In the Arcanum game it's pretty obvious what gives you good points: being generous, doing quests without payment, quests that help the greater good. Evil is another matter. VERBAL ABUSE. Saying something nasty to someone like Cynthia on the Isle of Despair gives you a negative point. However most scathing comments seem to instigate combat, which is something you can do without talking. And there seems to be no point, since it almost always leads to killing. Rarely do I see someone say "I give up", let alone "Ok, what do you want?" Bar fights seem to upset the non-combatants, so I try to avoid them. FORNICATION. Not really evil, but I thought there'd be a penalty for visiting Madam Lil's as a male or for providing services as a female character, like gaining a reputation, but I haven't seen any. THIEVING. There are different kinds of stealing in Arcanum. There are a lot of barrels lying around in farm country for instance, whose contents are for the taking. A few events could be considered necessary for "the greater good." But most are because someone's got something you want like the Jewel of Hebe, or just another way to make money. There's one type I've heard of that seems particularly nasty. That is robbing a shopkeeper of either his money or his wares. I haven't done it. You'd think that all or most of his goods would be marked as stolen and he'd be out of business: shop closed. I don't know if this happens or if he's back up and running, slowly increasing his coin like after you sell all your magic armor to one Smithy. RUINING A TOWN. What's worse than causing one guy to go out of business? Causing lot's of people to be ruined. The Endings come to mind: Shrouded Hills never recovers, Cumbria fails, Caladon fails, etc. KILLING. Clearly killing monsters is a necessary function in the game so it doesn't affect your good/evil rating. I was disappointed that there weren't better dialog options for the Master of Firearms who became a pacifist. Perhaps I'll add one for IN (IQ) >=19 since I haven't played a character of that level (I can get 18 by using a potion). It would be interesting if there was an ending for the die-hard who goes through the game without his character or followers killing anyone. MURDER. You generally get negative points by murdering good characters. Sometimes you just want to do it to take what they've got when you're just not a thief. SLAUGHTER. Now this is a requirement of the true evil path: slaughtering the town of Stillwater. If you're willing to do this you may as well clear out most towns. This is the Bane of Kree's ending as well as Kerghan's. Anyway, the game doesn't take these different types into account say by giving you a b****, thief, and murderer rating. Also there are several endings of the game that seem to be based more on your dialog choices with Kerghan than what you've done in Arcanum. I could easily imagine a special ending if you're -100 or +100.
Yes, indeed. It's a very strange thing; random strangers, non-combatant types of strangers, are fully prepared to fight to the death (their own) to defend their honor if you say something nasty to them. You know you can visit Madam Lil's as a female, too, right? My female elf loves nothing more than the half-elf and naieve human girl. At the same time. Actually, no. It's why I don't feel in the least bit guilty about perpetuating Big Heists. The shop will be back up and running in a day, full inventory, full gold supply, the works. Failing to recover Shrouded Hills is not actually evil, it could be negligence or simply the fact that you never even saw the quests to do so. But yes, ruining other towns is evil. There are spots in the game where combat is forced and you can't avoid it. Black Mountain Mines, for example. However, I'll note that I don't know what everyone is talking about - it's perfectly possible to become a Firearms Master without resorting to threatening the people. You just have to run into the barn on turn-based and kill the ogre in the back next to the halfling's wife. Then you can kill the rest, and you're fine. Go back, talk to the guy, and he'll teach you. You do have to demand that he does so, but you don't have to threaten him with violence - possibly, this may require a very high Persuasion, and you may need to be a Persuasion Expert, but it can be done. Yeah, that's pretty evil. Welllll...
In almost every CRPG, most of the "role playing" feeling must be created by the player, and very little of it is provided by the game itself. In Arcanum being good or evil is a matter of equipping>unequipping>reequipping a stupid helm several times or not. So honestly I wouldn't worry about cosmetic alignment details with different good/evil deeds. If you're pretending to be a badass, having -10 alignment instead of -100 shouldn't matter. You know you're evil, the game doesn't need to know. And if I recall correctly -10 should suffice for all major evil plot twists anyway(Joining Dalk elves, assassination sidequests, joining Kerghan etc) (... Please don't mention the Shadow Shield!) On the other hand, I wish it was possible to progress in Arcanum with lower body counts. You can peacefully survive assassins or Orcs in the wilderness but sometimes violence is inevitable. Firearms master quest is a good example. And when you're killing stuff, killing evil beings is considered good. Killing good beings is considered evil. Killing neutrals does not trigger any reaction most of the time! With these solid boundries between good and evil (and neutral), -1 alignment can be considered as "evil" as -100. Obviously this wouldn't work if 100 or -100 alignment (this word is on my clipboard right now, I mistyped it every time) had an important effect like you said. Or if there were more and better items like Shadow Shield.
You can finish the main quest without killing anything, through the use of persuasion and either prowling, or the invisibility spell. (Obviously, if you are following the evil path you have to slaughter everyone in Stillwater)
In my opinion alignment meters should be scrapped altogether. It's simply laughable to believe that you can fit the entire scope of human (well, humanoid then) ethics and behaviour on a 200 degree scale, where the difference between -1 and -100 amounts to fuck-all. D&D is a little better, having two axes, but still... I'd rather have a system completely based upon reputations and actual choices (Geoffrey not magically checking how evil you are before he may join). Oddly enough, TES is actually right on the money with this, or at least could be weren't they all somewhat shallow sandboxes.
The perk / karmic trait system of Fallout 1/2 is better. Childkiller, Berserker, Slaver, Prizefighter, Porn Star, Demon Spawn / Champion, etc etc etc. Mmmmm.