Should Assassins be Evil? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Hiro Protagonest

2012-04-15, 09:04 PM

Typically, an assassin is someone whom murders anyone for hire. Now, killing people (The right people at least) is not directly evil, but when you adopt the diplomacy that you kill contractually, whether they be good, evil or neutral; is an evil act.

Thus, it does make some modicum of sense that one need to be evil in order to become an assassin. True, there is nothing inherently evil about being a Rogue, due to rogues being chaotic / Neutral at best. Stealing for one's own benefit is not inherently evil. Sure, you are breaking a few laws, but if you steal for your own gain, then you are Chaotic neutral.

If you steal for the good of people around you, you are Chaotic good. The lines of what is evil and chaotic is blurred, I would admit, but it seems that stealing is not evil enough to warrant being, well, evil.

And as the evil, original Assassin states, you have to kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins, which is quite evil in itself. Murdering is looked at with a frown, after all.

In addition to this, as is already stated, you could just refluff it yourself if you wish to. Say that you are an assassin that only targets evil people, etc, etc, even if you use the normal assassin methods. This is something you need to clear with your DM / Table, and is as much up to discussion as any variants / homebrew that is not distinctively written down.

Er... it's perfectly reasonable to make a lawful good rogue. Yes, he does make full use of sneak attack in combat. He could use his thieving skills to infiltrate and get information from teh evil empire of evil. Or, he could just not have thieving skills entirely, and focus entirely on craft skills. Or, be a diplomat with skill in many fields. Or have the wilderness rogue variant and max ranks in ride and handle animal and be a ninja cowboy.

Slipperychicken

2012-04-15, 09:26 PM

Personally? I think alignment in general is really dumb, particularly alignment requirements, and ignore them whenever possible. That includes the Assassin, certainly.

This. So much. If I got a nickel every time someone said "I can do and get away with it because I'm [alignment]!" or generally held up their alignment as though it were a justification, I'd be rich as hell.

If alignment lived up to its motto as "[I]a tool for developing your character’s identity" and "not a straitjacket for restricting your character", I would be okay with it. I can understand a few artifacts having the "Can only be wielded by the pure of heart" thing, but there are literally whole books full of alignment-restricted content.

I think that WotC at least began to realize how dumb alignment restrictions are as 3.5 progressed, as more base and prestige classes had either lax alignment requirements or none at all, and fewer still had "Do (or don't do) X or else you become a Commoner with saves" clauses in them.

Telonius

2012-04-15, 10:05 PM

Leaving aside the "killing for no other reason..." thing, which can reasonably be handwaved, there's still the issue of the mechanics.

At first level, Assassins gain the Poison Use ability. Using poison is singled out as a "dishonorable" act in the Paladin's Code, and BoED has a segment stating that most poisons (the ones that cause ability damage) are evil because they cause unnecessary suffering. Just knowing how to use poison isn't itself evil, and many people have some serious issues about BoED's analysis. But I can easily see why others would have big problems with any non-evil character having that ability.

One of the spells Assassin grants - Magic Circle against Good - is an [Evil] spell. Again, just having access to it doesn't mean you have to use it, but it's leaning that way.

Particle_Man

2012-04-15, 11:13 PM

Speaking of BoED, it has the Slayer of Domiel "good" assassinish prestige class (you lose death attack for death touch; you lose poison use).

Answerer

2012-04-15, 11:20 PM

BoED has a segment stating that most poisons (the ones that cause ability damage) are evil because they cause unnecessary suffering.
Can I just say that this very well might be the dumbest thing, of all the incredibly dumb things, that Wizards ever wrote on the topic of alignment?

It makes no sense (www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm).

Also, "using poisons" is not the same as "knowing how to apply poisons without making a fool of yourself." Just because the Assassin gets the ability doesn't mean he uses it, even if we accept the statement that to use it would be evil.

KillianHawkeye

2012-04-15, 11:54 PM

I agree with Dairuga. Assassins are murderers for hire. Even if the target is Evil, it's still murder. Murder = Evil.

Do note that there is a difference between killing an enemy combatant in a fight and murdering someone. Murders tend to be much more one-sided.

Marlowe

2012-04-16, 12:20 AM

"The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins"

I always thought this had a horrible logical conclusion to it.

"So, young oik; now you are ready"
Great, so I get my class abilities now?
"Not yet, first you must kill someone."
Kill someone? Anyone?
"For no reason other than to join us"
Anyone at all?
"Anyone at al-Oh Shi-"
STABSTABSTAB

Seriously, who'd be an Assassin recruiter?

Marlowe

2012-04-16, 12:23 AM

EDIT: Doublepost owing to server error:smallsigh:

CountD

2012-04-16, 12:31 AM

It really depends on what being a certain "class" means to you. In my view, a class is a skill set, and like any skill set within D&D can be used in good or evil ways. When I DM, the determination of alignment is a matter of role playing, and I think the Assassin's Creed series is an excellent example of how an assassin can be a heroic figure. So no, I don't force my players to be evil when picking up prestige levels in Assassin.

I imagine others see the class of assassin as a vocational thing, where people can only pick up the assassin class if they're actually murderers or hired killers. Whatever floats your boat.

Morithias

2012-04-16, 12:33 AM

Can I just say that this very well might be the dumbest thing, of all the incredibly dumb things, that Wizards ever wrote on the topic of alignment?

It makes no sense (www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/couatl.htm).

Also, "using poisons" is not the same as "knowing how to apply poisons without making a fool of yourself." Just because the Assassin gets the ability doesn't mean he uses it, even if we accept the statement that to use it would be evil.

Not to mention the whole "ravages" thing. Also poisons suck unless you've REALLY min/maxed to use them.

Venger

2012-04-16, 12:38 AM

Andezzar

2012-04-16, 12:49 AM

Seriously, who'd be an Assassin recruiter?While your story made me chuckle, I think the Assassins Guild will only approach the candidate after he has performed the murder.

Gorgondantess

2012-04-16, 12:55 AM

Kaun

2012-04-16, 12:59 AM

Morithias

2012-04-16, 01:04 AM

If you murder people for a living, its hard to not view it as an evil act.

You can use all kinds of reasoning to paint it in a positive light but at the end of the day that's the simple truth.

Even if you say "well i only murder evil people!" i don't think the two wrongs make a right. The good option would be to capture the evil person, have them tried for their crimes and then punish them as decided.

Going off to kill them by any means necessary is just fighting fire with fire.

....

Oh yes, because killing them by any means necessary isn't what Paladins and other good heroes do DAILY to races like the drow, the devils, and so on.

Hell when I posted that doing that kind of stuff would get you sent to the underworld (the abyss and baator being a giant prison system made to show you where you went wrong) in my setting. Everyone got all pissed off when I said a truly exalted person, one worthy of the heavens wouldn't do that kind of stuff.

Hell in my setting, your alignment doesn't even determine your actions, just what classes and feats you can take, and people still were telling me off.

You can't have your cake and eat it too people! Is it wrong, or it is alright to end the "always lawful/neutral/chaotic evil" people's lives.

Andezzar

2012-04-16, 01:06 AM

Even if you say "well i only murder evil people!" i don't think the two wrongs make a right. The good option would be to capture the evil person, have them tried for their crimes and then punish them as decided.

Going off to kill them by any means necessary is just fighting fire with fire.It is definitely not good, but I'm not so sure if it is evil. It is ending life, but it is not necessarily for personal gain or pleasure. On the other hand if all ending of life is evil, (nearly) all adventurers must be evil.

georgie_leech

2012-04-16, 01:13 AM

I have to laugh when the arguments about killing people for profit, dishonourably or otherwise, describe the loot-style of 90% of the adventurers out there.

Kaun

2012-04-16, 02:33 AM

It is definitely not good, but I'm not so sure if it is evil. It is ending life, but it is not necessarily for personal gain or pleasure. On the other hand if all ending of life is evil, (nearly) all adventurers must be evil.

Killing some one in self defense i don't see as evil but yeah generally most adventurers are evil whether they like to admit it or not.

I can see how you could get away with neutral if you were being forced to do it under some level of duress.

Not overly caring if some one lives or dies is one thing but actively ensuring that the person dies is another.

kpenguin

2012-04-16, 02:48 AM

I think we need to separate an assassin as is normally understood, someone who kills a usually prominent figure in a sudden or secret way, and the 3.5 D&D assassin.

Some of you might point the assassins of Assassin's Creed as examples of assassins not necessarily being evil. However, these assassins are not D&D assassins.

The assassin prestige class is not simply someone who pulls off assassination. A wizard could pull off assassinations better than an assassin. Even someone who is a professional killer or kills for money is not necessarily a D&D assassin.

The assassin prestige class is membership in the Mystical Secret Fraternity of Bad Guys that Kill for Money. In order to gain membership into this Mystical Secret Fraternity, you have to kill someone for no other reason than because you want to join that club.

Much like how the ritual for becoming a lich is so horrid that you can't really become one without being evil, the acts you need to do to be let into the Mystical Secret Fraternity of Bad Guys that Kill for Money is also evil enough that if you're willingly going through with it, you're probably evil. It's why you get magic circle versus good.

Something interesting to note is that Artemis Entreri, one of the more famous assassins in D&D, is not supposed to be a D&D assassin. RA Salvataore stated that he's a fighter/thief who kills for money, not an assassin. Of course, at the time, TSR was planning to kill off all assassins in FR with a ritual that powered Bane. While Artemis, when updated to 3rd edition, had one level of assassin, the point still stands that there seems to be something mystically different about assassins than just any old killer.

Doughnut Master

2012-04-16, 07:56 AM

Killing people for money seems like an inherently neutral act to me. You don't seem to care about the larger implications, just that sweet sweet gold.

RL comparison. Is SEAL Team 6 evil? They're paid and trained to go in and kill people. That is their job. They dropped in on an evil guy's house and shot him in the head. They're certainly not about the fair fight; they're about getting the job done.

danzibr

2012-04-16, 07:59 AM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-04-16, 08:19 AM

Killing people for money seems like an inherently neutral act to me. You don't seem to care about the larger implications, just that sweet sweet gold.
Not caring about anything but the money, a complete lack of emotion, is not neutral. Neither is that balance crap about healing one guy and killing another. Neutral has qualms. Neutral is not completely apathetic to the outside world.

RL comparison. Is SEAL Team 6 evil? They're paid and trained to go in and kill people. That is their job. They dropped in on an evil guy's house and shot him in the head. They're certainly not about the fair fight; they're about getting the job done.

Except if a rebel terrorist leader managed to find them, they wouldn't turn on the government no matter how much money he offered. They're loyal.

Yes, fair fights are for suckers. Even paladins shouldn't be forced into that by choice, unless it's a formal duel or somesuch. But that doesn't make the profession less evil.

unundindur

2012-04-16, 08:31 AM

The Alignment system is a- if not the big flaw of D&D. It makes no sense, it doesn't relate to the real world, and you get artificial restrictions like this.

If anything it was probably a way to keep morally biased people from going vocal on D&D, as they have done in the past :smallannoyed:

If you want to abuse the alignment system, just make sure your character is evil, since you can then do practically anything and always justify it as being "selfish". Helping beggars can be selfish; you treat your own conscience.

unundindur

2012-04-16, 08:47 AM

Except if a rebel terrorist leader managed to find them, they wouldn't turn on the government no matter how much money he offered. They're loyal.

Yes, fair fights are for suckers. Even paladins shouldn't be forced into that by choice, unless it's a formal duel or somesuch. But that doesn't make the profession less evil.

Are you saying loyalty makes you good-aligned? :smalleek:

That is seriously dangerous.

A terrorist is a freedom-fighter if you have a different political belief (and according to D&D, suddenly good-aligned, but not-good alignment). This again is what is so messed up with alignment; it is based solely on a 100% etnosentric worldview. In the real world there is no good and evil, there are accepted and not-accepted behaviour, as defined by the majority. Through the alignment system D&D does what some think the universal human rights do in the real world, except that there are no universal human rights, there are just concepts a majority of people have agreed on.

An example of a real moral dilemma I usually use to illustrate how fantasy-roleplaying can be useful in elementary ethics-education (middle school) would be this:

"You find the 2 year old son of the orc warlord in front of you. You are sure this child will be his ruthless successor, but it is none the less a child, who have not yet taken on the traits of its father. Will you kill it?"

This is a very real dilemma, and the good part about fantasy is that you can approach concepts that people would otherwise find to offensive to discuss in a proper manner. D&D unfortunately does this injustice by saying "that orc is evil-aligned, you don't have to mind real ethics".

I have naturally scrapped everything relating to alignment in my games, but if you really want a paladin to detect evil, it should detect evil as defined by the paladins culture (more specifically, as perceived by the paladin), not some artificial construction of evil.

Mirakk

2012-04-16, 08:48 AM

If you murder people for a living, its hard to not view it as an evil act.

Even if you say "well i only murder evil people!" i don't think the two wrongs make a right. The good option would be to capture the evil person, have them tried for their crimes and then punish them as decided.

Going off to kill them by any means necessary is just fighting fire with fire.

Chaotic Good says hello. Though if you're chaotic good, you'd easily qualify to be an avenger or other assassin-related class. Ultimately a character concept can be realized through many different class combinations, so the point of this post is rather moot I guess.

Doughnut Master

2012-04-16, 08:56 AM

D&D unfortunately does this injustice by saying "that orc is evil-aligned a terrorist, you don't have to mind real ethics".

Psh. Morality's easy!

EDIT: Jade, looking over the alignment descriptions again, I'd agree with you that a purely amoral attitude towards killing is evil. But that's just one archetype. I think there's more ways to play the class than a poison using death attacking automaton.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-04-16, 11:57 AM

Psh. Morality's easy!

EDIT: Jade, looking over the alignment descriptions again, I'd agree with you that a purely amoral attitude towards killing is evil. But that's just one archetype. I think there's more ways to play the class than a poison using death attacking automaton.

So... anyone who kills, and uses tactics smarter than "walk up to the enemy and shout challenges" is evil. Try telling that to about every soldier ever.

White_Drake

2012-04-16, 12:35 PM

Look ing at this, I think that the core of the matter actually is not whether an Assassin is evil, but what makes an Assassin. There are many different classifications of what people think an Assassin is; there's the solo killer for hire, the specific guild, the non-class archetype, and more. What I'm interested in is the skill set itself. If there were no RP requirements to the class, and it was called something else like Night Warrior (Only less lame than that) would the class be inherently evil. Bear in mind this is only the skills. The hypothetical incarnation here would have absolutly no parameters on what to use these skills for, and maybe even in a campaign without RAW alignments. Then what would happen?

hamishspence

2012-04-16, 12:44 PM

The skill set alone is pretty unconnected to alignment.

4E in particular offers those sort of skills to quite a few classes, which generally are not restricted- the Rogue, the Avenger, the Assassin (Dragon) the Executioner (Heroes of Shadow) and so forth.

In Dragon Annual it discusses the archetype- and says that while "murder for profit" can't really be anything but Evil- "murder" for better reasons is quite compatible with Good or Lawful Good alignment.

For Lawful Good, the targets might be "threats to both the social order and the common good".

White_Drake

2012-04-16, 01:10 PM

Thanks, I play Chaotic Good, so any artificial rationalization to meet alignment rules' requirements could be looser than that.

Ravens_cry

2012-04-16, 01:45 PM

I keep the requirement, but if you can give a good reason why your particular example is not, I am open to allowing it.

Particle_Man

2012-04-16, 02:28 PM

If there were no RP requirements to the class, and it was called something else like Night Warrior (Only less lame than that)

The Mobile Night Warrior! :smallcool:

hamishspence

2012-04-16, 03:30 PM

Thanks, I play Chaotic Good, so any artificial rationalization to meet alignment rules' requirements could be looser than that.

"tyrants who are too powerful for the law to touch" are the favoured targets of the Chaotic Good assassin.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-16, 04:17 PM

I have to laugh when the arguments about killing people for profit, dishonourably or otherwise, describe the loot-style of 90% of the adventurers out there.

