I'm also waiting on BNW to come and
a) Explaining how not carrying out the illegal order will get you blacklisted in the military
Joe Darby, the guy who blew the whistle on Bbu garab, is probably the most severe example.
The disclosure was not received well by the community in which Darby and his wife, Bernadette, were living in Maryland.[4] They have been shunned by friends and neighbors, their property has been vandalized, and they now reside in protective military custody at an undisclosed location. Bernadette said, "We did not receive the response I thought we would. People were, they were mean, saying he was a walking dead man, he was walking around with a bull's-eye on his head. It was scary."[5]
On the other hand, CBS reports that former neighbors from one of his childhood homes in Pennsylvania were proud of him.[6] Darby has also said that soldiers in his unit shook his hand afterward.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Darby
And i don't think i need to go out on a limb to say "don't tell anyone about this" was one of his orders.
Most of what i'm aware of is from the vietnam era. I don't know if you'd consider that recent though.
b) complain that you stated that poster was 'wrong', and thus being so blunt its insulting... thats what I got told.
Thats not remotely what i said. I have no problem with blunt, i have no problem with wrong. What i have a problem with is ad homs. If the other ARGUMENT is wrong, boneheaded,insane, could have been bested by a 3 year old with a crayon, less beleivable than a drunk hillbilly and more rules lawyery than "what is is" etc. thats one thing, thats something that can be discussed. When you take it to the level where you say that the other PERSON doesn't know anything you've effectively dismissed their argument and their evidence based on your opinion of the person. Its also fairly circular, because no matter what they say you can dismiss it because its coming from an ignoramous/moron, and you know they're an ignoramus because what they said is wrong, and you know its wrong because they're an ignoramus.
|
Well what bothers me is not the moral relativism between campaigns, as in that whatever pcs decide is good or evil, but the fact that once those decisions are made they are objective.
I applaud you zero for taking alignment out of your game. It is one of those things where I feel I can run a game with it, but there is always the nagging bother of that blind spot in the world's plausibility, just like in many things in DND 3.x
When you take it to the level where you say that the other PERSON doesn't know anything you've effectively dismissed their argument and their evidence based on your opinion of the person.
Never happened. Not at all.
Heres what I said:
Yet twenty six of them were charged for doing just that as they obeyed the order from their commander. So once again, you might want to have a bit of a longer think about how all that works out...Actually, any Soldier, right down to the freshest recruit can refuse to obey an order to kill 'unlawfully'. If they DO carry out the order they can be charged. So you are flat out wrong. LOAC is your friend.
The chap made a comment, I pointed him in the direction of instances he might look at and think about, and possibly go off and have a read and learn more.
His reply was that he was across the subject, and in fact refuted the examples. At that point I pointed out that he was indeed wrong (as have many posters subsequently).
No at no point was he attacked directly (other than being told you are 'flat out' wrong), at no point was the validity of anything else denied based on what I might or might not think of the person, and at no point was he rubbished and ridiculed.
However here you are again, having a sook about something you have (mis)read and decided to take offence at and come try and make a point about it.
What i have a problem with is ad homs.
Yes, yes you do, and it appears to be in understanding what the term means and misusing the term, especially in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Happy reading.
As for how moral relativism should be applied to a role-playing game: the players likely agree on "right and wrong" in the real world
Really? Have you seen this thread or the hundreds of others like it? I would say the mere existence of this thread (let alone the hundreds of others like it) would absolutely prove that many times players don't agree on what's "right" or "wrong" ahead of time. If they all did there would be no reason for players or GM's to come onto messageboards and see if they're moral view of the alignment system is the "right" one. That's why my original post cited not only the concept of moral relativism, but made a strong call for all GM's to create a common consensus with their players on what's "right" and "wrong" in their campaign before it ever starts.
What i have a problem with is ad homs.
Yes, yes you do, and it appears to be in understanding what the term means and misusing the term, especially in this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Happy reading.
See, THATS exactly the malarky i'm talking about. You haven't made an argument, you haven't refuted a point, you've just smugly asserted that i don't understand something and need to understand it without demonstrating it.
