In all fairness, being the "bad guy" instead of the "good guy" isn't especially rewarding. However, being the guy who resolves the quest without violence for full reward and then kills everyone for more reward is strictly more rewarding. Although, with ever-increasing amounts of XP required for each level-up and ever-increasing gold costs for better items, the impact is low (or certainly can be) if these extra costs scale up fast enough.
I am referring specifically to the exp gap between the two primary choices. It's not an opinion, just a fact. You get more experience if you kill everyone than if you don't. My opinion is that both options should give the same exp. If people decide to power game then more power to them.
Originally Posted by error3
For example, it won't matter how many level 1 peasants you killed, once you're level 10, the gold and XP impacts will be too low to matter.
Saying that if you ignore the problem long enough it will go away =/= there is no problem. You are correct that, in theory, eventually you will not feel the loss of 50 exp when you are dealing with 5000 exp, but if the same design philosophy continues then you WILL feel the thousands of experience you miss out on then which will continue to be a trend throughout the entire game.