If 90% of adventurers in your game act like that, I'd hate playing with your group.

Malachei

2012-04-16, 04:26 PM

I think that the core of the matter actually is not whether an Assassin is evil, but what makes an Assassin.

Exactly the point, IMO.

Of course, using poison and certain spells with certain descriptors is an issue in the game, but does this make an assassin?

And are we talking about the class, the role / profession or the activity?

Hiro Protagonest

2012-04-16, 04:27 PM

If 90% of adventurers in your game act like that, I'd hate playing with your group.

So you hate it when people use smart tactics against goblin bandits? Orcs? Ogres? Giants?

JadePhoenix

2012-04-16, 04:31 PM

So you hate it when people use smart tactics against goblin bandits? Orcs? Ogres? Giants?

No, I hate it when people say killing for profit is supposed to be fine.

Look ing at this, I think that the core of the matter actually is not whether an Assassin is evil, but what makes an Assassin. There are many different classifications of what people think an Assassin is; there's the solo killer for hire, the specific guild, the non-class archetype, and more. What I'm interested in is the skill set itself.

Then ask your DM to refluff it. He'll probably be fine with it.
The Assassin class as written is supposed for members of an assassin's guild, murderers for hire. Of course this is evil.

Malachei

2012-04-16, 04:36 PM

No, I hate it when people say killing for profit is supposed to be fine.

You need it, so you can pay the red wizards for circle magic, so you can get your caster level high enough to cast ... ah, well, not really. Never mind.

Glimbur

2012-04-16, 04:56 PM

If you murder people for a living, its hard to not view it as an evil act.

You can use all kinds of reasoning to paint it in a positive light but at the end of the day that's the simple truth.

Even if you say "well i only murder evil people!" i don't think the two wrongs make a right. The good option would be to capture the evil person, have them tried for their crimes and then punish them as decided.

Going off to kill them by any means necessary is just fighting fire with fire.

To be fair, aside from the special entry requirement nothing says that assassins have to actually kill people. Sneak attack with a sap does nonlethal damage, Death Attack can instead paralyze, there are non-lethal poisons, and of their spell list only Poison can directly kill someone. Their remaining class features are defensive. Therefore, an Avenger or any PC who got DM permission to skip the "must kill somebody" clause in the class could function as well as an assassin normally does without killing anyone.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-16, 05:00 PM

To be fair, aside from the special entry requirement nothing says that assassins have to actually kill people.

There are actually two books that say assassins kills people.
One is the DMG. You see all that Assassin fluff? It's not just there to take up space.
The other book is a dictionary. Just read what assassin means.

Therefore, an Avenger or any PC who got DM permission to skip the "must kill somebody" clause in the class could function as well as an assassin normally does without killing anyone.
...and that's not the point, of course. You can do anything with special DM permission and refluffing. But the Assassin class as written is evil.

Doughnut Master

2012-04-16, 05:04 PM

So... anyone who kills, and uses tactics smarter than "walk up to the enemy and shout challenges" is evil. Try telling that to about every soldier ever.

No. That's the opposite of what I'm saying. Aside from the entry requirement, I'm in the "assassins aren't inherently evil" camp.

Ravens_cry

2012-04-16, 05:10 PM

Some of their spells are cool, especially in the Spell Compendium, but the 'Three rounds chance to maybe kill something, when three rounds of stabbing it with sneak attack and an ablative armour flanking buddy would probably have a better chance" ability isn't the greatest.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-04-16, 05:31 PM

There are actually two books that say assassins kills people.
One is the DMG. You see all that Assassin fluff? It's not just there to take up space.
The other book is a dictionary. Just read what assassin means.

I love ignoring fluff. Almost all of my D&D characters have been warblades. None of them have followed the warblade fluff.

And try looking up "factotum" "warblade" or "swordsage". Or for actual words, "death" (hint: it doesn't mean paralyze).

hamishspence

2012-04-16, 05:35 PM

"Neutralize" might be the main job- what the specific neutralization will be, depends on the situation.

Taking the "assassin organisation" and reducing its evilness- making it more pragmatic than actively malevolent.

Particle_Man

2012-04-16, 05:35 PM

I think the Assassin and the Blackguard are designed as "bad guy opponents" more than PC classes, which would explain some of the evil fluff. It is there so that the players can go "OMG an evil organization of assassins has sent out an agent to kill King GoodGuy! How do we prevent this dastardly deed?" Hence the fluff.

There is also the legacy factor: 1st ed AD&D Assassins were evil "perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal" (p. 28, 1st ed phb) so I imagine that it carried over a bit. Although interestingly, the original assassins pre-1st ed. were Neutral.

But how badly do you want to play this specific class? You can play an Avenger instead, or you can go with rogue (more skills and UMD gets you your spells) or arcane trickster (rogues with spells!). Assuming you don't fall in love with poison use or the death attack, is there a particular reason to play this particular prestige class?

Andezzar

2012-04-16, 05:39 PM

Assuming you don't fall in love with poison use or the death attack, is there a particular reason to play this particular prestige class?If you are not restricted to the core book, the spells are very interesting as well. But that holds true for the Avenger as well.

Terazul

2012-04-16, 08:06 PM

The assassin prestige class is membership in the Mystical Secret Fraternity of Bad Guys that Kill for Money. In order to gain membership into this Mystical Secret Fraternity, you have to kill someone for no other reason than because you want to join that club.

I'd probably agree with this if it weren't for the fact the class then has no features whatsoever that interact with the Assassin's Guild in any way. Like, there's nothing on it ever again. Just poof, bam you're in, here's poison use.

As-written, yeah, it's Evil, but only because it says you have to be and the special requirement. I really feel the alignment and "special requirements" are silly. Beyond those two the things the rest of the class is just pretty generic "go be an (sneaky) adventurer and kill things" stuff. Just let whoever it is have their Death Attack without all the trouble, it isn't very good anyway. Some nice spells though.

Kaun

2012-04-16, 09:15 PM

Chaotic Good says hello. Though if you're chaotic good, you'd easily qualify to be an avenger or other assassin-related class. Ultimately a character concept can be realized through many different class combinations, so the point of this post is rather moot I guess.

I'm not sure it moots the point as much as it brings into question the validity of the alignment requirement's for other classes.

To be fair, aside from the special entry requirement nothing says that assassins have to actually kill people. Sneak attack with a sap does nonlethal damage, Death Attack can instead paralyze, there are non-lethal poisons, and of their spell list only Poison can directly kill someone. Their remaining class features are defensive. Therefore, an Avenger or any PC who got DM permission to skip the "must kill somebody" clause in the class could function as well as an assassin normally does without killing anyone.

This is true, but if their aim is to capture some one rather then kill they are an assassin in mechanics only. Then i can't see the issue with the DM retooling the class to suit.

I think the issue as always is more with the alignment system then any other factor.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-04-16, 09:19 PM

White_Drake

2012-04-16, 10:54 PM

Actually, Avenger is non-chaotic.
...and I'm Chaotic Good, so I don't meet the requirements for either the Assassin, or the Avenger.:smallfrown:

georgie_leech

2012-04-16, 11:34 PM

No, I hate it when people say killing for profit is supposed to be fine.

How many PC's have you known or played that used Vow of Poverty? Every single one that didn't would have gained treasure, gold, magic items, and other sources of wealth, in the course of dungeon crawling or otherwise adventuring, the quintessential D&D activity. In other words, every single one of them profited from from their killing of other living creatures, unless the enemies consisted entirely of constructs, undead, or other non-living things.

Malachei

2012-04-17, 01:52 AM

You see all that Assassin fluff?

I agree. An important aspect often neglected in discussions is that the RAW is table AND text (and full text at that).

If we take only those aspects of RAW that suit us (like a called monster's SLAs) without taking those that pose limitations (like the creature's alignment and connection to a deity), we're not playing by RAW, we're playing by cherry-picking.

Though I'd allow reworking the class for a "white assassin", i.e. a neutral-aligned servant of a good organization who is more creative, but focuses solely on fighting evil.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-17, 10:16 AM

I love ignoring fluff.

It would be nice if you loved reading the posts you are quoting. I was responding to 'assassins don't kill people'.
Also, if you are refluffing something, no one cares. It's basically a slight homebrew. Does it change the fact that the Assassin prc was written as evil, works as evil and makes sense as evil? No, it doesn't.
If you don't like alignment restrictions, that's fine. If you don't think prestige classes should be tied to oranizations, that's fine as well. But the question is "Should assassins be evil?" and as written the answer is obviously "Yes".

How many PC's have you known or played that used Vow of Poverty? Every single one that didn't would have gained treasure, gold, magic items, and other sources of wealth, in the course of dungeon crawling or otherwise adventuring, the quintessential D&D activity. In other words, every single one of them profited from from their killing of other living creatures, unless the enemies consisted entirely of constructs, undead, or other non-living things.
Like I said before, I'd hate playing in your group if that's how you all think.
First of all, adventuring does not equal killing. Getting money from encounters does not equal killing. Above all else, killing does not equal murder.
If you're ambushed by armed bandits and kill them while defending yourself, that's not murder.
If you see a guard in front of a building you have to enter and you avoid him via stealth or convince him to let you him somehow, you have just surpassed the challenge without killing him.
Basically, killing has nothing to do with experience and gold. There are plenty of other ways to get experience/gold without killing anyone. D&D is not a game about "killing people and taking their stuff", it's a game about heroic adventuring. If your games are restricted to "killing people and taking their stuff", you have a very bad DM.
Just one thing I wanted to add: Vow of Poverty is not supposed to do what you want it to do. Vow of Poverty is there as an alternative to a player who wants to play an empoverished saintly character. It's not there to be on par with wealth by level. BoED is supposed to be there for moral discussions and campaigns focused on good characters, anwyay - so it's no surprise your 'kill them and take their stuff' group does not apreciate it.

georgie_leech

2012-04-17, 10:47 AM

Like I said before, I'd hate playing in your group if that's how you all think.
First of all, adventuring does not equal killing. Getting money from encounters does not equal killing. Above all else, killing does not equal murder.
If you're ambushed by armed bandits and kill them while defending yourself, that's not murder.
If you see a guard in front of a building you have to enter and you avoid him via stealth or convince him to let you him somehow, you have just surpassed the challenge without killing him.
Basically, killing has nothing to do with experience and gold. There are plenty of other ways to get experience/gold without killing anyone. D&D is not a game about "killing people and taking their stuff", it's a game about heroic adventuring. If your games are restricted to "killing people and taking their stuff", you have a very bad DM.
Just one thing I wanted to add: Vow of Poverty is not supposed to do what you want it to do. Vow of Poverty is there as an alternative to a player who wants to play an empoverished saintly character. It's not there to be on par with wealth by level. BoED is supposed to be there for moral discussions and campaigns focused on good characters, anwyay - so it's no surprise your 'kill them and take their stuff' group does not apreciate it.

You've missed my point. I'm not saying that all games are "kill people and take their stuff." However, The characters will kill stuff, and they will attain more wealth, often as a direct result of said killing. Are my players being hired by random creatures to kill other random creatures for money? Heavens no. But are you seriously suggesting that adventurers are constantly passive, just wandering arround doing "heroic" stuff and they happen to be attacked by monsters? That there has never been a case of a raid on a lair of trolls, or slaying some evil dragon, or otherwise doing something that manages to both be heroic and violent? My point isn't that all players are murdering psychos, but that in the D&D universe, profiting from other sentient creatures dying isn't a reprehensible thing like it is in our world.

Oh, and I'm fully capable of the basics of optimization to understand the VoP is a terrible choice if you want power. I mentioned it because it is the only way to aquire those kind of bonuses in any kind of "permanent" manner, as oppose to temporary spells, persisted or otherwise, short of dm fiating everyone's weapons improving or suddenly growing thicker skin or some such.

Fatebreaker

2012-04-17, 10:49 AM

D&D is not a game about "killing people and taking their stuff", it's a game about heroic adventuring. If your games are restricted to "killing people and taking their stuff", you have a very bad DM.

To be fair, from a mechanics perspective D&D largely is about killing people and taking their stuff.

There's a little bit here and there in the rules about roleplaying, and it's gotten better in later editions, but even the 3.x DMG was reeeeeeeally brief and fairly vague on awarding experience points for noncombat challenges. On the other hand, every monster has a clear value given in exchange for killing it. Just by comparing the quantity of content in the roleplaying/noncombat category and the quantity of content in the combat category, you can see what aspects of the game D&D as a system is encouraging. Most of the crunchy bits are devoted to combat and the subsequent feast of experience and looting. Heck, if I remember correctly, previous editions gave you experience specifically based on looting. Wealth by level is a thing, which isn't true in some fairly big-name games, but D&D expects that you will gain wealth as you gain experience, and you gain experience mostly by stabbing things in the face.

Good players and good DM's go beyond this, true, but that's a step above and beyond what the mechanics are geared towards. Compare to, say, Legend of the Five Rings, where players are actively discouraged from acquiring wealth, and personal skill & social behavior is the more important form of currency. Or Pendragon, where wealth is generated by your estates, not by adventuring. It is equally profitable to stay home as it is to adventure in Pendragon. The rewards for adventuring are less tangible.

In D&D, you kick in the door, kill the monster, and grab the swag, so you can kick in bigger doors, kill bigger monsters, and grab more swag. A good DM helps you care about the door, the monster, and the swag.

mcv

2012-04-17, 12:16 PM

There are different ways to look at assassins. Let's take assassins from fantasy fiction. Terry Pratchett's Discworld, for example. Pteppic from Pyramids is not evil, but he has been educated by the school of assassins. Because it's a prestigeous school and you learn useful skills. I believe there was an assignment where you have to murder someone, but, you know, it's part of the curriculum. It's that or drop out. And what will become of you without an education? Probably a life of crime.

hewhosaysfish

2012-04-17, 12:27 PM

So I started imagining what would happen if we applied some of the same thinking to another class....

Perhaps you guys can help me with a character I've been working on.

The concept is a that he was a guardsman in your typical small town but became frustrated with the town guards seeming inability to deal with any problems so one day he quit to join up with the party of adventurers that the town was hiring to kill some goblin bandits (because the town guard wasn't dealing with the goblins). Since the Warrior class is so rubbish, I was thinking that I would make him a Fighter.
The problem is how a fighter must be Evil aligned and "must kill someone for no reason other than to join the fighters".

I'm thinking of asking my DM to drop this requirement. Would this be reasonable?

No. No it is not. Fighters are Evil. They kill people for money. That's what the class is about.

Surely not every Fighter fights for money? Isn't it just as common (maybe more so) for someone to train in this skillset to fight for their home and country?

Loyal doesn't make a character Good. Such a Fighter could be Lawful, sure, but he's still going around marching into people's countries, butchering the locals and pillaging their stuff so he would be Lawful EVIL.

Isn't it possible to have a Good Fighter who only kills Evil people though? Like one who only fights in defensive wars or invasions of people who really deserve it (like evil tryannies, or something)? Or one who isn't even a soldier, although that kind of breaks with the Fighter-as-metaphor-for-Assassin thing I have going?

But that's not really a Fighter, though. Fighters are part of a guild of bloodthirsty mercenaries who will kill anyone just because they've been paid to - they even have to stab some random dude just to join up!

But that's one of the bits I want to take out! The skillset of the Fighter class is basically just being a tough guy, wearing heavy armour and hitting dudes (or monsters) in the face with a big sword. There are plenty of characters who could be represented by that skillset (and even with the name "Fighter") without being Evil or part of a guild of Evil murderers.

But that's what a Fighter is! If you want to play a soldier-type character who's Good aligned, you should play a Ranger. Or a Warblade.

