BG1, I would guess, was mostly about getting the game engine to work: spells, combat, dialog trees, pathfinding, graphics, and the like. They got a great system, that could utilize potential roleplaying angles, to *work*. With the head start of the game engine set and working, BG2 actually *used* that potential (at least more so).
The Ogre Knuckleheads on the Bridge encounter does have a roleplaying element. But personally, I would have put a balance-shifting item, such as those gauntlets, in a more 'neutral' spot, where everyone regardless of the their roleplaying angle would have a chance at 'em. But as it was designed, you either kill them, maybe pick-pocket them, or go without. I would have added a dialog branch to somehow trade with the ogres for the gauntlets, with success being determined by Charisma, ala Planescape:Torment. This would've allowed for a Paladin roleplaying angle (if that's the kinda Paladin you're playing, personally, I would've smoked the evil bullies).
(And more encounters like that would've made Charisma important. They created a roleplaying game engine that could actually make Charisma mean something, then they kinda forgot to use it.)
If I was Bioware, I would have made each roleplaying situation do'able via good/evil/neutral combat/charisma. Handle a situation with your Holy Sword, or as a charismatic liar, or with your poison dagger backstab, or as an inspiring leader of peace and justice, or as an intimidating toughguy who exudes an 'I-don't-care-what-you-do-just-don't-mess-with-me' neutral attitude. The roleplaying angles would all have equal bonuses, penalties, and repercussions. Different, but equal. But alas, this post is the closest I'll ever get to game design.
You may end up disappointed, thinking the game will reward you in the end. Still, the BG Saga does it better than most. The sign of a great game is when it's micro-dissected. And remember, life's not the destination, it's the journey! (I AM the Zen Master!

)