Personally I think good/evil morality issues in D&D/Pathfinder/etc... is generally pretty vague at best. Adventurers make a rather consistent habit of doing things that most civilizations consider to be "immoral". I mean grave robbing is has been seen by many cultures to be one of the foulest things a person can do. Yet adventurers do it pretty much constantly. Really morality debates step into a philosophical area that rpgs really don't cover.
That said... Killing a charmed person, even an evil one... is murder and would get you a point towards your Powers Check in Ravenloft.
Also with the "what would a paladin do" bit. I ask would Superman do it? If the answer is no. You're not playing your paladin right.
Personally I think good/evil morality issues in D&D/Pathfinder/etc... is generally pretty vague at best. Adventurers make a rather consistent habit of doing things that most civilizations consider to be "immoral". I mean grave robbing is has been seen by many cultures to be one of the foulest things a person can do. Yet adventurers do it pretty much constantly. Really morality debates step into a philosophical area that rpgs really don't cover.
Rob a 10 year old grave, you're a thief. Rob a 1,000 year old grave, you're a professor of archeology.
Alright, here you go. A tavern is run by a Lawful Evil barkeep. He swindles customers and charges different rates to different customers and is openly racist. He also runs an illegal gaming operation in the back of his tavern and lies on his annual taxes to avoid paying his fair share but he is smart enough about the tax laws that he never technically "breaks" the law, he just hides key information that would make him pay more than what he does.
One day, a paladin walks into the tavern and just so happens to case the place by detecting evil. The tavern owner pings evil on his radar and the paladin draws his sword, smites and power attacks the barkeep simply because he radiated an evil aura and winds up killing him with one shot. Everyone clears the tavern in fear and shouts begin to go out to the city guard to come to the tavern because the owner has been.... MURDERED!!
In Pathfinder, this guy would have to be moderately high level or a priest of an evil god to even detect as evil.
I don't personally have a problem with a paladin mowing down the greater evils of the world, although yes it might run afoul of local laws in some cases and yes that is a problem for them legally. In other words, I think it's completely justified by their Good alignment but is a problem for their Lawful alignment.
|
Alright, here you go. A tavern is run by a Lawful Evil barkeep. He swindles customers and charges different rates to different customers and is openly racist. He also runs an illegal gaming operation in the back of his tavern and lies on his annual taxes to avoid paying his fair share but he is smart enough about the tax laws that he never technically "breaks" the law, he just hides key information that would make him pay more than what he does.
One day, a paladin walks into the tavern and just so happens to case the place by detecting evil. The tavern owner pings evil on his radar and the paladin draws his sword, smites and power attacks the barkeep simply because he radiated an evil aura and winds up killing him with one shot. Everyone clears the tavern in fear and shouts begin to go out to the city guard to come to the tavern because the owner has been.... MURDERED!!
In Pathfinder, this guy would have to be moderately high level or a priest of an evil god to even detect as evil.
I don't personally have a problem with a paladin mowing down the greater evils of the world, although yes it might run afoul of local laws in some cases and yes that is a problem for them legally. In other words, I think it's completely justified by their Good alignment but is a problem for their Lawful alignment.
He would just have to be a LVL 5 Commoner to detect as evil. Or have one level of cleric.
Folks, can we keep the real world politics out of this thread, please?
Go make another thread in Off Topic if you really feel the need.
He would just have to be a LVL 5 Commoner to detect as evil. Or have one level of cleric.
Looks like level 6 to me.
And isn't that basically what I said?
See, THATS exactly the malarky i'm talking about. You haven't made an argument, you haven't refuted a point, you've just smugly asserted that i don't understand something and need to understand it without demonstrating it.
I have to assume you are simply being obtuse.
I will clarify this one more time in the hope that you perhaps slow down and read what is there, rather than persist in trying to push what you have selectively interpreted or just plain misread.
Person A made a statement.