Ooh, yeah; a Warblade! I should have thought of that. That way I get maneuvres instead of just a bunch of bonus feats. Thanks for the help, man.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-17, 01:26 PM

So I started imagining what would happen if we applied some of the same thinking to another class....
I would advise you to read the thread and join the debate if you want to contribute. If you wanted to try your hand at being funny, you failed. If you want to read the Assassin class in its entirety and then come back to join our debate, I'm sure everyone else would be grateful to have you. If you just want to create a strawman of the opposing side and pretend you knwo how to use reductio ad absurdio, please make me the favor of not offending my intelligence anymore; twist someone else's words.

To be fair, from a mechanics perspective D&D largely is about killing people and taking their stuff.
No, it's not. You get XP for overcoming challenge. You don't have to commit murder to overcome most challenges.

There's a little bit here and there in the rules about roleplaying, and it's gotten better in later editions, but even the 3.x DMG was reeeeeeeally brief and fairly vague on awarding experience points for noncombat challenges. On the other hand, every monster has a clear value given in exchange for killing it.
I understand where you are coming from, but you're wrong. A monster has a Challenge Rating, not a "XP value for killing it". Did you answer the sphinx's riddle? Great, you overcame the challenge, you get XP. Did you sneak by the ogre guarding the door? Great, you overcame the challenge, you get XP. Did you convince the mercenaries not to kill you? Great, you overcame the challenge, you get XP. There's nothing vague about it, really. I understand it not being clear when you came from AD&D (where you really got XP from killing things) or videogames, but D&D 3.5 was simply not designed that way.

Just by comparing the quantity of content in the roleplaying/noncombat category and the quantity of content in the combat category, you can see what aspects of the game D&D as a system is encouraging.
Encouraging combat is one thing. D&D being about killing people and take their stuff is a completely different thing.

Most of the crunchy bits are devoted to combat and the subsequent feast of experience and looting.
Which is still not what I said. The game is not about that.

Heck, if I remember correctly, previous editions gave you experience specifically based on looting.
Yes, but we're not talking about those, are we?

Wealth by level is a thing, which isn't true in some fairly big-name games, but D&D expects that you will gain wealth as you gain experience, and you gain experience mostly by stabbing things in the face.
Again, combat is not the same as murder.

Good players and good DM's go beyond this, true, but that's a step above and beyond what the mechanics are geared towards. Compare to, say, Legend of the Five Rings, where players are actively discouraged from acquiring wealth, and personal skill & social behavior is the more important form of currency. Or Pendragon, where wealth is generated by your estates, not by adventuring. It is equally profitable to stay home as it is to adventure in Pendragon. The rewards for adventuring are less tangible.
Disagree, because of points I mentioned before. D&D 3.5 is all about overcoming challenges. You don't have to murder anyone to do so.

In D&D, you kick in the door, kill the monster, and grab the swag, so you can kick in bigger doors, kill bigger monsters, and grab more swag. A good DM helps you care about the door, the monster, and the swag.
I understand where you're coming from, like I said before. My point is that you don't have to murder anyone to do this and a good DM will give you reasons for being so without being evil (if it's a heroic game). Kicking the door, killing everyone and getting all their loot, in a vacuum, is evil, period.

But are you seriously suggesting that adventurers are constantly passive, just wandering arround doing "heroic" stuff and they happen to be attacked by monsters? That there has never been a case of a raid on a lair of trolls, or slaying some evil dragon, or otherwise doing something that manages to both be heroic and violent? My point isn't that all players are murdering psychos, but that in the D&D universe, profiting from other sentient creatures dying isn't a reprehensible thing like it is in our world.
Killing is not murder. Murder is evil, killing isn't.
What I mean is that doing a quest and killing some people in self-defense during said quest is not evil. Getting a bag of money to stab someone in the heart is. Those are not the same thing. When a group of adventurers slays an evil dragon just to get the dragon's money, that is an evil act. When a group of adventurers venture into a dragon's lair to rescue a princess, then loot the lair, that is not an evil act.
This is pretty clear in the Book of Exalted Deeds, I advise you read it.

Oh, and I'm fully capable of the basics of optimization to understand the VoP is a terrible choice if you want power. I mentioned it because it is the only way to aquire those kind of bonuses in any kind of "permanent" manner, as oppose to temporary spells, persisted or otherwise, short of dm fiating everyone's weapons improving or suddenly growing thicker skin or some such.
I apologize for not being clear, I wasn't questioning your opt-fu or whatever.
My point is that saying "no one takes Vow of Poverty because it's weak" is a meaningless statement. First, because people do indeed take VoP, even though it is weak. Second, because it's not intended to be strong.

There are different ways to look at assassins.
Yes, but the assassin class looks at them on one specific way.

The Random NPC

2012-04-17, 02:03 PM

unundindur

2012-04-17, 02:29 PM

Yes, but the assassin class looks at them on one specific way.

And a real weird one that is. Spells? Seriously :smallsigh:

Drelua

2012-04-17, 03:03 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-04-17, 03:44 PM

But the question is "Should assassins be evil?" and as written the answer is obviously "Yes".

Alright, now you're arguing semantics. What if the title was "Should Assassins Only be Evil?"?

JadePhoenix

2012-04-17, 06:53 PM

JadePhoenix, you seem to be missing the point. The question isn't are Assassins evil, it's should they be. The answer to the former is clearly yes, whereas the answer to the latter is a matter of opinion. No one is questioning that the rules say Assassins are evil.
No, you are missing my point. My point is that they should be evil because murder is an evil act.

Since we've established that this is a conversation meant to ignore what the rules say about the alignment of the Assassin PrC
Again, not my point. Murder is evil. Assassins commit murder. That makes assassins evil.

Whether you want to call it an Assassin or Avenger, they don't get any abilities that are only good for killing. They are generally better at taking down a threat without killing than a Rogue, that is assuming the DC of Death Attack is high enough to work. A Rogue needs a non-lethal weapon such as a sap or Improved Unarmed Strike to do a non-lethal sneak attack, but 'Death' Attack can be used to paralyze even with a knife. Sure, they're good with poison, but that can be used for paralysis or sleep.
Again, you're ignoring half my point. Assassins are not evil because of class features. Assassins are evil because of their fluff and alignment rules.

I don't even think that's evil according to the bad joke that is BoED's view on alignment.
Murder is evil per RAW.

I know it counts as being part of the rules too, but I guarantee that if I owned a few more books I could find a citation to contradict that.
You couldn't.

You can't follow every rule in every splatbook, so I choose to ignore BoED entirely.
You have no place in a discussion about alignment then.

The views expressed in that book make no sense to me or anyone else in my group, and therefore have no place in my games.
Good for your games, useless for any discussion in any other environment.

Short version: yes, Assassin's are evil. No, I don't think they have to be because their skill set is no more suited to cold-blooded murder than that of a Rogue. This is a house-rule, and one that I see no reason not to instate. House-rules by their very nature do not apply to all groups, so I'm not saying anyone is wrong, just that I do not share their opinion.
Again - assassins or not evil because of their skillset. They are evil because murder is evil.

JadePhoenix, I hope I didn't come across as insulting, that was not my intention. :smallsmile: I only meant to correct an apparent misunderstanding.
You didn't. There was no misunderstanding from my side, though.

Alright, now you're arguing semantics. What if the title was "Should Assassins Only be Evil?"?
That would make no difference. The OP is talking about the Assassin prestige class, a prestige class designed for a member of a group of contract killers. That is evil and should be evil.
The OP did not say "should a precision-based character with X and Y abililities be evil". He is not talking about the common assassin skillset, Ezio's abilities, the actual hashashin or some Hollywood ninja. He is talking about that specific class, a class intended to be evil and that makes sense as evil.
He is not asking about a specific runaway assassin. Heck, I had one of those in my games (she was Chaotic Good and even had a unicorn, because she stopped taking assassin contracts and redeemed herself), that's fine. Every DM twists rules a bit for their players (or should, at least).
The OP's question regarded the Assassin class, saying their skillset does not make them evil. And it's not their skillset that makes their evil, it's their actions and the actions you must take to be able to learn that skillset.

And a real weird one that is. Spells? Seriously :smallsigh:
It makes more sense than most stuff in D&D. You can do very little without spells and they fit very well thematically.

Drelua

2012-04-17, 07:12 PM

I guess I wasn't clear. If the Assassin class had a skill set that was only useful for murder, I would completely agree that they should be evil. But as I said, they are not. Strangely, Assassins are no more suited to murder than Rogues. And honestly, you're coming across as very arrogant. The BoED says a lot of stuff that makes no sense to me, and of the hundreds of books out there, odds are one of them says that using poison isn't inherently evil. Also, please don't tell me I have no right to speak. It is very rude.

The problem here is that your opinion is that you should not ignore the fluff of any given class. I, and many other people, do not agree. That doesn't mean either of us are wrong. Naturally you cannot stick with the given fluff for Assassins and let them be good, but if one chooses to ignore that fluff, the class abilities of the Assassin can be just as well suited to Good characters as the Rogue.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the fact that murder is evil. This is true, but irrelevant. Wizards can murder people just as well as or better than an Assassin. This does not make them evil since both classes are also capable taking out a threat without murdering, or even killing anyone.

Doughnut Master

2012-04-17, 09:18 PM

Assassins kill people. That's not necessarily murder. Murder depends on context.

A soldier killing another soldier in combat isn't generally considered murder.
A soldier ambushing another soldier isn't murder either.
A soldier ambushing another soldier while that soldier is taking a bath isn't murder either. In fact, it's recognized under the laws of war.
Similarly, killing military leaders is accepted, even if they're not on the battlefield. In the modern day, much of the discussion of drone strikes centers around this fact.

I find it perfectly reasonable to have the mechanics of an assassin fluffed as a commando soldier whose entire training and purpose is to infiltrate enemy lines and quietly eliminate the enemy's leadership.

Also, now that I think about it, why aren't Ninjas evil in D&D? Their profession is exactly the same but with less magic and more mysticism.

Particle_Man

2012-04-18, 01:16 AM

I think this is really just a subclass of the "occupation or chassis" thread, really.

If assassin is the occupation, as per the fluff, then they are evil.

If assassin is a chassis, then presumably you could make something up with a similar chasis only not evil (see Avenger, Slayer of Domiel, etc.).

So the question is what does your DM see classes as? We can't answer that one for you. Once you have that answer you will know whether you can play a non-evil assassin called "Commando" or whether you have to suck it up and play something else to be non-evil.

White_Drake

2012-04-18, 04:39 AM

Murder is evil per RAW.

So you're saying that the ends do not justify the means irregardless of the situation? Hypothetically, let's say that I make an evil assassin character, because that's RAW. This character then proceeds to murder high ranking evil characters by his own decisions, with no contract or guarantee of personal benefit, to further a good faction's interests. This character is still evil? Because by your definition, there would be no alignment infraction, despite the fact that he is blatantly supporting good principles. It seems to me the question is whether the alignment system is based off of intentions or actions. If murdering an evil tyrant saves thousands of lives, is it an evil act? Even if charging in and yelling "I shall kill you because that's what Heironeus told me to do!" wouldn't work?

Tzevash

2012-04-18, 08:26 AM

Murder is an evil act when you choose to kill, without regard for life itself, while you have other options to solve a problem.

Murder is an evil act when you accept to kill someone for money/profit without even knowing who you will kill, because you don't care about others' life (LIKE ASSASSINS DO).

Murder is not an evil act when you must protect your loved ones or endorse your cause and you have no choices.

Murders is not an evil act if you tried to spare your enemy's life but he betrayed your trust immediately.

Murder is not an evil act if you do not have the time or a chance to choose another options and (if good aligned) if you do not enjoy what you have done.

Andezzar

2012-04-18, 09:19 AM

Murder is not an evil act when you must protect your loved ones or endorse your cause and you have no choices.The first is not murder it is defense of others. Whether defending a cause is a) evil and/or b) murder will be very difficult to judge in general. It will depend on the cause and the situation.

Murders is not an evil act if you tried to spare your enemy's life but he betrayed your trust immediately.This is self defense if you had no other choice.

Murder is not an evil act if you do not have the time or a chance to choose another options and (if good aligned) if you do not enjoy what you have done.In that case it is not murder. It still is homicide though and according to the rulebook killing sentient beings is at least not good.

Kish

2012-04-18, 09:24 AM

It really depends on what being a certain "class" means to you. In my view, a class is a skill set,
If you ignore everything written about a class that isn't stats, you shouldn't expect to understand why it would have a particular moral stance, whether that's "the murderer-for-hire is evil" or "the noble knight is Lawful Good."

Tzevash

2012-04-18, 09:30 AM

With "having no choices" I mean: you cannot avoid violence in any way (even Orcs are sentient beings... but try talking to a raging and hungry berserker who's gonna charge you and your party).

IMHO, homicide is an evil act when, despite of knowing that you can solve a problem without violence, you kill someone.

And of course, with "endorse your cause" I meant a non-evil one, sorry. :smallbiggrin:

JadePhoenix

2012-04-18, 09:42 AM

Assassins kill people. That's not necessarily murder. Murder depends on context.
Assassins kill people for money. They are contract killers. That is always murder. This is the context.

I find it perfectly reasonable to have the mechanics of an assassin fluffed as a commando soldier whose entire training and purpose is to infiltrate enemy lines and quietly eliminate the enemy's leadership.
It is perfectly evil and that's not what the OP asked. The OP is talking specifically about the assassin class as written.

Also, now that I think about it, why aren't Ninjas evil in D&D? Their profession is exactly the same but with less magic and more mysticism.
Because they are spies, not contract killers?

The BoED says a lot of stuff that makes no sense to me, and of the hundreds of books out there, odds are one of them says that using poison isn't inherently evil.
I never talked about poison. You might want to reread what you're answering to.

Naturally you cannot stick with the given fluff for Assassins and let them be good, but if one chooses to ignore that fluff, the class abilities of the Assassin can be just as well suited to Good characters as the Rogue.
So you're arguing against no one, because no one is saying otherwise.
I've said a thousand times before: if you ignore fluff, you can do anything. That's not what the OP was talking about.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the fact that murder is evil. This is true, but irrelevant. Wizards can murder people just as well as or better than an Assassin. This does not make them evil since both classes are also capable taking out a threat without murdering, or even killing anyone.
This is hardly irrelevant because an assassin is a contract killer and a wizard is not. In order to become an assassin, you have to commit murder. Then you join an order of murderers.
Wizard may be evil. Assassins as a group are evil.
Again, I'm talking about the classes with their written fluff. Yes, you can refluff the wizards in your game to be contract killers. No one cares.

So you're saying that the ends do not justify the means irregardless of the situation?
That's how the D&D alignment system works, yes.

Hypothetically, let's say that I make an evil assassin character, because that's RAW. This character then proceeds to murder high ranking evil characters by his own decisions, with no contract or guarantee of personal benefit, to further a good faction's interests. This character is still evil?
Of course he is still evil. He performed no good acts.

Because by your definition, there would be no alignment infraction, despite the fact that he is blatantly supporting good principles.
And that's no problem. Yes, he is still evil. He performed no good acts. Killing in self-defense or to protect orders might not be an eivl act, but it's not a good act.

It seems to me the question is whether the alignment system is based off of intentions or actions.
It's based on actions.

I think this is really just a subclass of the "occupation or chassis" thread, really.

If assassin is the occupation, as per the fluff, then they are evil.

If assassin is a chassis, then presumably you could make something up with a similar chasis only not evil (see Avenger, Slayer of Domiel, etc.).

So the question is what does your DM see classes as? We can't answer that one for you. Once you have that answer you will know whether you can play a non-evil assassin called "Commando" or whether you have to suck it up and play something else to be non-evil.
I think people dragged the argument in that direction, but that's not what the OP was asking.

If you ignore everything written about a class that isn't stats, you shouldn't expect to understand why it would have a particular moral stance, whether that's "the murderer-for-hire is evil" or "the noble knight is Lawful Good."
Exactly.

White_Drake

2012-04-18, 10:57 AM

Actually, I was asking if the fluff RAW for Assassins is an accurate summation of the class's stats RAW. Obviously that class is evil RAW. The real question to me is whether that's correct. To me an Assassin is just somebody who kills people via backstabbing. They may or may not have a contract for the job, depending on the Assassin.

