This is a PvE question. What do folks think about "conning" monsters? Should we see their stats relative to us or not? Should their names give their rank and class away? And in a slightly different vein, should monsters with sympathetic alignments be able to engage in reason and perhaps even trade or be hired?
Personally I don't think I should be able to con a monster and tell if I can take it out or not. Experience should teach me and there should be some cues that I should be able to pick up on but I shouldn't be able to scope them out. Perhaps as I developed knowledge I might get better IF it was a skill I was focusing on and then I might be able to "con" some types that I have had extensive experiences with. I also dislike seeing monster names like gobbo shaman. If I see a gobbo with a skull topped stick I might infer its a shaman, but it might just be a gobbo monk with a staff or a fighter with a warclub. But why should the game tell me what that gobbo is? It'sa bit "immersion breaking".
I'd like to see a system that wasn't always hack and slash for mobs, especially if their alignment was compatible or close to mine. I'd like to have opportunities for bluff and diplomacy. Resolving conflict without bloodshed may even appeal to some religous types. Do we have to kill off the CN, NG, CG centaurs to claim a hex - maybe we could offer them relocation to a reservation, err, unclaimed hex? Perhaps even sell goods to them. Or contract with them for protection or to provide them with protection? Would a pally really KOS when they hadn't tried reason first? Maybe I could generate content by gaining their trust then apprenticing with their master druid to learn something special, a spell or ability perhaps, or work with their blacksmith to learn how to make spears, or study nets and tridents with their warriors? Befriending such might open avenues to new or special skills thereby differentiating myself from other PCs and making my story more unique.