Person B raises a few notable historical points to person A that contradict the statement/
Persona A insists that they are right and that the contradictory points are invalid.
Person B points out that person A is wrong.
Person C with a hump about person B comes in and starts trying to pick fault with person B, claiming that person B is being all horrible and mean and using Ad Homs on person A.
Person B points out to person C that this is untrue, and further takes time out of his day to also correct person C on what an Ad Hom is, and by extension, demonstrating that these have not been used.
Person C, smarting from being corrected, makes some vague and ambiguous statement as a response, clearly unable to point to where the alleged ad hom happened. Instead they feign frustration and throw in some manufactured outrage so they can appear righteous as they skulk off.
Perhaps if they weren't making such spurious false allegations they'd have been saved the indignity of having all this pointed out.
TLDR - Seriously BNW, just get over me. Or send flowers. The lovelorn puppy act is getting old.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the original topic.
"You make your Perception check and spot a Morality thread: Is using Charm Person in combat, then slaughtering the chap afterwards evil?" The topic says it all.
It seems to me that using Charm Person in this way would be evil. I can only hope that one more eloquent than I can put this thought to words.
Looking at the other posts, I wonder where the DM is in this?
I was the DM for this situation two months ago. The Serpentine bloodline sorcerer in the party charmed an Annis Hag among the Bad Guy's minions during combat. Aided by a Glibness spell, he had her agreeing to everything he said.
And when the main Bag Guy was finally defeated, the question was what to do about the Annis Hag who had been their ally for two days?
I had made sure that the hag repeated back everything the sorcerer said in her own interpretation.
SORCERER: We have to stop the Bad Guy.
HAG: I get it. You want to cut in on the action before he claims all the loot for himself.
SORCERER: He has been burning villages to the ground.
HAG: You are much more sensible than my boss. Save some villagers to eat later, I say. Burn the houses and they don't have any place to breed those tasty babies.
SORCERER: He sent his minions to kill us.
HAG: Fat lot of good that did him. To think that I attacked alongside those idiots. Then I got smart and saw who the real power was, and they stayed stupid and died. Good riddance.
A charmed evil person helping the good guys is still evil and will repeatedly recommend evil and heartless actions to her new friend. If the charmed evil person acts good, then it seems too much like the character has reformed. The DM shouldn't confuse the party like that.
In the aftermath, the sorcerer could not bring himself to kill the hag while she trusted him. That night, two other party members took matters in their own hands and attacked the hag away from the rest of the party.
HAG: I should have expected this. I was getting too close to the great sorcerer. So you planned a little ambush to remove a rival. I can respect that. But it won't work. I'm going to kill you.
They defeated her with a clear conscience.
Looking at the other posts, I wonder where the DM is in this?
And when the main Bag Guy was finally defeated, the question was what to do about the Annis Hag who had been their ally for two days?
Interesting take on it all, of couse the Hag was his ally, not an ally of the party per se :P
Topic says it all.
It seems to me that using Charm Person in this way would be evil. I can only hope that one more eloquent than I can put this thought to words.
Depends on circumstance.
It could be evil. If the person doing it charms an innocent, uses them for sex or some other selfish purpose, then kills them, that would be evil.
If a good person charms an evil guard, uses him to gain entrance into the BBEGs fortress, and then kills him because it is impractical to imprison him and dangerous to knock him out where he might be found, then it might be a good act in terms of its motivation.
If during standard adventuring the person charms an orc, uses him to fight for a while or carry his stuff, and then kills him. I'd consider this a neutral act. It's what adventurers do. There are no Geneva Convention or Rules of Engagement when you're days away from civilization adventuring in ancient ruins where dangerous monsters and evil humanoids live. Some orc gets in your way, you have the means to use him and then kill him...too bad for him.
So it is dependent upon circumstances. Individual character comes into question too. If the character makes this a pattern, then you have to determine what that pattern is and if he is evil because of it. It's ultimately your call.
I see little difference in using a charm spell to defeat and eventually kill an enemy than using a fireball to kill him right then and there. Method is different, results the same. The act itself is not evil.