[quote=Tzevash;13090886]
Murder is an evil act when you accept to kill someone for money/profit without even knowing who you will kill, because you don't care about others' life (LIKE ASSASSINS DO).
Murder is not an evil act when you must protect your loved ones or endorse your cause and you have no choices.QUOTE] Ermm... sorry don't know why quotes didn't work...

Isn't killing to protect your cause the same as killing for profit, just the profit isn't monetary in nature? I said the hypothetical assassin killed for his own reasons, without a contract, therefore he must know and care about his targets.

If the ends never justify the means, do the means justify the ends? If a Blackguard murders a good paladin he knows will inadvertently and unavoidably cause the deaths of a hundred innocents, unless he kills the paladin, is the blackguard still evil?

White_Drake

2012-04-18, 11:08 AM

[QUOTE=Tzevash;13090886]
Murder is an evil act when you accept to kill someone for money/profit without even knowing who you will kill, because you don't care about others' life (LIKE ASSASSINS DO).
Murder is not an evil act when you must protect your loved ones or endorse your cause and you have no choices.QUOTE]

Isn't killing to protect your cause the same as killing for profit, just the profit isn't monetary in nature? I said the hypothetical assassin killed for his own reasons, without a contract, therefore he must know and care about his targets.

Dr.Epic

2012-04-18, 11:10 AM

They specifically kill individuals for moral reason.

shadow_archmagi

2012-04-18, 11:14 AM

I'm pretty sure that yeah, you can go around killing people for money and not be evil. I mean, surely the world is a better place without that Black Dragon that keeps eating babies, that Warchief that keeps pillaging babies, and that Cleric of Vecna who was going to raise every corpse in the world at once and just flood the place with skeletons?

An assassin who only took contracts on Evil people and acted out of a genuine desire to protect the world from their influence would definitely be Good in my book. The Paladin that kicks in the door and shouts "Surrender!" before the big sword fight where he kills everyone is achieving the same end with different means, and I don't think there's anything objectively Evil about killing someone quickly while they aren't looking instead of with lots of attacks while they're flipping out.

Doughnut Master

2012-04-18, 01:14 PM

Why is it assumed that assassins will kill anybody for money?

It's perfectly reasonable to have an assassin with compunctions about killing certain people. e.g. No women or children.

Yora

2012-04-18, 01:29 PM

Task #1: Define "Assassin".

Doughnut Master

2012-04-18, 01:54 PM

An assassin kills people for money, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that an assassin kills anybody for money. They're professionals, and, as professionals, they can choose their clients and their targets.

You could have an assassin who only kills evil dictators, for instance. Does the fact that he kills dictators for money as opposed to any moral obligation make him evil? Or is it just that anything worth doing is worth doing for money?

Morithias

2012-04-18, 02:09 PM

An assassin kills people for money, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean that an assassin kills anybody for money. They're professionals, and, as professionals, they can choose their clients and their targets.

"Professional have standards. Be polite, be efficient, have a plan to kill anyone you meet."

But on a serious note you are correct. Who you kill is just as important as why you do it.

Ranting Fool

2012-04-18, 02:19 PM

Task #1: Define "Assassin".

Pronunciation: /əˈsasɪn/
noun

1a person who murders an important person for political or religious reasons.

2 (Assassin) a member of the Nizari branch of Ismaili Muslims at the time of the Crusades, when the newly established sect ruled part of northern Persia (1094–1256). They were renowned as militant fanatics, and were popularly reputed to use hashish before going on murder missions.

Origin:

mid 16th century: from French, or from medieval Latin assassinus, from Arabic ḥašīšī 'hashish-eater'

Shrug Thats the Oxford Dictionary.

I've always seen The Assassin class in DMG1 as a tool for an evil badguy (Much like the Blackguard) a nice way to have a really evil villain that our heroes have to beat/capture.

Assassins are linked in popular culture as evil murderers (with the exception of a few repentant characters) so unless you are going for a "Was once evil but has seen the error of my ways" deal calling yourself an Assassin in D&D tends to make NPC's view you as evil (Or at least it would for a lot of people)

The Assassins skill set. I don't see them as inherently evil since a large number of classes focus around their combat ability. Think of a Barbarian, can't do subdual damage while raging (at least I don't think they can) not very good at stealth, not very good at talking their way past something (Unless you wish to intimidate, which could be considered rather evil) and often portrayed as "Smash first ask questions... errr me forgot question again (Int and wis often being a dump stat)"

@OP: If you like the skill set but don't want to be an evil murderer, ask your DM to change the class name, some Avenger, Sniper, Infiltrator type thing and go forth and sneak past/disable/smite evil.

Drelua

2012-04-18, 02:47 PM

I never talked about poison. You might want to reread what you're answering to.
Oh, really? I seem to recall having said this:

Sure, they're good with poison, but that can be used for paralysis or sleep.

I don't even think that's evil according to the bad joke that is BoED's view on alignment. I know it counts as being part of the rules too, but I guarantee that if I owned a few more books I could find a citation to contradict that.
Which you partially quoted, saying this.

You couldn't.

When you denied that I could find a contradictory rule, it was directed at something I said about the use of ability damaging poisons being evil. I understood what you said perfectly. You might want to reread the OP in which it was basically asked if, given their mechanics, they should be evil. This was clearly a question which had nothing to do with the written fluff. A question to which I strongly believe the answer is no.

Your argument is that, given the fluff, Assassins are clearly evil. This answer is irrelevant to the question. As I have said before, they have no abilities that make them better Assassins than several other classes or that can only be used for murder, and therefore should not have to be evil, if their fluff is ignored, as was proposed in the original question. If that is not the point you are arguing with, then it is your point, not mine, that is not relevant to the OP, which said:

There is nothing inherently evil about an Assassin character, just as there is nothing inherently evil about a Rogue....
What determines a character's alignment is his decisions, not his abilities.
Does this sound like part of a question asked by someone who thinks the given fluff should be used? I certainly don't think so.

Fatebreaker

2012-04-18, 05:37 PM

JadePhoenix, you are changing my words and therefore changing my meaning. Allow me to explain.

No less than four times, you exchange my word (killing) for your word (murder), which is a word I deliberately did not use because I am not placing any emotional or moral judgment on the act of killing. By choosing to replace killing with murder, you are arguing against a position which I am not taking, which gets no one anywhere and proves nothing.

This trend of substituting my words for other, very different words, continues throughout the rest of your response.

Whether intentionally or not, by altering my words and arguing against a position I am not advocating, you are actively pursuing a line of reasoning which holds no relevance.

Perhaps you legitimately misunderstood. Perhaps you hoped to argue against a weaker albeit false position in the hope of "proving" your point. Perhaps you cannot understand the discussion which is taking place. I do not know. However, whatever your reason, I would invite you to respond to my actual position, rather than an illusory one.

To assist you in this, I shall reiterate my point. Namely, that D&D is mechanically designed to encourage the killing and looting of creatures, in direct contrast to your claim that D&D is not about those things. The prevously unspoken element here is that, in a game in which the fundamental actions encouraged by the mechanics are separated from the moral questions and consequences associated with those actions, judging a class as "evil" because it performs activities which non-evil classes engage in on a regular and consistent basis lacks any logical or moral foundation within the context of the game world.

Or, put simply, what the game describes as "killing," you describe as "murder," for reasons which the game does not support.

The game actively encourages and expects players to engage in a cycle of killing opponents, and explicitly rewards them for doing so with experience and treasure. It is both literally and metaphorically profitable for adventurers to kill, and such profit serves, from the perspective of the game as a system, as the driving mechanic which encourages players to adventure. If killing for profit is evil, then how is any adventuring class not evil?

As a thought experiment, I would ask the following questions of our fellow Playgrounders:

When the king of the land hires adventurers to cleanse the nearby caves of goblins, are the adventurers evil and/or murders? If so, why? If not, then why is the assassin?

What if the king hired assassins to cleanse one set of caves, and paladins to cleanse another? Do the assassins become good? Do the paladins become evil?

If the king hires a third band, consisting of an assassin, a rogue, a cleric, and a duskblade, are some members of the group murderers and other members of the group not-murderers? Why?

When a paladin seeks to join a knightly order, and the order requires him to venture forth and slay a monster to prove his worth, is that evil? Why or why not? He is killing for no purpose other than the join the organization, which is the same motivation as the assassin.

An expanded view on mechanics, core concepts, and non-combat experience (or the lack thereof), spoiler'd for length.

There's a little bit here and there in the rules about roleplaying, and it's gotten better in later editions, but even the 3.x DMG was reeeeeeeally brief and fairly vague on awarding experience points for noncombat challenges. On the other hand, every monster has a clear value given in exchange for killing it.

I understand where you are coming from, but you're wrong. A monster has a Challenge Rating, not a "XP value for killing it". Did you answer the sphinx's riddle? Great, you overcame the challenge, you get XP. Did you sneak by the ogre guarding the door? Great, you overcame the challenge, you get XP. Did you convince the mercenaries not to kill you? Great, you overcame the challenge, you get XP. There's nothing vague about it, really. I understand it not being clear when you came from AD&D (where you really got XP from killing things) or videogames, but D&D 3.5 was simply not designed that way.

My original point never mentioned a specific XP value for killing a monster. It simply listed a clear value, which is a different thing. In this case, it means that you gain experience and loot. How much experience is variable, and there is a formula for calculating (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/) this variable. That said, the value is still clear -- a DM who does not award XP (or loot) for a creature is actively ignoring or contravening the explicit rules of the game. However, while combat (or traps) are clearly spelled out by the rules, the book is vague on more nebulous issues like "roleplaying." How much XP does a character gain for, as you say, overcoming a non-combat challenge? The rules do not say. I quote: "To [reward noncombat goals] you need to set up a system in which you can award XP for accomplishing goals and for actions and encounters that don't involve combat" (3.5 DMG, pg 40). It also recommends that only experienced DM's do this.

This is important because the mechanics of the game expose its core concepts. Ideally, they should also support those core concepts; your mileage may vary how well they do so. In this case, the mechanics of rewarding experience points clearly place a greater emphasis on combat. Non-combat challenges are outright handwaved as at the discretion of the DM. They are so secondary, in fact, that the system even openly advocates that dungeon masters not award experience for these things.

Compare with other games, where social and stealth challenges are given equal footing with combat challenges, and the rules expect a player to be rewarded for non-combat actions as well as combat ones. Mechanics influence play; D&D mechanics encourage play which revolves around combat and looting.

It is also worth pointing out that "I understand it not being clear when you came from AD&D" and "videogames," but since my roleplaying roots come from neither AD&D nor videogames, your statement (accusation, perhaps?) is inaccurate; it is also incredibly rude, implying fairly heavily that individuals from other games can't understand 3.x. This is especially humorous given that I later referenced games which are, in fact, built around non-combat encounters. In fact, I just came back from the second session of our Legend of the Five Rings campaign -- we had our very first combat and it lasted twenty seconds of real-life time. Twenty seconds of combat compared to seven hours of social roleplaying. I think I understand quite well.

In the end, you are arguing that assassins are evil because they kill for profit. However, not only do other classes perform the same activities without incurring an "always evil" alignment, but the entire "killing for profit is wrong" mantra is one that is actively rejected by the mechanics of the game.

Good adventurers kill for profit. The game encourages this. Why are assassins any different?

unundindur

2012-04-18, 06:49 PM

In many ways printing assassin as a class was a mistake, since assassin is defined by an action, not by education.

Anyone can (theoretically) assassinate, making the individual an assassin.

This same goes for "fighter" and so on too though, so the point is wider than just the assassin-class. It is well examplified by assassin because this is one of the few classes that are extremely broad in application, but still not a base class, and with requirements that prevent a lot of people who want to play assassins from using the class with the same name. This is pretty obviously unfortunate (unfortunate enough that they actually made a copy of the class and called it Avenger, just to semi-redeem their earlier error).

For this and other reasons, I prefer games where you choose classes solely on what mechanics they bring to the table, and then label your character whatever you feel he or she is doing with that ability-set.

For example, I had a character that was a Rogue/Assassin (classwise) that labeled himself a "wizard", and used his meager assassin spell-list to prove that he was indeed a wizard if challenged.

Remove multiclass penalties, remove all fluff-requirements and rule that people can play what they want mechanically (except for shegenians). This is a win/win situation. Focus goes to the actual roleplaying of the character, the GM won't have to deal with stupid problems like this "are you really assassinating enough to be the class assassin" deal. If you feel you are an assassin, take the classes that makes you feel like one, and boom... you are an assassin. :smallsmile:

opticalshadow

2012-04-18, 07:20 PM

agreeing with the above.

an assassian (as in the profession) does not need to be evil, because evil itself is only the perception of actions by the person who is effected negitivly. for example, as the USA we pride our snipers, give them medals call them heros. they are nothing more then assassians.

in the same vein, the people that bomb our buildings we lable as evil, but to them, to their cause, they are heros. good and evil are absolutly arbitray. they are non exsitent ideals created long ago by people who believed that when something bad happend, it was because they did wrong, and that those acts were evil. it was preservation to say murder is evil, and thus wrong.

so in my campaigns, just murdering someone wont make you evil, even if they were innocent. its all about context, why did they do it. were they told to? to save the lives of many? then it would not be evil, for fun then yes. i had one campaign where a series of poor checks had the party convinced a mind flayer was in fact a god, and for a long time they served him in the name of all that is good to wage war, joining with a kingdom on the verge of defeat from the larger, "evil" kingdom, which they helped crumble. at the end they found out it was all quite the opisite, and they had been lied to. in the eyes of the good people of the lands, the heroic adventureing party was nothign more then a murdrous band, who was killing good people, all in the name of a creature from far below the surface.

their deeds were evil, but is it really evil, when you think your doing good?

Doughnut Master

2012-04-18, 07:27 PM

Evil characters who think they're doing good make great villains.

unundindur

2012-04-18, 07:32 PM

D&D says yes, doing evil while thinking it is good is evil. As I touched upon in my long reply a lot earlier in this thread, such a stand is not only stupid, it is hard to deal with ruleswise.

If you follow an "evil" deity with a passion you are a zealot, and possibly a Blackguard. You are a trully evil thing, not good.

If you are evil and does something the game would considder good (but the character considders evil), its not a big deal. If that Blackguard saved a child its not a big deal.

If you follow a good deity with a passion you are a zealot, and possibly a Paladin. You are a true hero.

If you are good and does something the game would considder evil (and your character considders good), you may lose your abilities, or even become evil. If you kill a man to save another, you are no longer a Paladin, you failed.

If you are tricked into doing something against your alignment the rules gets into trouble. Are you changing alignment? Is it unaffected? The rules simply cannot go into detail about these things, they are WAY to complex.

By scrapping alignment altogether you will soon find D&D to be a lot more of a streamlined game, and those long idiotic discussions about "what character X would do due to his alignment" would simply cease to exist, and people would start thinking about what their characters want to do (and the GM can start thinking about in-game consequences).

It is absolutely absurd.

I mean, if I worshiped Satan, hell would be my heaven. I would obviously consider Satan the good guy, and angels bad guys. D&D says WRONG, while I say it's in the eye of the beholder.

D&D alignment system cannot cope with wars between good races for instance. In D&D the Neutral good elf state would never attack the chaotic good dwarf fortress. What would happen to the two paladins fighting against each other, for each of their holy righteous causes?

White_Drake

2012-04-18, 08:27 PM

I mean, if I worshiped Satan, hell would be my heaven. I would obviously consider Satan the good guy, and angels bad guys. D&D says WRONG, while I say it's in the eye of the beholder.

Which eye?:smallbiggrin:

Particle_Man

2012-04-18, 10:54 PM

an assassian (as in the profession) does not need to be evil, because evil itself is only the perception of actions by the person who is effected negitivly.

Well if you are going to get rid of the entire alignment system then the question is obviously moot.

