Which is why most of my responses are targeted to the posters in the thread, instead of just leaving my input and walking away.
And what I want to know is input on:
*karma system
*non-exp reward ideas for 'good' player that are more pacifist
*changing NPC combat level to match level and exp value
*ideas to give non-combat NPCs the ability to defend themselves other than swinging fists ineffectually
*ways to define 'good' vs 'bad' action impact on the world
- 'bad' in this case refers to all decisions to kill any innocent NPC in something other than defense, so double dipping would count
The karma system, as I imagine it:
- Reputation would represent karma level and span both into positive and negative direction
- Reputation would effect NPC interactions and available quests and loot and ect... There would be both a minimum karma level the NPC would require to interact with in certain ways
- Evil would be more about getting direct, selfish power. Most law-abiding NPCs wouldn't give loot, handouts, and free quests to mass murders. This would also help stop double dipping in some instances. Some notable NPCs might appreciate the evil PC and give memorable quests.
- More neutral NPCs might give quests with exp but less loot. Desperate ones, the missing child, would remain unaffected because of setting
- Good would be more about helping others and receiving gratification in happy things in happening and unique loot and interactions
- Karma specific loot and skills
- Maximizing karma (one way or the other) would net unique rewards (ie Talent named Savior/Lucifer, unique loot, and/or unique skills)
- All quests would have both a good, evil, and inbetween options. Thus, if someone got locked into good quests they could tailor there actions to change karma and change sides.
- Limited reputation/karma rewards would direct whether someone went more evil or good or bounced between them for more neutral play-through. Someone shouldn't be able to do all quests after all.
- There could also be actions that always give reputation to a limited degree if it was needed. Giving up exp by praying to god for forgiveness or killing someone/something innocent, for example.
Does bad have to mean more exp and good more loot? It could go in both ways. If you are good enough a quest giver perhaps gives a follow up quest, yielding more XP in total. If you kill him you get perhaps some of his special stuff but less XP.
Or a quest giver could offer you access to his vault, if you are famous enough to have him impressed. If you are infamous he will have his troops enforced, because he is afraid of you. The fight would yield more XP but the vault would be locked behind a magical impenetratebal field. Of course it could aswell go the other way, evil guys are more afraid of you and will gather more troops to keep them safe of you.
Killing someone could offer a body part teaching a rare skill, but perhaps this would be to elf focused.
Being good or evil can influence persuasion. Some people are more open to a good guy or more easily threatened. Other people will immediatly fight you, because you are that evil or that good. Meaning some quest will be only available for either side.
If you stay neutral, you perhaps will earn more money instead of loot or XP like an mercenary.
This is actually good feedback and I'm honestly not really disagreeing with anything you said.
Traditionally, though, 'evil' characters are the ones that would be power hungry. They would be the ones to double dip in a quest for the sake of power and betraying the quest giver. It makes a sort of intuitive sense that 'evil' would playthroughs would revolve around attaining greater direct personal power for a PC.
'Good' PCs generally care less about personal power, but the trade off is influence that can be used to get things. Of course, infamy does the same to a limited degree, but it makes more intuitive sense that more people would be willing to help a 'saint' and that they would be more giving when they 'help.'
As you said, I imagine neutral PCs as those who make more money and gear and might have slightly more combat power than 'good' PCs. A more mercenary playthrough, as you called it. Intuitively, a mercenary generally stronger than a 'good' guy, weaker than the straight up 'evil' one, but also focuses more on material gain and balancing influence, rather than the more lopsided balances of 'good' vs 'evil.'
As you said, depending on how things work out, XP differences per playthrough can change based on quests in such a way that doing the 'evil' quest line or 'good' one nets similar rewards. In this case, double dipping would be the only thing that unbalances things but I already pointed out why I don't think that should be an explicit concern and it matches the 'evil' archetype.