Players frequently act in evil and selfish ways towards npcs, towards monsters or enemies, they are even worse.
One player I knew, playing the typical arrogant wizard in a Molthunian game of mine, maximise fireballed his own mercenaries for disobeying orders and looting an enemey town. He knew he hired the worst, hardened scoundrels but just wouldn't accept disobedience. He was so crazed and sure of himself, a cleric of madness and Groetus ended up saving some of the mercs.
A blackguard and long term npc accompanying them escaped consequences, the non-named npcs en masse, not so much.
I've also seen a good cleric cast fear spells on a lawful good lizardman waiter. I think he told him to not go into the cooking area.
Players frequently act in evil and selfish ways towards npcs, towards monsters or enemies, they are even worse.
Only bad if it happened to have anything other than XE on their alignment column... or the clowns who use CN as a cover to in fact be evil and not pay the 'toll'.
Not forgetting a certain dread necromancer who claimed himself chaotic good. Then proceeded to be fired from position of royal guard for being deliberately late to court. Seneschal of the city offers to take him under his wing. Necromancer kills seneschal and tries to forge documents making himself the new seneschal.
Yes. Chaotic good indeed.
|
My Paladin would have no hesitation stepping up and killing a charmed person assuming he was Evil.
My Paladin would also have no issue getting the jump on a bad guy and stabbing him in the back, nor would he have a problem killing evil while it was busy doing a whore.
It's too bad that Neutral whore wakes up screaming every night in fear, while she relives the horror of watching your greatsword cleave through the skull of the man lying atop her, and seeing the blade stop inches from her face, while the man's blood and brains spills all over her.
Those evil people that you're so fond of killing tend not to worry about how their actions might inflict harm on innocent people. Good to know that you've got so much in common with them.
He was chaotic good?!?!
Indeed Heymitch. Once a char came late to a game, and he followed the party as a rogue, picking up what they missed. He didn't know them, but from his perspective they were dangerous psychotics, leaving corpses everywhere.
Good? Bad? I killed my boss (who was loved and respected by low and high born).
Our "friend" from that game only has one alignment, selfish power gamer (it is right next to chaotic evil).
I wonder how these players would react when the next hostile encounter is a bunch of LG Paladins and support Clerics coming to put a stop to their self interested amd bloodthirsty was and general disregard for law, order, or the safety of their fellow man.
...or they are in turn betrayed by so called 'good guys' who now realise its 'us and them' after reading the writing on the wall (literally).
|
|
If a Paladin got in an Evil killing spree in town I will make him fall... Not from being evil but for being chaotic... :p
And usually truly evil people in towns will have something to change their alignment.
Truly evil people might hand out these lovely good luck talismans that cause the wearer's to register as evil to a Detect spell or a Paladin. Then, when the crazed Paladin goes on a killing spree around town, hilarity ensues...
yes. Problem I have seen in many players. Rollplaying but not roleplaying. Especially when supposedly playing good alignments. Some really dodgy stuff is pulled. The excuse of "no one was killed, so its not evil."
I guess the only way forward is for GM's to call out bad behaviour when they see it... and if the group all decides that LG is going into the Sith academy and killing all the babies because 'they were going to be Evil' and are all ok with that then more power to them - wouldn't get air play at my table :P
I did notice a lot of relativism on the forum. It's okay cause such and such, no its not really evil, killing evil monsters is evil too! Paladins may be excessive, but rangers are the true and greatest racists.
Only if you haven't moved past the old trope of "Favored Enemy = I Hate You".
I noticed that when I came over to PF from 2ED. Funny how that is still sticking around.
Well it might be considered an old trope, but if you train long and hard to kill a specific monster/type of creature, chances are you don't want to take them out to tea (unless the tea is poisoned).
Course it can also be just business or a necessity (undead) so a ranger could be very detached about his favoured enemy, but that also isn't love.
|
I noticed that when I came over to PF from 2ED. Funny how that is still sticking around.
At least no one (mostly) is still thinking you have to be Evil to select your own race as a FE. Because people totally do study their own race.