If one is going to go by the baseline assumption in D&D that "evil" is an objective force of nature, of which some beings like demons and devils are composed, which is detectable by various spells, etc., and thus is as objectively real as electricity is in our world, then we can at least discuss whether assassins should be evil or not.

I would say check with your DM. She might really like the idea of an evil group of contract killers (maybe she remembers them from 1st ed AD&D with fondness) and think that the requirements are just fine for that particular prestige class in her campaign, in which case you are SOL. Or she might say "eh, I can refluff this in the following ways, and maybe tweak mechanical feature X over there" in which case, bonus for you.

I can pretty much guarantee that your DM will not be swayed either way by "we folks on the internet", though. :smallbiggrin:

unundindur

2012-04-19, 02:57 AM

Which eye?:smallbiggrin:

The right eye :smallcool:

LordBlades

2012-04-19, 04:30 AM

To assist you in this, I shall reiterate my point. Namely, that D&D is mechanically designed to encourage the killing and looting of creatures, in direct contrast to your claim that D&D is not about those things.

Completely agree. Pretty much every single class ever printed in the books (maybe apart from the healer and the NPC classes) has been designed to be effective at a certain manner of hurting enemies. Be it damage, spells, invocations, breath weapons etc. every class has been designed with a way to deal damage and kill other creatures.

On the other hand, alternate options (social interaction, sneaking or the like) are available to only a subset of the classes.

Claiming that D&D as designed isn't about killing is ignoring the obvious.

Also, about poison being evil: BoED claims using poison that deals ability damage is evil, but then has ravages, good poisons that deal ability damage.

Doughnut Master

2012-04-19, 08:43 AM

The right eye :smallcool:

Third from the right, or second?

unundindur

2012-04-19, 09:20 AM

Third from the right, or second?

The rightest, as in tenth from the left, or second to the right of the third rightest.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-19, 09:54 AM

Claiming that D&D as designed isn't about killing is ignoring the obvious.
Of course, and that's exactly why I didn't say that.
I was answering to an argument aboud adventuring = murder, which is simply not the case.

I'm pretty sure that yeah, you can go around killing people for money and not be evil. I mean, surely the world is a better place without that Black Dragon that keeps eating babies, that Warchief that keeps pillaging babies, and that Cleric of Vecna who was going to raise every corpse in the world at once and just flood the place with skeletons?

But then you're not killing people for money. :smallsigh:
You're protecting others by killing those guys, gaining money from it is secondary.

The servers are specially sucky today, so I won't quote everyone.

Fatebreaker, you accuse me of doing something you are doing yourself. You claim I'm saying D&D does not include killing people and taking their stuff, and that's not my point. My point is that good adventurers adventure for other reasons and might avoid obstacles without killing and looting. You don't kill the orc king to get his +5 battleaxe, you kill him to proect the kingdom from his army. That's what heroic fantasy is all about. Once you enter the mindset of 'killing people, taking their stuff', you're simply not doing what D&D was designed to do. You might as well play WoW (and ignore all the written text) if that's all you want, after all.
Another point is that I was opposing the view of murder in D&D and you jumped onto my argument claiming I was wrong.

Drelua, I'm not sure if you misunderstood my point or not, but I'll explain again. The assassin class special requirement is a part of it's crunch. It's an evil act. That is a crunch argument for the class being evil. Fluff arguments abound, because the intent was obviously to create an evil class. About poison, you seem to be purposefully misunderstanding. My statement that you couldn't find a statement contradicting that using poisons that deal ability damage is evil has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, specially because poison use is not restricted to poisons that deal ability damage. I stand by my point that there is no such contradiction anywhere. I did not say at any point that such thing had anything to do with assassins being evil or not.
Alignment is about acts, not skillsets. Claiming a class skillset is 'not evil' is ridiculous, because of course it isn't. Neutral clerics can cast evil spells and that does not mean an evil cleric is evil. If an evil cleric starts using evil spells, than that's another story. Even auras of X don't always mean something is of alignment X or not - outsiders are living proof of that. Even a lawful good succubus will still ping as chaotic and evil under detection spells. Paladins are only good because of their code, which is fluff mixing with crunch, same as the assassin's special requirement.

To everyone talking about "alignment being subjective" - have fun with your houserules, but don't talk down to people who use alignment as written.

LordBlades

2012-04-19, 10:13 AM

Of course, and that's exactly why I didn't say that.
I was answering to an argument aboud adventuring = murder, which is simply not the case.

Quite a few of the published adventures (won't say most because I haven't played all published adventures) don't stray too far from the 'classical' adventure hook:

PC's are hired by <insert figure of authority or somebody shady> to go to <insert suitable place> and kill <insert suitable community of evil humanoids and/or monsters> because they are doing <insert suitable thing the employer doesn't want done>.

That's more or less the bare-bones definition of killing for cash.

To everyone talking about "alignment being subjective" - have fun with your houserules, but don't talk down to people who use alignment as written.

Alignment as written is such a mess that WotC at one point banned alignment discussions on their own boards.

Andezzar

2012-04-19, 10:32 AM

JadePhoenix

2012-04-19, 10:41 AM

Quite a few of the published adventures (won't say most because I haven't played all published adventures) don't stray too far from the 'classical' adventure hook:

PC's are hired by <insert figure of authority or somebody shady> to go to <insert suitable place> and kill <insert suitable community of evil humanoids and/or monsters> because they are doing <insert suitable thing the employer doesn't want done>.

That's more or less the bare-bones definition of killing for cash.
You know, I don't think this is right at all. So I decided to check on all adventures I own.
Test of the Demonweb - PCs are looking for a group of NPC adventurers.
Expedition to the Demobweb Pits - PCs are investigating signs of increased drow activity.
Dragondown Grotto - PCs are looking for dragon eggs for a sorcerer (under payment, extortion or chance).
Fane of the Drow - PCs help a dwarven clan recover their mithral mines.
Hellspike Prison - PCs investigate the disappearance of all population from a village.
Grasp of the Emerald Claw - PCs are searching for schemas
House of Harpies - The stronghold of a thieves' guild is taken by harpies. This is the first with a "be paid to get rid of them" scenario.
Red Hand of Doom - Fight an invading horde.
Whispers of Vampire Blade - PCs are hired to aprehend (not kill) a criminal.
Also, no campaign is ever geared toward those. Include Age of Worms and Pathfinder Adventure Paths in the list of adventures without a "get paid to kill this guy" focus.
So unless you can present me some adventures in which that is indeed a hook, I must think your killing for cash assumption is flawed.

No, that is more or less the definition of working as a contractor. Why the PCs enter into that contract will define whether they are killing for cash or for another reason. The adventurers could just as well work for the employer because they agree that <insert suitable thing the employer doesn't want done> is wrong and shouldn't be done or for some altogether different reason.
Exactly. The adventures mentioned above, aside from House of Harpies, all give good reasons for the PCs to engage the villain. In many of those, there is no contract to speak of.

LordBlades

2012-04-19, 10:45 AM

No, that is more or less the definition of working as a contractor. Why the PCs enter into that contract will define whether they are killing for cash or for another reason. The adventurers could just as well work for the employer because they agree that <insert suitable thing the employer doesn't want done> is wrong and shouldn't be done or for some altogether different reason.

That works for assassin as well. There's nothing in the class fluff that states 'must not have ulterior motives' while killing people and taking their cash.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-19, 11:41 AM

That works for assassin as well. There's nothing in the class fluff that states 'must not have ulterior motives' while killing people and taking their cash.

Special: In addition, he must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins
Emphasis mine

Particle_Man

2012-04-19, 12:11 PM

The assassin requirement is kinda like some modern gang requirements, where to prove you are tough and loyal to them you have to kill someone that you don't even know, that they select for you. You don't know why they want X dead, but if you wanna join you have to kill X.

Maybe X is picked by the gang because the gang (not you) has independent reasons to want X dead - maybe X is picked almost at random just to see if the newbie (you) has what it takes to kill on their command without asking questions.

That is how I read the "kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins". I mean, frankly, what is in it for the gang that they teach you their secret methods unless you are going to be loyal to them?

Otherwise, you could just kill someone that you already had independent reasons to kill anyhow, show up at assassins guild local #13, and say "Hey dudes, I totally killed that guy just to join you, so who is gonna teach me spells and death attack and stuff? Oh, by the way, I only want to kill really evil guys, that ok?" :smalltongue:

White_Drake

2012-04-19, 12:43 PM

Once again, what makes sneaking in and slitting an evil tyrant's throat more evil than snaeking in and challenging him to a duel? Is that more evil than simply going up to the gate and slaughtering your way to him? I can see why a Paladin couldn't do it without an alignment infraction, he swears an oath not to, but a normal character? What if it was a Rogue, sneaking in and backstabbing him? What about a Fighter's coupe de grace? A Wizard can kill somebody just by saying die. If he tells the tyrant he will do this, knowing that no possible defense can be made (in this hypothetical situation he doesn't have his amulet of SR handy) is it good, but evil if he just attacks without warning? Where do you draw the line between honorable and stupid? Also, why don't intentions affect a person's alignment? A Paladin loses his status if "willfully commits an evil act" -- PH 44. What constitutes willfully? If a Paladin commits what he believes to be a good act willfully (due to misinformation), but the act has evil consequences that the Paladin would not have willfully caused, is he just as evil as the Blackguard who did it for kicks and giggles?

JadePhoenix

2012-04-19, 02:21 PM

Drelua

2012-04-19, 02:34 PM

Drelua, I'm not sure if you misunderstood my point or not, but I'll explain again. The assassin class special requirement is a part of it's crunch. It's an evil act. That is a crunch argument for the class being evil. Fluff arguments abound, because the intent was obviously to create an evil class. About poison, you seem to be purposefully misunderstanding. My statement that you couldn't find a statement contradicting that using poisons that deal ability damage is evil has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, specially because poison use is not restricted to poisons that deal ability damage. I stand by my point that there is no such contradiction anywhere. I did not say at any point that such thing had anything to do with assassins being evil or not.
Alignment is about acts, not skillsets. Claiming a class skillset is 'not evil' is ridiculous, because of course it isn't. Neutral clerics can cast evil spells and that does not mean an evil cleric is evil. If an evil cleric starts using evil spells, than that's another story. Even auras of X don't always mean something is of alignment X or not - outsiders are living proof of that. Even a lawful good succubus will still ping as chaotic and evil under detection spells. Paladins are only good because of their code, which is fluff mixing with crunch, same as the assassin's special requirement.

I think I see the problem here. We seem to have different definitions of what exactly fluff and crunch are. To me, a roleplaying requirement isn't really part of the mechanics of the class. I was, of course, assuming that a good Assassin would get rid of the whole evil organization and random murder bit, and maybe make some slight changes to their spell list, but that's not really necessary given that they're arcane casters, so they have no problem with alignment descriptors that they don't match. By this definition of what is included as being part of the mechanics, even if you don't agree with the definition, would you agree that the class would be mechanically suitable for good characters?

Oh, and I didn't mean to make the thing about poison seem in any way central to my argument, it was just an example of what I consider to be a stupid ruling from the BoED, one of several reasons I don't like that book. I only meant to say that there is probably a splatbook somewhere that says that use of ability damaging poison isn't evil. We all know how consistent WotC is, especially when it comes to alignment. I probably should have used an example that has less to do with the class we're discussing, that's my bad.

hamishspence

2012-04-19, 02:34 PM

Book of Vile Darkness also has bits on how the same act (causing a landslide that flattens a village) depending on the intention and how foreseeable the consequence was, can be Not Evil (both unintended and not easily foreseeable), Fall-Worthy but Not Exactly Murder (foreseeable- but the character overestimated their own ability) and Evil (foreseen, the character basically chose to sacrifice the village to save their own neck).

The basic lesson was "sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act, it's a hard standard, but that's they way it is".

It also says that killing Evil beings, even just for profit, is not Evil, but not Good. However it goes on to qualify that "such a justification is only valid for the slaying of creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil".

outside of such a justification, general moral principles on when an act qualifies as murder, and when it qualifies as "justifiable homicide" probably apply, whatever the alignment of the creature.

LordBlades

2012-04-19, 02:46 PM

Emphasis mine

That says nothing about the motives of his subsequent kills.

A character can fulfill the entry requirements, and then proceed to live an exemplary life (exemplary for an assassin/warrior/adventurer) by only taking out people that he feels are evil (because they're evil, not for the cash although he'd gladly take it). That is no more evil than the average adventurer, and he can consider his kill to enter the assassins 'a tragic mistake'(I can think of quite a few non-evil reasons why one would feel accessing the skillsets/resources/expertise of an Assassins Guild would be worth the life of an innocent in a given circumstance). Nobody is perfect after all.

Andezzar

2012-04-19, 02:56 PM

Do entry requirements have to stay fulfilled after taking the first level of the class? Are you required to still be evil when you take the second level?

JadePhoenix

2012-04-19, 03:07 PM

Do entry requirements have to stay fulfilled after taking the first level of the class? Are you required to still be evil when you take the second level?
Complete Warrior says you have be qualified at all times. Other sources are silent on this.

LordBlades

2012-04-19, 03:09 PM

Do entry requirements have to stay fulfilled after taking the first level of the class? Are you required to still be evil when you take the second level?

By RAW (I think it's in CW, but it's late and can't check ATM) if at any point you no longer fulfill the entry requirements, you lose all class features apart from BAB, Saves and HP.

Ranting Fool

2012-04-19, 03:17 PM

Evil characters who think they're doing good make great villains.

+1

Also Good Guys who are misinformed / Hold a different view on what is "Good" make great villains! :smallcool:

@OP If you want a Bad-guy-turned-Good Assassin then the first thing that comes to mind is the "Waylander" books by david gemmell (though i've not read them in about a decade so they might not be as cool as I remember

hamishspence

2012-04-19, 03:20 PM

Might only apply to CW ones- when applied to, for example, the Dragon Disciple from DMG, it leads to issues- since the final trait- the dragon type- means you no longer qualify- so you lose everything, including the type- meaning you qualify again- continue ad infinitem.

georgie_leech

2012-04-19, 03:26 PM

Likewise, the Ur-priest's own divine casting breaks the requirement that you be unable to cast divine spells.

Particle_Man

2012-04-19, 07:27 PM

A character can fulfill the entry requirements, and then proceed to live an exemplary life (exemplary for an assassin/warrior/adventurer) by only taking out people that he feels are evil (because they're evil, not for the cash although he'd gladly take it). That is no more evil than the average adventurer, and he can consider his kill to enter the assassins 'a tragic mistake'(I can think of quite a few non-evil reasons why one would feel accessing the skillsets/resources/expertise of an Assassins Guild would be worth the life of an innocent in a given circumstance). Nobody is perfect after all.

Again, I will use a modern example.

Vito joins the mafia (perhaps by killing someone at their command, he gets invited to be part of the action, if not yet a "made man"). They ask Vito to whack someone. Vito says, "Boss Carlione, I know I am your faithful servant in the guild and I am grateful for all that you have taught me, but I only want to kill people that are really evil, like, well, most of the people in "the business" frankly. Can I whack someone else instead?"

I don't see the Mafia as being down with that, somehow. :smallsmile:

So why would the Assassin's Guild be down with it?

LordBlades

2012-04-20, 12:27 AM

Again, I will use a modern example.

Vito joins the mafia (perhaps by killing someone at their command, he gets invited to be part of the action, if not yet a "made man"). They ask Vito to whack someone. Vito says, "Boss Carlione, I know I am your faithful servant in the guild and I am grateful for all that you have taught me, but I only want to kill people that are really evil, like, well, most of the people in "the business" frankly. Can I whack someone else instead?"

I don't see the Mafia as being down with that, somehow. :smallsmile:

So why would the Assassin's Guild be down with it?

If the Assassin's Guild is a Mafia-style organization then yes, you are right. However, if it's more of an association of individual contractors (the assassins), then each would probably be free to say 'yes' or 'no' to a given job. Since the DMG doesn't give an actual Assasin's Guild description, it's up to how the individual DM sees it.

