It's just a personal peeve of mine, I'm tired of the default assumption being that the 'good' route should always be the harder one, or the one that costs more. Why can't the violent, evil route be the one that ultimately ends up not paying off, or being more trouble than it was worth?
If only that were always the case in real life as well as in games
Seriously, though, I think that ideally there should be costs and benefits to each path that are fitting, for example a peaceful character might miss out on getting some cool loot and XP by not killing an NPC, but a violent one misses out on subsequent interesting interactions or a quest with associated rewards that the NPC gives if they live. I think BG3 is setting itself up to be able to have that sort of responsiveness to our actions and I really hope the full game lives up to its promise and lets, for example, those of us who let Gimblebock live get their reward in the form of more content later on. Even if it’s just him and his gang ambushing us and us having to kill him anyway, or I’d even settle for the opportunity to chat with him in a pub in Baldur’s Gate
What I don’t particularly mind is whether or not the rewards of different paths are precisely balanced, as long as they’re each fulfilling in their own way.