EDIT: Have we discussed this before, Loyalist? Cause I'd hate to waste both our time arguing something again. :)
Course it can also be just business or a necessity (undead) so a ranger could be very detached about his favoured enemy, but that also isn't love.
But its not just training to 'kill them', it covers knowing about them, their habits, how to track them, belief systems etc.
http://www.mantracker.ca/
http://www.dogthebountyhunter.com/
Look, Rangers highly skilled at dealing with humans...!
(and not to put them in a stew pot)
Psychology isn't the same as knowing how to effectively stab an orc/how to get through their defences, where their weak spots are. Physiology would have been a better association to make. And just because someone knows a bit about physiology doesn't mean they get all the bonuses favoured provides. It covers a lot, and applies to one specific group, in that, you can have a bit of fun.
I still stick with the rule on the evil requirement to get favoured for your own people, but what I add is an interesting rule from 3rd ed, in a dragon mag. See it was a robin hood campaign, and it broke favoured into ethnic divisions. So Robin Hood had favoured enemy Norman, but the techniques and knowledge of the Normans would not apply to a Celt druid or a Danish raider, or, to an Anglo Saxon.
I saw the Taldorian elites have favoured enemy human, they are not evil, and I thought, no, it should be humanoid: Qadiran and bandits against Taldor. Qadirans are ancestral enemies and there are a lot of human bandit groups within Taldor
Learning how to fight, that's the fighter, learning how to rage and move quick, that's the barb. Learning how to hunt, track and quickly kill your own kind, that's evil. It may however, be justified.
Shifty, it also does involve training how to kill them, but yes, it is larger than this.
Thats only because Robin Hood didn't have Orcs running around...!
I get what you are saying about the FE being applied to subsets of a species, but you are then arbitrarily limiting (nerfing) a class ability without compensation - its a bit like saying you can take FE:Orc (completely reasonable and we are both ok with that ) but then saying 'Only applies to the blue orcs from the next town'.
Thats a pretty unfair limitation to place unless you intend on giving something back to a player to compensate them for the loss of a key class ability.
Incidentally, the Military teach you how to hunt track and kill your own kind. Are all soldiers now Evil?
I got yelled at for asking a similar question.
But it is a good question!
I guess Law Enforcement Officers are all Evil too by extension.
The fantasy militaries don't train rangers typically, they pump out warriors, fighters and marshals. Having track and survival doesn't make one a ranger with favoured enemy. Hunting and tracking doesn't make one evil, to say so is taking away from the issue.
To answer shifty and "the Military teach you how to hunt track and kill your own kind. Are all soldiers now Evil?". If you were say Canadian, and your country was teaching you to hunt, track and kill Canadians, then sorry buddy, you are probably evil. Militaries designed to protect a nation and a public do not train their soldiers specifically to kill their own people (people being defined by the nation in this instance), they train and prepare them supposedly to defend, not attack their own. This is the reason I stick with the evil requirement for your own kind.
Limiting human is not the loss of a key ability, it applies, but specifically. There are a great many human cultures, and by breaking it up I am accepting the divisions existing within Golarion. Back to the Taldorian and combat, if favoured enemy is brought about by teaching and training in many areas, which may also involve a significant element of morale, why would a favoured enemy Qadiran apply to a Taldorian? Humans yes, but they would have different fighting styles, stances, perhaps even body size and shape as typical, and certainly a different culture and society. If morale is a part of it, could a Taldorian veteran of wars against the Kelesh really get his enthusiasm up to kill a law-abiding Taldorian whom is not a Qadiran (his usual enemy) or a rebel/bandit?
By being more specific you can also make interesting connections. So rebels against Taldor also applies to the humanoids of Andoran and Cheliax, which broke away from Taldor and founded their own territories. So the humanoid division is not as limiting as you think, it works with setting I have run quite well. An example is Sargava where the common human ethnicities are colonist, Mwangi, pirate. They don't look the same, they don't fight the same, they aren't the same cultures. They are humans, but also very different.
