>There are loads of pressure to PK. I always feel people are
>not taking me seriously until I have some kills.

That may be true for players and to some degree, immortals. People are impressed by different things, but outside of specific religions or other niches, being "good at PK" is never a hard requirement.

>Try and become leader of any cabal (other than Herald or
>Acolytes) with 0 PK wins. Get a third legacy or a quest form
>with 0 PK wins. Probably can't even get empowered to 51 if
>you're a shaman or paladin, if you don't have some PK wins.

That's not a hard and fast rule, though you may be correct that those things are incredibly unlikely to happen at literally zero PKs for anyone but perhaps a Herald or Herald-like character. For cabal leadership, one aspect that a patron imm might consider is how effectively a person is able to defend their cabal, for example, and a person who can do that well is also likely to have some PKs. But again, generally speaking these shouldn't be considered hard truths.

>I GUESS if you can write a contest-winning role... but I
>always felt this was a perverse incentive at its finest.

Nobody should feel like they have to write a RC-winning role to get ahead, but they probably should feel like they need a role that is objectively good (explains the right things, defines goals, etc.).

>Unless that perception changed (and I'm not sure it needs to
>change), edge points would remain a lesser incentive than
>trying to get a reputation for being competent.

In a perfect world I think people would be incentivized to RP because we attract the kinds of players who enjoy it. Likewise, we do indeed hope people put effort into RP because people (players and staff) might notice. But there's probably a place for this method too.