Now, it could be that the system needs looking at to ensure that killing things are indeed harder than incapacitating them. But what might also be true is that we're approaching it from the wrong point of view. Maybe it takes more effort and skill to incapacitate something for a given time than to outright kill it. If that's the case, then the tweaking needs to happen in our perception and not the system.
Killing is inherently harder, but it simply requires less time and skill. That's correct. Killing is actually a worse outcome from a getting the result you want if you're trying to get something.
Think for a moment. A powerful spellcaster bursts into a King's hall. Kills all the guards and demands the King submit to him or die. If I was that King I might submit, but the spellcaster's enemies could swiftly undermine the position of the spellcaster in that court and ultimately the King will A) Hate the spellcaster, B) be in league with his enemies, and C) spread the word that nobody should trust said spell caster. If instead that same spellcaster bursts into the room, knocks out the guards and insinuates that he could do far worse to the King's enemies if he throws his lot in with the spellcaster he probably has himself a much more useful pawn of a King.
Which is the better outcome? Dead guards, pissed off King. Or Live guards and useful pawn?
