Good and Ranger Racial Enemies [Archive] - Wizards Community

Good and Ranger Racial Enemies [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ColonelPanic
06-01-07, 03:52 AM Hello folks,

how do you interpret killing of racial enemies and being good?
It is a question that have been on discussion so many times in many gaming groups I've played with, and every Player and DM has their own way of interpreting the alignment rules here.
I'm trying to find a good way to handle this, once and for all.

Example:
A NG Ranger with racial enemies, who intentionally kills instead of capture those, is that an act of evil or is that evil act over ruled by racial enemies?

What is your verdict?
smorgasbord_of_pie
06-01-07, 04:34 AM Do you mean ranger favored enemies, or actual racial hatreds?
foxtail
06-01-07, 11:35 AM It's important to note that in D&D, killing your enemies isn't necessarily evil. To kill creatures when you could capture them without much risk probably isn't "good," and certainly not "paladin-good," but in some circumstances (especially if it's known these creatures are evil, or have done something evil) this is acceptable problem-solving. Innocent creatures, of course, are another matter.

Also, the favored enemy ability doesn't necessarily imply hatred. A ranger in a human city who specializes in hunting theives might have Favored Enemy (human); doesn't mean he's self-loathing
Matthew77
06-01-07, 11:36 AM I don't see the "Favored Enemy" class ability as meaning the Ranger is required to hate his chosen enemy.

It just means that you have trained in fighting them, and have learned some tricks.

Favored Enemy gives bonuses to non-lethal weapon damage, and bonuses to track and detect them. Nothing in the ability description indicates that it includes "irrational hatred"

So, if a NG Ranger delibrately decides to kill a favored enemy that he would normally have captured, that is a decision made by the player, not something he is forced to do by the class ability.

To answer your question, if it is an evil act, the player takes responsiblity for it, and can't use "but its my favored enemy" as an excuse.

*Note: this does not mean I think that a NG ranger is required to capture his opponents instead of killing them.
Sunic_Flames
06-01-07, 11:37 AM I think he means the favored enemies, which he regards as a racial hatred, aka the "I hate orcs so I kill orcs, Favored Enemy: Orcs +2." thing. So in a word, both. :P
Luis_Dragunov
06-01-07, 12:09 PM Favored enemy is merely a reflection of the Ranger's experience in hunting and tracking a creature. It has nothing to do with hatred (Lady Aribeth's ranger levels retraining and Driz'zt (or whatever) aside).

If a Ranger has Favored Enemy (Animals) it just means he spends alot of time hunting animals. If he has Favored Enemy (Humans) it just means he spends alot of time fighting humans. It has little to do with hatred.

I find it quite silly that you have to be evil to have your own race as Favored Enemy. What if I was a human fighting for my nation against another human nation? I can't get Favored Enemy (Human) without being evil?
Edymnion
06-01-07, 12:19 PM Yes, Favored Enemy does not by default mean that you've got a full on hate for that enemy. It just means you have spent extra time training to effectively fight those enemies.

I even go so far as to drop the evil thing when taking your own race as a favored enemy.
foxtail
06-01-07, 12:24 PM I even go so far as to drop the evil thing when taking your own race as a favored enemy.

I think WotC officially dropped that in the move to 3.5, actually.
Luis_Dragunov
06-01-07, 12:35 PM I think WotC officially dropped that in the move to 3.5, actually.

You are right. Just noticed it now ^^
Sildatorak
06-01-07, 12:35 PM They did remove the "you must be evil" clause in 3.5. It was somewhat of a holdover from 2e when racial enemies were hated foes rather than just what you're more skilled at combatting.
mvincent
06-01-07, 12:49 PM To kill creatures when you could capture them without much risk probably isn't "good," and certainly not "paladin-good," but in some circumstances (especially if it's known these creatures are evil, or have done something evil) this is acceptable problem-solving.Also note: D&D has proof positive of an after-life... indeed, some people often visit it. Going to that after-life, or sending others there, may not be viewed as such a bad thing; equivalent to going on a trip from whence you can't easily return.
Salla
06-01-07, 12:52 PM They did remove the "you must be evil" clause in 3.5. It was somewhat of a holdover from 2e when racial enemies were hated foes rather than just what you're more skilled at combatting.

