You know, I have to be honest and say that at this stage I have a bit of a problem with the idea that it's *avoiding* conflict that should cost something. Avoiding conflict usually takes more thought and effort than just fighting. Why should it cost more? If anything I feel like the dumb route of just fighting and killing is the thing that should cost extra, the penalty for being violent and taking the easy route. 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?
Well i just feel that it is more rewarding not getting a reward for being good, but that's just me, i understand that most people want to eat the cake and have it too. I wouldn't mind that in real life though.
But if you would be rewarded for being good and punished for being evil!
What would an evil characters motivation for choosing the "evil" path be then, you could just take the good path and reap the rewards, with none of the downsides of choosing the evil path? Besides just being a murder hobo?
And i disagree that the violent route is the Evil route automatically, that would very much depend on what you are trying to accomplish.
If you are trying to pass a city guard who are just doing his job, it might be the good route to try and persude him to let you pass,
but if you are accosted by some raiding goblins, i would say it's your duty as a good citizen to erradicate such evil vermin instead of trying to talk your way out.
To stop them from harming innocent people in the future.
With that said, Unless you have a really hard stutter, i don't really agree that fighting a bunch of monsters instead of convincing them not to fight is the "easy" route. I agree that it might take a bit more cunning to pull off, but definitely not more effort.
