Welp, my task is to suggest. Their to decide if they can or want to implement all of this/some of this.
But so far… talking about exposing lies in their quest design it wouldn't open totally different rougtes, it more like would allow to skip some pain on the way. And as I said in my later post in some cases (Kagha) it would just lead to the quest. Imagine we are talking to Kagha the first time, succeding the roll and narrator says "She seems conflicted, she hides something. Maybe you will be able to find the answer if you take a closer look." - and that's it. The player now knows for sure that he can pry a bit and find something.
And about killing via dialog I wouldn't really apply that to enemies, attacking which wouldn't lead to some bloody mayhem (kill you, kill your father, you brother, you mother and that guy which just pass by, who happened to be a quest-giver) or which we are not supposed to kill stealthy. At the moment there are like…*hard thinking*… 2 such enemies? Kagha and Dror. We can kill stealthy some and some others are just surronded by cannon fodder by design.
Welp, I stand by what I said. Don't get me wrong, more nerative choices=good, but there are an infinite number of possibilities for each potential choice, and the writers can only implement choices that can develop the story they want to tell, since they can't improvise like a human DM. The case you described with Kagha is fine, but you can't generalize it in any way. Because maybe in this case it works, but in other cases it might not. For example, you can add option to force Shadowheart to reveal what the artifact is or even option to steal it and figure out yourself, but it will hurt the pacing of the story.