And kobolds were 'giant class' ...:rofl:

At any rate, the presence or absence of the favored enemy ability, a racial ability against a particular creature (see: Dwarf), or anything else has no bearing on the goodness or evilness of a particular act. If you murder someone, you murdered them. If you did it purely out of bigotted hatred, that's hardly an excuse in the terms of the cosmic axis of good and evil, though it may serve as a personal rationalization.

It also bears noting that actions determine alignment, not the other way around. You cannot say "Well, I'm (alignment), so I can't do that." That is not how alignment works.
Neutronium_Dragon
06-02-07, 12:22 AM > You cannot say "Well, I'm (alignment), so I can't do that." That is not how
> alignment works.

This may be a nitpick, but...

You can certainly say that and also follow through on it, but that's because you're making a conscious choice not to do something you think is wrong, not because you're somehow metaphysically incapable of doing it.
Someone
06-02-07, 01:38 AM To expand upon what Neutronium said, a more roleplay-oriented way to say it is: "That doesn't seem like something [character] would do, as that is [alignment A] and [character] has been behaving [alignment B], and there is no good reason for [character] to behave like [alignment A]."

Back to the OP, a ranger's favored enemy bonus also applies to Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival (for tracking) checks, and none of those have to end in killing.
ColonelPanic
06-02-07, 05:38 AM Thanks for all good replies. The differences between old AD&D (1st edition) and DnD 3.5 are sometimes huge, and sometimes fine as an elven hair, so coming from the old school sometimes makes things a little hard. My players mostly comes from old school too.

OK, good to get this favored enemy / racial enemy (1.0 terminology) sorted out.

Npw I can just nicely put it to the player that his character should not auto kill humanoids (as Rangers did in 1.0). Killing them in a fight is one thing, but running after a fleeing Kobold, aiming his bow and shooting him from behind isn't really something he should do. It's all up to how to interpret the 3.5 rules from 1.0 rules (where it was pretty clear that a Rangers call-of-life was killing of whatever race he hated).

