scissor game via other methods.
In the beta, there was no difference to a quest if you solved it via violence, sniffing panties or whatever.
p.s.
Your Avatar is irksome.