Also, 'being a member of an Assasin's Guild' isn't listed in the Assassin class prerequisites. The special entry requirement does quite strongly infer that you need to join an Assassin's Guild in order to take your first Assassin level, but there's nothing, even under the strictest reading of RAW that prevents you from retaining class features and/or taking new levels in the class if you leave the Guild.

Andezzar

2012-04-20, 01:10 AM

Not even the entry requirement necessarily means joining a guild/organization. It could just as well be the requirement of a single freelance assassin mentor who otherwise would not train the character.

unundindur

2012-04-20, 05:28 AM

If you are part of an organization that just dislikes a particular foe, such as a moon elf anti-drow guild it makes no sense that you have to "prove your worth" by killing a random neutral good dwarf. This is of course based on you keeping the horrible alignment system.

Few real life organizations that are likely to have assassin-like members task their contractors with random "killing-for-commitment" tasks. Mossad, seal team 6 and so on are probably the closest we have to modern assassin-guilds, and these guys are trained to kill only very specific enemies (along with a plenora of other tasks), not random people.

shadow_archmagi

2012-04-20, 06:04 AM

LordBlades

2012-04-20, 06:30 AM

Of course, a very strict reading would indicate that Evil characters cannot join the assassin's guild, as their only motivation for the murder must be to become an assassin, and an Evil character might have the secondary motivation of wanting to kill someone because they enjoy murder.

This can also lead to the question of how would the guy(s) deciding whether to let you in the Assassin's Guild and/or train you as an assassin know that you killed a certain somebody 'for no other reason than to join the assassins' and you have no other motivation (revenge, punishment or simply pleasure).

Kaeso

2012-04-20, 06:49 AM

Should Assassins be evil?
Depends on how you define assassin. For the sake of argument I'll differentiate between Assassin and assassin.

An Assassin is basically a Hashashim, Ninja or other kind of sellsword. He basically kills people on demand as long as there's something in it for him. Of course, he should be evil.

An assassin is just somebody who assassinates another person for any reason, be they financial, political, emotional, rational, for plain fun etc. He can range from the good and righteous (the stealthy shadowcrawler that takes out an evil general before his troops can reach the field of battle, effectively ending a war with very little casualties) to evil and corrupt (the psychopath that breaks into peoples houses just to see the look on their faces when they're about to die).

So while an Assassin can be an assassin, an assassin isn't always an Assassin.
I assume that the DMG class is an Assassin, but if you want to make an assassin you could always be a rogue or a swordsage, or even a fighter with some creative thought in your feat selection.

unundindur

2012-04-20, 07:16 AM

Ninja, as in Shinobi, were generally not freelancers, but more like the Secret Service of their clan/lord.

Kish

2012-04-20, 07:47 AM

If you are part of an organization that just dislikes a particular foe, such as a moon elf anti-drow guild it makes no sense that you have to "prove your worth" by killing a random neutral good dwarf.
Where on earth are you getting that that organization would consist of members of the assassin prestige class?

Of course, a very strict reading would indicate that Evil characters cannot join the assassin's guild, as their only motivation for the murder must be to become an assassin, and an Evil character might have the secondary motivation of wanting to kill someone because they enjoy murder.
I would venture that it's probably entirely intended that someone who is unable to detach emotionally from their kills is no more welcome among the assassins than someone who isn't a cold-blooded killer.

"All chickens have feathers"=/="all creatures with feathers are chickens." "One of the requirements is evil alignment=/=every evil aligned character qualifies."

LordBlades

2012-04-20, 08:16 AM

I would venture that it's probably entirely intended that someone who is unable to detach emotionally from their kills is no more welcome among the assassins than someone who isn't a cold-blooded killer.

Except that in the game world, there would be no way to be certain whether somebody has detached himself emotionally from the kill or not.

Andezzar

2012-04-20, 08:29 AM

Except that in the game world, there would be no way to be certain whether somebody has detached himself emotionally from the kill or not.Aren't there all sorts of mind reading spells?

unundindur

2012-04-20, 09:31 AM

Where on earth are you getting that that organization would consist of members of the assassin prestige class?

Ok, I admit I forgot some key information. I meant a (elf)state-backed anti-drow military unit, especially out there to take out terrorist-drow on a professional level.

That could include a whole range of other classes, but the one class that clearly fills the role is assassin.

Again, the alignment system messes this up, but even assuming that the alignment requirement is fulfilled, would this professional elven army task their members with random killing just for proving allegiance? No. That would be a waste or resources, time, create potential enemies and yea - it would go against every principle of most real-life organization that actually use professional assassins.

Assassins are not the random bruisers and hitmen who grew up as gangsters and ended up killing drugsters by shooting them up in the street, no matter if you think of the assassin as based on the act or the Ḥashshāshīn.

If you ask me the class is a very strange piece of work. I would have removed their access to spells and given them full BaB, removed death attack and added 2d6 sneak attack (tot 7d6) and +5 to DC of Poisons. At that point the Assassin class would start to look something like a fantasy representation of the generic conceptual assassin.

Reverent-One

2012-04-20, 10:13 AM

Again, the alignment system messes this up, but even assuming that the alignment requirement is fulfilled, would this professional elven army task their members with random killing just for proving allegiance? No. That would be a waste or resources, time, create potential enemies and yea - it would go against every principle of most real-life organization that actually use professional assassins.

This is because real-life organizations that actually use professional assassins aren't the same as the organization the Assassin PrC is supposed to represent, which is a group of contract killers that will kill anyone (or basically anyone) for the right payment.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-20, 10:19 AM

If you ask me the class is a very strange piece of work. I would have removed their access to spells and given them full BaB, removed death attack and added 2d6 sneak attack (tot 7d6) and +5 to DC of Poisons. At that point the Assassin class would start to look something like a fantasy representation of the generic conceptual assassin.

Full base attack bonus?! I disagree completely. Assassins are not meant to be frontline warriors, no matter what source of assassin lore you use. They need surprise, stealth and guile to stand up to a full fledged warrior.
Also, death attack might have wonky mechanics in combat, but it feels like something an assassin should do - a one hit kill with a concealed weapon. If you target mostly humanoids, death attack is not even that bad. Get a few ambush feats (Terrifying Strike, Sickening Strike) and some Con poison (say, deathblade) and their Fortitude save against your sneak attack will be heaviliy penalized.
Say you're a rogue 5/assassin 10 with Int 16, Ability Focus (death attack), Assassin's Dagger and Bracers of Murder. That's a base DC of 27.
A level 15 Barbarian with Con 20 and a cloak of resistance +5 has a +20 Fortitude bonus. Add Terrifying Strike and Sickening Strike and he takes a -4 penalty to saves - only +16. You have about 50% chance of taking out one of the toughest humanoids at your level... and this is not taking deathblade poison into account.
Now that I think about it, Obtain Familiar for a viper would be a nice feat for an assassin, if only for being always supplied with venom.

Kish

2012-04-20, 10:21 AM

Ok, I admit I forgot some key information. I meant a (elf)state-backed anti-drow military unit, especially out there to take out terrorist-drow on a professional level.

That could include a whole range of other classes, but the one class that clearly fills the role is assassin.
Except not, because the assassin prestige class is "murderers for hire." If what you were using as the basis for your complaint was true, you wouldn't have anything to complain about. One of them Catch-22 things...

Going by what the D&D books generally do, I'd guess that if they introduced such a military unit, they'd likely add a new prestige class specifically for being a member of it. But even if, just for this post, I pretended the assassin class doesn't have any entry requirements...I still wouldn't call this part-of-the-assassin-description class the one class that most clearly fills the role you describe; I'd call ranger that class. Assassins don't have favored racial enemies.

unundindur

2012-04-20, 10:26 AM

This is because real-life organizations that actually use professional assassins aren't the same as the organization the Assassin PrC is supposed to represent, which is a group of contract killers that will kill anyone (or basically anyone) for the right payment.

Explaining the absurdity of it all. The fault of the class is actually the name. It should be called "Arcane thug" instead. That way none would care.

The whole point is that if you call something ABC it kind of should reflect an ABC as we know it, and not something totally different.

While we are on it, Ranger is also an odd ball out. Favored enemy? Dual Wielding? This sounds a lot like a narrow PrC, as opposed to Assassin, which sounds a lot like a broad base class in the context of "going around killing stuff D&D style" :smallsmile:

Reverent-One

2012-04-20, 10:33 AM

Explaining the absurdity of it all. The fault of the class is actually the name. It should be called "Arcane thug" instead. That way none would care.

*Shrugs* When I hear "assassin" in the context of a D&D-esque world, a contract killer that works for money is exactly what I think of. Not a team of elven soldiers that hunt drow or anything like that.

unundindur

2012-04-20, 10:39 AM

Reverent-One

2012-04-20, 10:47 AM

And the modern professional army is what? It is "murder for hire" organized with a fixed patron and a lot of agents that usually train together. Soldiers get money and they are (usually) obliged to follow the orders of their superior. The only difference is that they only work for one fixed patron.

One of the major concerns when going from a draft army to a professional army is the chance that the army goes rogue, which exemplifies the similarities between military and an private firm working for the government.

First, the modern world is not a D&D-esque world, which is what I was explictly referring to. But I'll play along and switch contexts. I'd call members of a modern professional army soldiers, people who fight for a cause or to protect people, not just for money (not saying those that do it just for money don't exist, but I wouldn't insult the ones that aren't like that by assuming they all are). I would hope members of a modern professional army wouldn't kill civilians just because they're paid to do so, but I would expect an "assassin" to.

unundindur

2012-04-20, 10:53 AM

First, the modern world is not a D&D-esque world, which is what I was explictly referring to. But I'll play along and switch contexts. I'd call members of a modern professional army soldiers, people who fight for a cause or to protect people, not just for money (not saying those that do it just for money don't exist, but I wouldn't insult the ones that aren't like that by assuming they all are). I would hope members of a modern professional army wouldn't kill civilians just because they're paid to do so, but I would expect an "assassin" to.

Well, basing a class on inner motivation is a really dangerous route to go (and Wizards did it). This goes along with the crazy alignment system and defines good and evil. If two twins trained together for their entire life, they learn the trade of espionage, efficient killing and so on. They are both part of the local criminal network, and they fight with the exact same tecniques.

One is motivated by money, the other is motivated by protecting his fellow guildmembers. Do they have different classes?

LordBlades

2012-04-20, 10:56 AM

Aren't there all sorts of mind reading spells?

And an equal number of ways to fool them(and most of the have saves anyway). As far as I know, the only 100% foolproof way to get the truth out of somebody available to a group without high level casters is kill them, cast Speak with Dead and then resurrect them.

And tbh I doubt anyone would be too willing to join a group that submits prospective members to that.

Also, if the Assassin's Guild has high level casters, then why train people to become Assassins as opposed to full casters, which are much more effective at assassinating people?

Reverent-One

2012-04-20, 11:04 AM

Well, basing a class on inner motivation is a really dangerous route to go (and Wizards did it). This goes along with the crazy alignment system and defines good and evil. If two twins trained together for their entire life, they learn the trade of espionage, efficient killing and so on. They are both part of the local criminal network, and they fight with the exact same tecniques.

One is motivated by money, the other is motivated by protecting his fellow guildmembers. Do they have different classes?

They could, just because two people are in the same organization and fight similarly doesn't mean that they have the same classes. Especially given how many similar classes exist in 3.5. You can replicate the same basic concept with any number of different class/PrC combinations.

Particle_Man

2012-04-20, 11:17 AM

Also, 'being a member of an Assasin's Guild' isn't listed in the Assassin class prerequisites. The special entry requirement does quite strongly infer that you need to join an Assassin's Guild in order to take your first Assassin level, but there's nothing, even under the strictest reading of RAW that prevents you from retaining class features and/or taking new levels in the class if you leave the Guild.

At that point, you would be the new target for the Assassin's guild, in my campaign. :smallsmile:

Particle_Man

2012-04-20, 11:19 AM

This can also lead to the question of how would the guy(s) deciding whether to let you in the Assassin's Guild and/or train you as an assassin know that you killed a certain somebody 'for no other reason than to join the assassins' and you have no other motivation (revenge, punishment or simply pleasure).

The easiest way? The guildmaster chooses the victim you have to kill, not the wannabe assassin. Maybe the guildmaster accidentally chooses someone the assassin wants to kill anyhow, but the odds are reduced compared to the wannabe assassin picking their own victim.

Answerer

2012-04-20, 11:37 AM

Strictly speaking, you don't even have to join to take the first level. You don't have to be admitted, hell, there doesn't even have to be any such guild.

The only requirement is that the murder occurred because you intended it to qualify you for entrance to something called "the Assassins". This could entirely be a hallucination of your own concoction for all the requirements care.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-20, 11:55 AM

LordBlades

2012-04-20, 12:03 PM

The easiest way? The guildmaster chooses the victim you have to kill, not the wannabe assassin. Maybe the guildmaster accidentally chooses someone the assassin wants to kill anyhow, but the odds are reduced compared to the wannabe assassin picking their own victim.

But the odd guy that finds other reasons to kill the given target would, by RAW, not qualify for Assassin, although to any observer in the game world he performed his given task as well as any of the others.

unundindur

2012-04-20, 12:10 PM

They could, just because two people are in the same organization and fight similarly doesn't mean that they have the same classes. Especially given how many similar classes exist in 3.5. You can replicate the same basic concept with any number of different class/PrC combinations.

Yes, they could, but I am talking about should. You can go around a problem by fixing things on a per-case basis, but I am hope most agree it is better to fix the underlaying problem.

D&D classes do something really stupid; the mechanically represent combat-technique, while their flavor and names represent image and culture. In the many cases where the two do not align we get into conflict. The assassin class is nr uno, as I remember the same endless discussion going on the wizard-board some 7 years ago.

When a conflict arises, why stick with the part that doesn't match what you do? It is much easier to wave the name of a class than waving its abilities (making it another class...).

I ask again, should the twin brothers have the same class or should they have different classes based on their difference in inner-motivation? :smallsmile:

Reverent-One

2012-04-20, 12:28 PM

I ask again, should the twin brothers have the same class or should they have different classes based on their difference in inner-motivation? :smallsmile:

We're talking about a game here, so should is very subjective. If the player of one brother wants to represent their character one way, and the other player wants to represent it another way, they should each do it their own way. Same if the DM is making both characters.

But this is also somewhat beside the point of the discussion of the Assassin PrC, which was obviously meant to represent membership in some sort of guild of contract killers and getting special training from them, not internal motivations (though the internal motivations of the character affect whether they'd join such an organization). If both twins meet the requirements of the organization, then they could (though should cannot be determined objectively) both have levels of the Assassin PrC.

White_Drake

2012-04-20, 12:59 PM

All this discussion has really gotten me thinking, maybe I should put out another thread "Should Avengers be Lawful?"

Morithias

2012-04-20, 02:16 PM

All this discussion has really gotten me thinking, maybe I should put out another thread "Should Avengers be Lawful?"

I don't know about you, but I've never considered the Hulk lawful.

*dances off the stage with a top hat and cane*

Kish

2012-04-20, 03:24 PM

Also, if the Assassin's Guild has high level casters, then why train people to become Assassins as opposed to full casters, which are much more effective at assassinating people?
Because the D&D writers don't use the Internet's tier system. Same as the answer to why fighters, rogues, and so on continue to exist, rather than everyone telling them, "NO, TRAIN AS A WIZARD OR CLERIC."

Well, basing a class on inner motivation is a really dangerous route to go (and Wizards did it). This goes along with the crazy alignment system and defines good and evil. If two twins trained together for their entire life, they learn the trade of espionage, efficient killing and so on. They are both part of the local criminal network, and they fight with the exact same tecniques.