"I guess Law Enforcement Officers are all Evil too by extension."
Are you sure lawmen would be rangers? Not warriors, fighters, marshalls, rogue (detectives)?
If a law enforcement officer, or an soldier hunted and killed people of his state and ethnicity, it may indeed by lawful evil. This is something to be considered, perhaps the hunters are indeed evil. Bounty hunters? Easily neutral or lawful evil. They have a historically bad reputation.
If you were say Canadian, and your country was teaching you to hunt, track and kill Canadians, then sorry buddy, you are probably evil.
No thats right, they teach you how to hunt track and kill 'people', not just one lot, but 'people' as a broad term.
Fantasy armies, just like real ones throughout Earths history the world over have indeed contained Scouts, rangers, light skirmishers etc given those select skills.
Now where I WILL give you a cookie is when the person with said training sets off without lawful purpose to hunt and kill their own kind, or does so as cold blooded murder. That is a different story, and would be evil.
I think its farcical to suggest that the 'Canadian' above would be great at hunting people the World over, but that when it came to Canadians his skills wouldn't carry over - do they have a different anatomy or something?
You realise that Counter Terrorist groups spend their time learning all this to deal with domestic terrorism right? Your example appears to suggest that counter terrorist agents are all LE. Conversely a black LEO is fine to hunt and kill white people - as they are of a different ethnicity. Whaaaaa?
And counter terrorist groups may indeed be lawful evil. That isn't what the media tells us about these stalwart defenders of democracy who ninja in and kill people quietly, but it could apply to some. Kill enemies of the state, obey orders, reap benefits and promotion. I suppose any discussion like this is going to come back to Vietnam.
DM: Are you sure you want to do this?
Player: Lolz my favoured enemy bonus applies even to the Viet children! Look I took Vietnamese, I want the bonuses.
DM: sigh.
Good we can come to some accords. The Canadian serial-killer of Canadians is a useful example. Good at killing Canadians, quite evil, not so good at killing Burmese (whom are a different shape and size to the typical Anglo-French Canadian).
OK so just clarify one last one for me, as I really want to be clear on your perspective.
Joe the Fighter learns to kill by essentially becoming ultra skilled with his use of a blade and brute force. His job on the City Watch is to protect the towns roads from highwaymen who prey upon merchants and families travelling the major roads between towns.
He has a brother Bob, also on the City Watch, who starts spending time learning the habits of the people around him, and uses his advanced knowledge of peole to keep the roads safe - he is very skilled at telling the difference between 'civillians' - he now knows so much about people he can spot a robber posing as a farmer, and when an armed man is just an honest travelling mercenary. He doesn't rely on the Fighters brawn and beligerence to win the fight, but rather on his advanced knowledge to help him win the day.
How is the fighter now fine and LG, and yet the Ranger now LE?
They are both doing the same thing (essentially its going to end with their sword somewhere painfull) so why does the difference in training make one 'Evil'?
This ranger isn't LE. Bob the man of the city watch sounds very much like a ranger with favoured enemy: criminals (he doesn't fight, track, hunt or bother law abiding decent folk). You seem to understand how this is implemented in my game. If he had favoured all humans, yes he would be required to be evil for it to apply to all humans.
Joe might kill his own kind (humans) if he has to, but as a fighter he isn't a ranger. Joe's skills are with his weapon, his feats, he doesn't go the way of favoured enemy. Doesn't need to worry about alignment and favoured enemy.
I will check up favoured again soon though. Read it later in detail.
OK well now we start heading into new terrain.
If I have FE:Criminals, does that apply to the orcish highwaymen as well as their Ogre muscle? Because if you were saying that it applies to the whole diaspora of the criminal element, then its now worthwhile again...
That said, there is no FE(ethno-social subset) there is only 'Race'.
I'm still lost though that practicing running a human through with a sword to the point that I can hit you with brutal efficiency regardless if you are prince pauper saint or sinner (Fighter) is 'Good', but if I study your habits, behaviours, and weak points to become good at killing you then I am 'Evil'
The training is neither here nor there imo, its WHAT you do with it and WHO you are killing, and WHY you are killing them that determines good and evil.