And, Kobolds were supposed to be giant related, but the MM1 (1977) artist draw them with a tail, so they are forever semi lizardmen/dragons instead of small giants.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ColonelPanic 06-01-07, 03:52 AM	Hello folks, how do you interpret killing of racial enemies and being good? It is a question that have been on discussion so many times in many gaming groups I've played with, and every Player and DM has their own way of interpreting the alignment rules here. I'm trying to find a good way to handle this, once and for all. Example: A NG Ranger with racial enemies, who intentionally kills instead of capture those, is that an act of evil or is that evil act over ruled by racial enemies? What is your verdict?
smorgasbord_of_pie 06-01-07, 04:34 AM	Do you mean ranger favored enemies, or actual racial hatreds?
foxtail 06-01-07, 11:35 AM	It's important to note that in D&D, killing your enemies isn't necessarily evil. To kill creatures when you could capture them without much risk probably isn't "good," and certainly not "paladin-good," but in some circumstances (especially if it's known these creatures are evil, or have done something evil) this is acceptable problem-solving. Innocent creatures, of course, are another matter. Also, the favored enemy ability doesn't necessarily imply hatred. A ranger in a human city who specializes in hunting theives might have Favored Enemy (human); doesn't mean he's self-loathing
Matthew77 06-01-07, 11:36 AM	I don't see the "Favored Enemy" class ability as meaning the Ranger is required to hate his chosen enemy. It just means that you have trained in fighting them, and have learned some tricks. Favored Enemy gives bonuses to non-lethal weapon damage, and bonuses to track and detect them. Nothing in the ability description indicates that it includes "irrational hatred" So, if a NG Ranger delibrately decides to kill a favored enemy that he would normally have captured, that is a decision made by the player, not something he is forced to do by the class ability. To answer your question, if it is an evil act, the player takes responsiblity for it, and can't use "but its my favored enemy" as an excuse. *Note: this does not mean I think that a NG ranger is required to capture his opponents instead of killing them.
Sunic_Flames 06-01-07, 11:37 AM	I think he means the favored enemies, which he regards as a racial hatred, aka the "I hate orcs so I kill orcs, Favored Enemy: Orcs +2." thing. So in a word, both. :P
Luis_Dragunov 06-01-07, 12:09 PM	Favored enemy is merely a reflection of the Ranger's experience in hunting and tracking a creature. It has nothing to do with hatred (Lady Aribeth's ranger levels retraining and Driz'zt (or whatever) aside). If a Ranger has Favored Enemy (Animals) it just means he spends alot of time hunting animals. If he has Favored Enemy (Humans) it just means he spends alot of time fighting humans. It has little to do with hatred. I find it quite silly that you have to be evil to have your own race as Favored Enemy. What if I was a human fighting for my nation against another human nation? I can't get Favored Enemy (Human) without being evil?
Edymnion 06-01-07, 12:19 PM	Yes, Favored Enemy does not by default mean that you've got a full on hate for that enemy. It just means you have spent extra time training to effectively fight those enemies. I even go so far as to drop the evil thing when taking your own race as a favored enemy.
foxtail 06-01-07, 12:24 PM	I even go so far as to drop the evil thing when taking your own race as a favored enemy. I think WotC officially dropped that in the move to 3.5, actually.
Luis_Dragunov 06-01-07, 12:35 PM	I think WotC officially dropped that in the move to 3.5, actually. You are right. Just noticed it now ^^
Sildatorak 06-01-07, 12:35 PM	They did remove the "you must be evil" clause in 3.5. It was somewhat of a holdover from 2e when racial enemies were hated foes rather than just what you're more skilled at combatting.
mvincent 06-01-07, 12:49 PM	To kill creatures when you could capture them without much risk probably isn't "good," and certainly not "paladin-good," but in some circumstances (especially if it's known these creatures are evil, or have done something evil) this is acceptable problem-solving.Also note: D&D has proof positive of an after-life... indeed, some people often visit it. Going to that after-life, or sending others there, may not be viewed as such a bad thing; equivalent to going on a trip from whence you can't easily return.
Salla 06-01-07, 12:52 PM	They did remove the "you must be evil" clause in 3.5. It was somewhat of a holdover from 2e when racial enemies were hated foes rather than just what you're more skilled at combatting. And kobolds were 'giant class' ...:rofl: At any rate, the presence or absence of the favored enemy ability, a racial ability against a particular creature (see: Dwarf), or anything else has no bearing on the goodness or evilness of a particular act. If you murder someone, you murdered them. If you did it purely out of bigotted hatred, that's hardly an excuse in the terms of the cosmic axis of good and evil, though it may serve as a personal rationalization. It also bears noting that actions determine alignment, not the other way around. You cannot say "Well, I'm (alignment), so I can't do that." That is not how alignment works.
Neutronium_Dragon 06-02-07, 12:22 AM	> You cannot say "Well, I'm (alignment), so I can't do that." That is not how > alignment works. This may be a nitpick, but... You can certainly say that and also follow through on it, but that's because you're making a conscious choice not to do something you think is wrong, not because you're somehow metaphysically incapable of doing it.
Someone 06-02-07, 01:38 AM	To expand upon what Neutronium said, a more roleplay-oriented way to say it is: "That doesn't seem like something [character] would do, as that is [alignment A] and [character] has been behaving [alignment B], and there is no good reason for [character] to behave like [alignment A]." Back to the OP, a ranger's favored enemy bonus also applies to Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival (for tracking) checks, and none of those have to end in killing.
ColonelPanic 06-02-07, 05:38 AM	Thanks for all good replies. The differences between old AD&D (1st edition) and DnD 3.5 are sometimes huge, and sometimes fine as an elven hair, so coming from the old school sometimes makes things a little hard. My players mostly comes from old school too. OK, good to get this favored enemy / racial enemy (1.0 terminology) sorted out. Npw I can just nicely put it to the player that his character should not auto kill humanoids (as Rangers did in 1.0). Killing them in a fight is one thing, but running after a fleeing Kobold, aiming his bow and shooting him from behind isn't really something he should do. It's all up to how to interpret the 3.5 rules from 1.0 rules (where it was pretty clear that a Rangers call-of-life was killing of whatever race he hated). And, Kobolds were supposed to be giant related, but the MM1 (1977) artist draw them with a tail, so they are forever semi lizardmen/dragons instead of small giants.