One is motivated by money, the other is motivated by protecting his
fellow guildmembers. Do they have different classes?
I'll play, though I'll suspect you'll continue to dodge the point.
Scenario 1: There are no assassins in that particular criminal network/area. Both twins are rogues or rogue/rangers, and have no reason to be otherwise.
Scenario 2: There are assassins in their criminal network. Both of them apply to join the assassins, and both of them are willing to kill the person assigned by their sponsor. Both become assassins. Both are evil, one is just a little more self-centered about it than the other.
Scenario 3: There are assassins in their criminal network. Both of them apply to join the assassins, but one balks at the entry requirement. After that, perhaps the one who didn't balk gets training the other one doesn't get, in which case one is a rogue/assassin or rogue/ranger/assassin and the other is a rogue or rogue/ranger. Or perhaps the one who balks is far enough into the training that balking leads to the network killing him, in which case one of them is a rogue/assassin or rogue/ranger/assassin, and the other no longer has any classes.

LordBlades

2012-04-20, 05:33 PM

Because the D&D writers don't use the Internet's tier system. Same as the answer to why fighters, rogues, and so on continue to exist, rather than everyone telling them, "NO, TRAIN AS A WIZARD OR CLERIC."

The D&D world doesn't have to work by the D&D tier system. The fact that the average cleric/druid/wizard (if he's at least trying) is more effective than the average fighter/rogue/monk is a reality, and should be quite well known in a D&D world (assuming clerics/druids/wizards aren't comparatively rare to fighters/rogues/monks).

Why would people still be non-casters? Various reasons: they lack the necessary aptitude to become a caster (non-positive mental stats), they like being a non-caster or they feel being a caster is too much hassle (gathering spells in a spellbook, worshiping something), and if a non-caster class would give them enough abilities to do whatever they do well, why bother?

To attempt a real world analogy: a Ferrari is objectively a faster car than a Volkswagen, and yet many ppl drive Volkswagens because they can't afford a Ferrari, don't need to go very fast, or they simply like Volkswagens.

JadePhoenix

2012-04-20, 06:22 PM

Because the D&D writers don't use the Internet's tier system. Same as the answer to why fighters, rogues, and so on continue to exist, rather than everyone telling them, "NO, TRAIN AS A WIZARD OR CLERIC."

Also because some people don't get the same opportunities as others, same as in real life.
Astronauts, rock stars and politicians get a lot of money and prestige. Why aren't we all astronauts, rock stars and politicians, then? Is the schoolteacher "unoptimized"?

unundindur

2012-04-20, 08:58 PM

I'll play, though I'll suspect you'll continue to dodge the point.
Scenario 1: There are no assassins in that particular criminal network/area. Both twins are rogues or rogue/rangers, and have no reason to be otherwise.
Scenario 2: There are assassins in their criminal network. Both of them apply to join the assassins, and both of them are willing to kill the person assigned by their sponsor. Both become assassins. Both are evil, one is just a little more self-centered about it than the other.
Scenario 3: There are assassins in their criminal network. Both of them apply to join the assassins, but one balks at the entry requirement. After that, perhaps the one who didn't balk gets training the other one doesn't get, in which case one is a rogue/assassin or rogue/ranger/assassin and the other is a rogue or rogue/ranger. Or perhaps the one who balks is far enough into the training that balking leads to the network killing him, in which case one of them is a rogue/assassin or rogue/ranger/assassin, and the other no longer has any classes.

The first case is all good, they are both exactly the same character rules-wise (rangerY/rogueX) and work as assassins.

The second one dodges the point as you call it. To further the point, say they are twins with the exact same training (mentioned above), but one is NG and the other is NE, according to their character sheets. One will not kill for no reason, but he has exactly the same training (for some reason).

The third case is a case where the two do not qualify; they do not have the exact same training, which was an initial requirement.

Again, the assassin class is simply a list of abilities that are no more or less evil than the abilities of say, rangers. Prestige classes have other technical requirements to make them balanced, and they may have fluff-requirements to make them "feel" like they were intended. The problem with the assassin is that it only feels like one very narrow assassin type, namely the "evil arcane gangster/ninja". Later on wizards have learned from their mistake and make Prestige classes narrow. It the class was called Valagru Assassin, I would not blink an eye. When they simply make a PrC that has a name wider than many base-classes (Shugenja, Wilder, Warcaster?) it spells trouble all the way to prom.

If the class was called Valagru Assassin I would not mind a "you must kill someone for no reason" clause, as that may indeed be the requirement of the spesific Valagru guild. Problem is again that this cannot in any way be seen as a blanket requirement for assassins, and I for one think a named class should be the best at representing the skillset typically connected to that name.

As it is now you even have to join former assassins to become one. What if I just learned the tricks of the trade along the way? Who was the first Assassin? How did he qualify? Assassins are people who assassinate, one way or the other, with our without a guild.

As an example I can take the Paladin. If the Cleric class technically was a bow-specialist I hope most would raise an eyebrow and shout out. If instead a class called "Alagrion stringpreacher" has bow-related abilities it would be a lot more redeeming. If you want to be a bow-cleric this class should be your best bet, but if you want to be a generic cleric it should not be your best bet.

This goes for assassins too. If you want to be a generic assassin (wide understanding) you should be an Assassin (class), if you wanted to be an evil-arcane-ninja you should be a Valagru Assassin, who is specialised at that.

What have happened now is that The niché evil-arcane-ninja got the name of the generic concept, leaving everyone who wants to play a regular assassin to play something like a fighter/rogue (or any other combination that represents your average assassin).

The problem would be solved if either:

1. There was a broad base class called assassin, with a lot of variation.

2. There was no prestige class called Assassin, so people wouldn't feel that you needed that class to be an assassin (the fluff-aspect). In this context the Rogue class was the assassin of choice (+random PrCs), and none would ever argue that point.

3. The Rogue class was better than the Assassin PrC in straight up martial assassination, making the PrC a niché thing none really cared for.

In any case, it would help if the current Assassin PrC only had requirements saying "you need to be level 5 to enter this class".

WyvernLord

2012-04-20, 11:29 PM

Here is my personal view on the matter.The Silver Foxes are an elite group of people who use their abilities to protect society. You are a member of their right hand the hand the moves around the criminals disabling them any chance you get. Their abilities allow them to go anywhere undetected and remove the infection that controlls the society.
Their methods vary from mere warnings to a greedy merchant prince to death for bandit lords or other criminal leaders. As a general rule only warnings are mostly given out to those untouchable by the law. One of the favorite moves by an agent is to paralyze a target then either give a warning or to dimension door them both out. The use of poison is taught but generally not used due to the outlook of the group.
Alternative fluff
Any that reflects the abilities of this class.
Hit Die
d6.

Requirements
To qualify to become an Silver Fox Agent a character must fulfill all the following criteria.

Skills
Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks.

Special
The character must kill an assigned target.

Class Skills
The assassin’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Int), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Forgery (Int), Gather Information (Cha), Hide (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Open Lock (Dex), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), Use Magic Device (Cha), and Use Rope (Dex).

Skill Points at Each Level
4 + Int modifier.

Table: The SFA
{table=head]Level|Base Attack Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|Special|1st|2nd|3rd|4th
1st|+0|+0|+2|+0|Sneak attack +1d6, death attack, poison use, spells|0|—|—|—
2nd|+1|+0|+3|+0|+1save against poison, uncanny dodge|1|—|—|—
3rd|+2|+1|+3|+1|Sneak attack +2d6|2|0|—|—
4th|+3|+1|+4|+1|+2 save against poison|3|1|—|—
5th|+3|+1|+4|+1|Improved uncanny dodge, sneak attack +3d6|3|2|0|—
6th|+4|+2|+5|+2|+3 save against poison|3|3|1 —
7th|+5|+2|+5|+2|Sneak attack +4d6|3|3|2|0
8th|+6|+2|+6|+2|+4 save against poison, hide in plain sight|3|3|3|1
9th|+6|+3|+6|+3|Sneak attack +5d6|3|3|3|2
10th|+7|+3|+7|+3|+5 save against poison|3|3|3|3[/table]
Class Features[\B]
All of the following are Class Features of the SFA prestige class.

[B]Weapon and Armor Proficiency
SFAs are proficient with the crossbow (hand, light, or heavy), dagger (any type), dart, rapier, sap, shortbow (normal and composite), and short sword. SFAs are proficient with light armor but not with shields.

Sneak Attack
This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name. The extra damage dealt increases by +1d6 every other level (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th). If an SFA gets a sneak attack bonus from another source the bonuses on damage stack.

Death Attack
If a SFA studies his victim for 3 rounds and then makes a sneak attack with a melee weapon that successfully deals damage, the sneak attack has the additional effect of possibly either paralyzing or killing the target (SFA'S choice). While studying the victim, the SFA can undertake other actions so long as his attention stays focused on the target and the target does not detect the SFA or recognize the SFA as an enemy. If the victim of such an attack fails a Fortitude save (DC 10 + the SFA's class level + the SFA's Int modifier) against the kill effect, she dies. If the saving throw fails against the paralysis effect, the victim is rendered helpless and unable to act for 1d6 rounds plus 1 round per level of the SFA. If the victim’s saving throw succeeds, the attack is just a normal sneak attack. Once the SFA has completed the 3 rounds of study, he must make the death attack within the next 3 rounds.

If a death attack is attempted and fails (the victim makes her save) or if the SFA does not launch the attack within 3 rounds of completing the study, 3 new rounds of study are required before he can attempt another death attack.

Poison Use
SFAs are trained in the use of poison and never risk accidentally poisoning themselves when applying poison to a blade.

Table: SFA Spells Known
{table=head]Level|1st|2nd|3rd|4th
1st|2|—|—|—
2nd|3|—|—|—
3rd|3|2|—|—
4th|4|3|—|—
5th|4|3|2|—
6th|4|4|3|—
7th|4|4|3|2
8th|4|4|4|3
9th|4|4|4|3
10th|4|4|4|4[/table]
Spells
Beginning at 1st level, a SFA gains the ability to cast a number of arcane spells. To cast a spell, an SFA must have an Intelligence score of at least 10 + the spell’s level, so a SFA with an Intelligence of 10 or lower cannot cast these spells. SFA bonus spells are based on Intelligence, and saving throws against these spells have a DC of 10 + spell level + the SFA's Intelligence bonus. When the SFA gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level he gains only the bonus spells he would be entitled to based on his Intelligence score for that spell level.

The SFA's spell list appears below. A SFA casts spells just as a bard does.

Upon reaching 6th level, at every even-numbered level after that (8th and 10th), an assassin can choose to learn a new spell in place of one he already knows. The new spell’s level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged, and it must be at least two levels lower than the highest-level assassin spell the assassin can cast. An assassin may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that he gains new spells known for that level.

Save Bonus against Poison
The assassin gains a natural saving throw bonus to all poisons gained at 2nd level that increases by +1 for every two additional levels the assassin gains.

Uncanny Dodge (Ex)
Starting at 2nd level, a SFA retains his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) regardless of being caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. (He still loses any Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.)

If a character gains uncanny dodge from a second class the character automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below).

Improved Uncanny Dodge (Ex)
At 5th level, a SFA can no longer be flanked, since he can react to opponents on opposite sides of him as easily as he can react to a single attacker. This defense denies rogues the ability to use flank attacks to sneak attack the assassin. The exception to this defense is that a rogue at least four levels higher than the assassin can flank him (and thus sneak attack him).

If a character gains uncanny dodge (see above) from a second class the character automatically gains improved uncanny dodge, and the levels from those classes stack to determine the minimum rogue level required to flank the character.

Hide in Plain Sight (Su)
At 8th level, a SFA can use the Hide skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow.

SFA Spell List
SFAs choose their spells from the following list:

1st Level
disguise self, detect poison, feather fall, ghost sound, jump, obscuring mist, sleep, true strike.

2nd Level
alter self, cat’s grace, darkness, fox’s cunning, illusory script, invisibility, pass without trace, spider climb, undetectable alignment.

3rd Level
deep slumber, deeper darkness, false life, misdirection, nondetection.

4th Level
clairaudience/clairvoyance, dimension door, freedom of movement, glibness, greater invisibility, locate creature, modify memory, poison.I'm open to discussion about this. Anyone want to talk about it. :smalltongue:

Particle_Man

2012-04-20, 11:51 PM

The Silver Foxes are an elite group of people who use their abilities to protect society. You are a member of their right hand the hand the moves around the criminals disabling them any chance you get.

Requirements
To qualify to become an Silver Fox Agent a character must fulfill all the following criteria.

Special
The character must warn a target about the silver foxes watching him.

Not sure I get the requirement. If you make it harder for the silver foxes to do their job, you get to join the silver foxes?

WyvernLord

2012-04-21, 01:39 AM

It is late here and I'm terrible at fluff. :smallsigh:
It is more like a warning "We're watching you clean up your act." kind of thing. And warnings only go to say a greedy merchant gouging into people's cash on a large scale. A ironfisted tyrant will be killed or captured not warned.

Edit: Updated the fluff to hopefully make more sense. Though it is funny in an ironic sense considering how some people (myself included) are complaining about the assassin fluff.

unundindur

2012-04-21, 07:00 AM

So it is basically an Avenger with Death Attack?

Kish

2012-04-21, 07:40 AM

Again, the assassin class is simply a list of abilities

There are two separate issues here. One is that you're highlighting a problem with the assassin prestige class and, I'd say, with most other prestige classes, that it, if you'll forgive the poetic phrasing, hurts base classes that prestige classes breathe. There you're right. The other, is that you're arguing that only some parts of the assassin prestige class text "count," with the parts that go "must be evil" and "must kill someone for no reason but to join the assassins" being something external to the class invented to annoy you personally. There you're not right.

unundindur

2012-04-21, 08:03 AM

You can assert that as many times as you like; it still won't be true.

Give me a reason why not then. What is a class if not a selection of abilities?

The point of classes is to represent whatever idea the player wants to represent in the game. For that he need rules, and classes was the simple way of doing so. To help the player find the right mechanics Wizards added fluff and names to the various mechanics, so that player X who wants to play a concept Y will find the natural list of abilities without reading through all sources available.

The original idea of PrCs was to give the GM tools to enhance his plots and play, by making them something akin to plot-devices. The problem with this (as everyone soon discovered) was that PrCs were generally better than base classes, and as such players started trying to enter prestigeclasses not because it fitted the GMs campaign, but because character Y would be better at whatever he wanted to do by adding PrC Z. GMs then got two choices (more or less); letting their camapigns derail as the players start looking for a more or less natural way to enter a PrC, or just wave the fluff-requirements, making PrCs... mechanical lists of abilities.

This shows the problem when mixing fluff and mechanics. Assuming in-game character know about the strengths of classes (via rumors etc) any character with intelligence 10 or more would be stupid not to pursue ("powergame") whatever class/PrC that makes him best at what that he does.

The 20 year old character (in-game) with intelligence 15 who is allowed entry into a paladin order would be acting against character by not trying to multiclass cleric and fighter instead, as they are numerically stronger and fit the exact same niché. Most likely he would even be willying to go out of line and travel the world to find a church training them, as his greater goal (inner motivation) is to be a champion of good and fight evil at all costs.

His inner motivation isn't to have smite evil X/day, that is just a numerical representation of "the ability to draw upon greater powers to slay evil", something a cleric could also do by casting Righteous Might for instance.

As such, the Assassin class was meant as a tool for the GM to use to further his plot, but since the class was 98% better than a rogue, any rogue player would want to get that set of abilities, even if they didn't even want to act as assassins in-game. This is faulty game-design. The problem is not that every rogue wants to get said set of abilities, but that the game have a clause saying "every smart rogue must be willying to kill a random target to get better at what he does" (aka the requirement to be an "Assassin" as per the PrC). In this experiment of though I assume that you have no other PrCs in existance, but others exist only narrow the concept discussed down somewhat.

