First: Having cumulative actions over a prolonged period leading up to a massive disadvantage situation is (at least from my perspective) a lot more player punishment than having observable and incremental effects that gently remind us that this path is not without consequences. (I too am very firmly against punishing the player, but it seems we have different ideas of what that constitutes.)
The question here is why would they want to punish us for making a valid mechanical choice? Since it gives us a combat advantage, it's much more mechanically pronounced. I think they should focus more on how to make it a logical element of the game, rather than how to punish us for it. It also seems weird that we can be overpowered for 90% of the game, only to be brought down by a huge disadvantage at the end. If it unbalances the game so much, why not remove it entirely? Source would give us no combat advantage, only a role-play and crafting one(I think they said it can be used for crafting). Balance comes first, gimmicks come second or even third.
Second: The game must be made and balanced with both of these groups in mind.
Why? Can't we have one game that doesn't try to juggle too many pins and have a focused point? This point would be combat, though, role-playing needs a significantly different premise (like AoD). It would still present us with a reactive, breathing world, but not to the point of AoD. Since it's the same engine and combat, it can at least try to go for Fallout levels of reactivity. I do like my combat challenging and my role-playing brutal :p The game needs a firm foundation so it can build up, trying to balance for wildly different types of players would ruin that. We also have difficulty options. It IS a cRPG, or at least tries to pretend it is, so players do know what to expect.