So I get where you are at, I just think we are on different pages.
A doctor studies medicine, he knows how to kill you in ways you never even heard of, is he Evil?
There is FE (ethno-social subset), it is in one of the earliest 3rd ed Dragon editions from the makers of 3rd ed.
Forgotten realms also allowed favoured enemy organisations, but this was from a forum and is not absolutely certain.
"I'm still lost though that practicing running a human through with a sword to the point that I can hit you with brutal efficiency regardless if you are prince pauper saint or sinner (Fighter) is 'Good', but if I study your habits, behaviours, and weak points to become good at killing you then I am 'Evil'"
You can rest at ease, that is not what I am saying. If you study the habits, behaviours and weak points of your own people in the exclusive manner to qualify for favoured enemy, not as a fighter/barb/high bab or rogue class, but for the ranger favoured enemy you must be evil to take it or have a rather good character reason. In a sense we are putting the perceptions of wider communities into and upon alignment, I can see that. A traitor who hunts his own would be considered evil, if I went bush and started taking down other Australians with a bow indiscriminately I think Id be seen as evil and on the path, such an undertaking would also effect the hunter. Rangers can get wonderfully existential, and perhaps trendy philosophies are creeping into our games. Tolkien is racist, booooooooo!
You could be a quick stealthy hunter of your own people and not have favoured enemy, and do it as a scout. More a rusher, a skirmisher, but then you don't have favoured, so there are ways to do it. Perhaps bringing alignment in is not helpful at all?
"If I have FE:Criminals, does that apply to the orcish highwaymen as well as their Ogre muscle? Because if you were saying that it applies to the whole diaspora of the criminal element, then its now worthwhile again..."
Yep, you understand how it can be used in my game. In this case the criminal element is key: rogues, bandits, professional criminals and fugitives. Cool eh? Narrower but potentially broader. Much better than human orc or ogre.
"A doctor studies medicine, he knows how to kill you in ways you never even heard of, is he Evil?"
Not all doctors are assassins or competent in hand to hand murder and ranged (rangers can do it both ways). A doctor is also not a ranger. An actual assassin although evil and competent in anatomy, does not have favoured enemy either. Knowing how to kill someone well does not make one a ranger or necessary qualify for favoured enemy, or fighters would have it.
I was also checking the good old players, and the evil requirement may be from 3rd ed, not 3.5. I couldn't find it in 3.5. As a dm, I'd certainly allow an evil ranger to take his own kind, and another alignment take his kith and kind if there was a good enough roleplaying/character reason.
I don't buy into nationalism, traditionalism or cultural boundaries much personally, but in a pre-modern world they do exist in force. And I would like to know from a player why his human ranger is so interested in hunting other humans? Was he a scout from a war? Did he journey with anti-human demi-human bands for a time? What does he think of humans? Is he a disinterested neutral that does it to turn a profit? It can be made exciting.
I never played 3.X, so unaware of what may or may not have been presented there... I came straight over to PF from 2ed.
The thing about FE Human is it applies to a whole race, so not just your guys, but every other one of them on the planet.
I don't agree with your views on 'study=evil' but I find the social subset concept interesting and balanced enough. I'd be happy as a Ranger, outlaw hunting just became less of a guessing game - I no longer have to pick Goblin at a low level, never able to use Goblin past L6 because we dont see them anymore... the ability scales with the criminals we are chasing.
It is something to think about that anatomical study has been associated with evil before, e.g. the assassin. I more associate evilness with turning on those of your own culture and community (if you are hunting and killing your countrymen and people, you probably aren't good, then again, killing far off neighbours or orcs doesn't immediately make it all fine, but perhaps too relativistic now), not that I have such a problem with it. :P
Yep, favoured made more useful. That's how I roll.
The organisation ruling could be amusing. Human, orc or half-ef, it is Andoraneans I hunt.