The basic premisse is still there; Inner motivation and mechanical representation of skills and abilities cannot be forced together in any meaningful way. If they happen to align, that is great, but that should happen naturally, not via enforced rules. :smallsmile:

There are two separate issues here. One is that you're highlighting a problem with the assassin prestige class and, I'd say, with most other prestige classes, that it, if you'll forgive the poetic phrasing, hurts base classes that prestige classes breathe. There you're right. The other, is that you're arguing that only some parts of the assassin prestige class description "count," with the parts that go "must be evil" and "must kill someone for no reason but to join the assassins" being something external to the class invented to annoy you personally. There you're not right.

I am fully aware that as per RAW you need to be evil. By all means. Discussing RAW is kind of not interesting though (RAW is RAW after all), so my whole discussion have been about how the game should have been, and how the assassin PrC is majorly flawed due to (among other things) that evil requirement.

If you thought I was discussing how things work by the current rules we have been going around each other :smallsmile:

Kish

2012-04-21, 08:17 AM

Give me a reason why not then. What is a class if not a selection of abilities?

...huh? I could transcribe the entire Player's Handbook section from the word "Classes" to the description of the first specific class...but I don't really think that would be a good use of my time. :smalltongue:

GMs then got two choices (more or less); letting their camapigns derail as the players stat looking for a more or less natural way to enter a PrC, or just wave the fluff-requirements, making PrCs... mechanical lists of abilities.

So you see the entire problem as "by-the-book, to be the best possible stealthy killer, you need to be evil"?

I sure don't. If the assassin prestige class had no alignment requirements, there's still the very-definitely-a-problem that the rogue class fails to achieve its design goal. And that applies to every base class where, if you care at all about optimization, you can hardly help thinking immediately, "What's the lowest level I can get out of this class?" which, in the presence of enough books with prestige classes, is all of them. Neither of your two choices addresses that. Which is why, as a DM, I prefer Option 3: House rule prestige classes, all of them, out of existence. Anything worthwhile a prestige class has to offer (such as, in this example, death attack) can be reverse-engineered into a feat.

unundindur

2012-04-21, 08:39 AM

...huh? I could transcribe the entire Player's Handbook section from the word "Classes" to the description of the first specific class...but I don't really think that would be a good use of my time. :smalltongue:

I really don't see how that would help, but I have the PHB right here so.. :smallamused:

Class description (page 23)
The rest of this chapter, up to the section on multiclaqss character, describes the character classes in alphabetical order. Each description begins with a general discussion in "game world" terms, the sort of description that characters in the game world could understand and the way such a character might describe himself or herself. This information is followed by brief advice on such a character's typical role in a group of adventurers. These descriptions are general; individual members of a class may differ in their attitudes, outlooks, and other aspects.

It is quite evident that classes are meant to be general mechanical representations of skillsets, and that the rest is there to guide the player and give new players a sense of who you are. It is obviously nice to have a class to think of when you are brand new to roleplaying, and just thinking out of reality is a tricky feat of imagination.

So you see the entire problem as "by-the-book, to be the best possible stealthy killer, you need to be evil"?

I sure don't. If the assassin prestige class had no alignment requirements, there's still the very-definitely-a-problem that the rogue class fails to achieve its design goal. And that applies to every base class where, if you care at all about optimization, you can hardly help thinking immediately, "What's the lowest level I can get out of this class?" which, in the presence of enough books with prestige classes, is all of them. Neither of your two choices addresses that. Which is why, as a DM, I prefer Option 3: House rule prestige classes, all of them, out of existence. Anything worthwhile a prestige class has to offer (such as, in this example, death attack) can be reverse-engineered into a feat.

I cannot help but think that we actually agree now. You just say what I say backwards; take away prestigeclasses, while I pretty much said "remove the "prestige" from prestige-classes and only stick to the mechanical requirements due to balance.

I can fully stay behind a game without prestige classes, that would take us to the same place; the place where the "fluff" of classes don't mean anything.

In either case you have choices that makes your character better at something (feats in the case of a game without PrCs), so optimization will always be part of the game. PrCs just opens pandoras box in terms of options available. I don't have a problem with that, as options are options.

I just have a problem when some options require me to play against my characters concept to achieve a best possible mechanical representation of said character (such as a CG special-force moon elf hunting drow, who I might feel will be best represented by the skillset of the Assassin PrC). :smallwink:

Particle_Man

2012-04-21, 12:43 PM

Give me a reason why not then. What is a class if not a selection of abilities?

The point of classes is to represent whatever idea the player wants to represent in the game.

The original idea of PrCs was to give the GM tools to enhance his plots and play, by making them something akin to plot-devices. The problem with this (as everyone soon discovered) was that PrCs were generally better than base classes, and as such players started trying to enter prestigeclasses not because it fitted the GMs campaign, but because character Y would be better at whatever he wanted to do by adding PrC Z. GMs then got two choices (more or less); letting their camapigns derail as the players start looking for a more or less natural way to enter a PrC, or just wave the fluff-requirements, making PrCs... mechanical lists of abilities.

This post might help show where the difference is most striking, as:

1) Others hold that a class is a profession/occupation, not merely a cluster of abilities. This may be a carry over from older editions, but it is still a real "thing" for all that. Someday you might game with these people - at gunpoint, apparently, but there ya go. :smallbiggrin:

2) Some DMs specifically limit the allowable character concepts a player will be able to have in that DMs game. A common one I have encountered is "no evil player characters", for example.

3) Put those together and you have a third option: The DM says "Assassins exists but because they must be evil and because I am not allowing evil player characters, you can never become one, ever, in my campaign." Some DMs do that and some players are fine with that (I have played with some of those DMs and enjoyed the campaigns).

This is why I think this is partly a player empowerment issue. How much of the game should be "players get to be absolutely anything they want" and how much gets limited by what the DM has in mind (setting-wise, theme-wise, or otherwise) for what range of player characters she wants to run a game for?

unundindur

2012-04-21, 01:13 PM

This post might help show where the difference is most striking, as:

1) Others hold that a class is a profession/occupation, not merely a cluster of abilities. This may be a carry over from older editions, but it is still a real "thing" for all that. Someday you might game with these people - at gunpoint, apparently, but there ya go. :smallbiggrin:

2) Some DMs specifically limit the allowable character concepts a player will be able to have in that DMs game. A common one I have encountered is "no evil player characters", for example.

3) Put those together and you have a third option: The DM says "Assassins exists but because they must be evil and because I am not allowing evil player characters, you can never become one, ever, in my campaign." Some DMs do that and some players are fine with that (I have played with some of those DMs and enjoyed the campaigns).

This is why I think this is partly a player empowerment issue. How much of the game should be "players get to be absolutely anything they want" and how much gets limited by what the DM has in mind (setting-wise, theme-wise, or otherwise) for what range of player characters she wants to run a game for?

I get your point :smallsmile:

I have also played with such GMs and had great fun, BUT it makes no sense from a logical point of view if we think as a person in-game would(yes, ignorance is bliss :smallamused:). This is after all a meta-discussion, where the point is to agree on what is flawed with the system. I can have fun with all kind of rulesets, even the horribly illogical ones.

The first point was adressed in the above post. If one sees D&D purely as a game, and not a simulator you just stick to whatever is tossed at you, good or bad. I for one think D&D is mostly based on logic, and that we should continue that tradition (and call out when it is illogical, as with the assassin class)

The second point is common, and I think it is great that GMs do this, to prevent internal conflicts between overly good roleplayers :smalltongue:
This again shows the problems when the CG character wants to be something (the abilities that the assassin class represents) but is stuck with second-best (rogue) because he isn't evil. I have on multiple occasions experienced players who then start acting as evil as they can JUST because they want to qualify for a class. If they were not forced to act evil they would simply get the abilities and act in-character :smallsmile:

The third point is where things can get out of hand. Player X wants to plan a stalking mage/sneak and finds that he can never ever become what he wanted, even if mage/sneak is not evil in a meta perspective. This is also where I would take the GM aside and explain how these policies make no sense (and to date not a single GM have disagreed after prolonged analysis).

And then back to the fun. If players are either overbearing people who do not care all that much about optimization etc. these are not important issues at all. The same is true if none in the group are affected (such as when everyone happend to want to play classes the GM endorse). This is not making this less of an issue from a design perspective. Just because something works for some doesn't warrant restricting a system that could work for all. After all, taking away the alignment requirement of the Assassin PrC would not affect anyone negatively (this also goes for the long list of other suggestions I have made in this thread). :smallsmile:

In extreme cases players can get handed characters directly from the GM, and that can be great fun. This could still be done if PrCs didn't have fluff requirements, and we removed alignment (I couldn't resist...). D&D should be based on the premisse that players make their own character though, and the GM designs a campaign of some sort. The GM controls the world, the plot (if any), and retains balance. The players control their characters.

Take note that I have nothing against restrictive GMs, but that should be done on top of an open system. A GM should always have the final saying, but the current evil clause on assassins makes the GM-fiat positive (GM allows anyone to be an assassin) instead of negative (GM disallows the assassin class) in his campaign, which I think is really poor design. The obvious should be the rules, and the niché should be GM fiat.

WyvernLord

2012-04-21, 04:19 PM

JadePhoenix

2012-04-21, 05:41 PM

Finally woke up enough to say something. My point is the same as unundindur's. I wrote up that fluff last night in under 30 minutes just to help my point. From my POV arguements that Assasins should be evil mostly revolve around the current fluff. With the fluff I wrote the only arguement that these guys should be evil is the arguement that all poison is evil. I disagree with that statement personally. Any edge is fine in combat as long as it is for good. Who cares if the poison on your dagger hurts the guy your killing. You just stabbed him! I'm going to stop here before I start ranting about BoED in general.

I don't think anyone is arguing against you. The only people mentioning the "poison is evil" argument are those that don't think assassin should be evil, anyway. It's evil because of the fluff, yeah, it's a consensus. The argument is basically that some people (such as me) are fine with that.

Ranting Fool

2012-04-21, 06:04 PM

The original idea of PrCs was to give the GM tools to enhance his plots and play, by making them something akin to plot-devices.

+1

I've told my players that I will allow any PrC (And we've agreed no Pun Pun style things going on) as long as the player has a logical reason for joining/becoming that and not just "it gives me x better if I just dipp for one or two level"

But that is just me as a DM, while looking around here I don't see any (Hey I could have missed it somewhere) threads saying "Play X to level 20 it's always the best" in fact it does seem to be that most power levels are lower without PrC (Yes Wizards/Clerics/Druids are still good, but I always see people saying they get so much better after a level or 3 of X PrC"

Is just like a bit of fluff for why someone becomes a beastmaster / arcane archer :smalltongue::smallbiggrin: But that is just me and since i'm always voted the DM my word is law

WyvernLord

2012-04-21, 06:25 PM

I don't think anyone is arguing against you. The only people mentioning the "poison is evil" argument are those that don't think assassin should be evil, anyway. It's evil because of the fluff, yeah, it's a consensus. The argument is basically that some people (such as me) are fine with that.

I might have been a little late to the party then. I just chimed in because I misunderstood some other people's points. Sorry for that.

unundindur

2012-04-21, 09:04 PM

+1

I've told my players that I will allow any PrC (And we've agreed no Pun Pun style things going on) as long as the player has a logical reason for joining/becoming that and not just "it gives me x better if I just dipp for one or two level"

But that is just me as a DM, while looking around here I don't see any (Hey I could have missed it somewhere) threads saying "Play X to level 20 it's always the best" in fact it does seem to be that most power levels are lower without PrC (Yes Wizards/Clerics/Druids are still good, but I always see people saying they get so much better after a level or 3 of X PrC"

Is just like a bit of fluff for why someone becomes a beastmaster / arcane archer :smalltongue::smallbiggrin: But that is just me and since i'm always voted the DM my word is law

This sounds a bit like how I do it. The possible difference is that if you are playing a wizard/ranger with a focus on archery, I will allow you entry into any PrC related to it. I would rule that you qualify as an Arcane Archer, after all that is what you are, without any affiliation requirements.

The exception is that I will allow anyone to multiclass freely to another base class at level two, since there are a lot of concepts that are impossible to trully depict mechanically without two classes (Such as the traditional Gish). After level two though, I would ask why the Rogue suddenly wants to take a level of druid.

I require "fluff-reasons" if a character wants to enter a class or PrC that doesn't seem natural to the character, such as a wizard going into Blackguard. Luckily, the mechanical requirements of PrCs help a long way in this regard, since you are usually forced to play according to the mindset of a PrC to enter it.

The whole "who was the first to enter PrC X" kind of exemplifies how artificial affiliation requirements are :smallsmile:

JadePhoenix

2012-04-21, 09:17 PM

The exception is that I will allow anyone to multiclass freely to another base class at level two, since there are a lot of concepts that are impossible to trully depict mechanically without two classes (Such as the traditional Gish).
Though I agree many concept can't be done with just one class, gish is not one of those.
Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Ranger, Paladin and Duskblade can all act as gishes.

unundindur

2012-04-22, 07:52 AM

Though I agree many concept can't be done with just one class, gish is not one of those.
Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Ranger, Paladin and Duskblade can all act as gishes.

I would say it is hard to play a melee-wizard (which is what I thought was called the Gish) with only one wizard level. And if your concept is based on playing a fighter/wizard the player needs to get two levels to set the concept up imo :smallsmile:

Anyhow, we seem to agree ^^

LordBlades

2012-04-22, 11:13 AM

Though I agree many concept can't be done with just one class, gish is not one of those.
Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Ranger, Paladin and Duskblade can all act as gishes.

That depends on what exactly you want by 'gish'. If you want an Arcane Gish, that restricts you to Wizard. Sorcerer Bard and Diskblade.

If buy 'Gish' you want guy that buffs himself and then murders enemy in melee, that would rule out Duskblade (who is more of blast-while-melee kind of class) and require some pretty specific Bard/Wizard/Sorcerer builds. Unlike a Fighter/wizard which embodies the concept in a very simple way.

Particle_Man

2012-04-22, 04:58 PM

The third point is where things can get out of hand. Player X wants to plan a stalking mage/sneak and finds that he can never ever become what he wanted, even if mage/sneak is not evil in a meta perspective. This is also where I would take the GM aside and explain how these policies make no sense (and to date not a single GM have disagreed after prolonged analysis).

Fair enough, although there might be some DMs that stick to their guns and say "find another character concept" or "make do with a rogue/wizard/(arcane trickster?) multi-class" because they have a definite idea of what roles they want in their world for PCs. Unless the player has only one character concept that they would ever play, presumably the player could play something else in that DM's world, just as someone wanting to play a gunslinger might play something else in a DM's setting with no guns.

unundindur

2012-04-22, 05:10 PM

Fair enough, although there might be some DMs that stick to their guns and say "find another character concept" or "make do with a rogue/wizard/(arcane trickster?) multi-class" because they have a definite idea of what roles they want in their world for PCs. Unless the player has only one character concept that they would ever play, presumably the player could play something else in that DM's world, just as someone wanting to play a gunslinger might play something else in a DM's setting with no guns.

Indeed. As long as the GM is aware that what he does is artificial, and illogical I would have no problem playing along with whatever limits are put into play :smallsmile:

The whole notion of a GM saying "play something else" and not basing that on either plot reasons (no class capable of teleporting etc), world reasons (there are no machinery here, so no Artificer for you), or balancing issues (no pun-pun for you) is just plain crazy. Saying a player cannot play an evil assassin (as a concept) is fine, saying one cannot play a character with an assassins set of abilities is just strange unless none in said world know how to sneak/stab/cast spells. Again, I would still play, I would just feel pretty arrogant toward the GM :smalltongue:

Answerer

2012-04-22, 05:35 PM

It is the DM's responsibility to work with players to come to compromises regarding fitting the player's character into the DM's world; just saying "nope, sorry, can't," is the mark of a... DM I would not want to play with. The idea that a DM has a say in how the player builds his character is, to my mind, ludicrous. While the DM has ultimate authority and the player has to respect the DM's work and world (i.e. find a way to fit the character in, don't play something wildly outside the world's balance range, etc.), this should not be construed as the DM being able to tell the player what to play or not play.

Particle_Man

2012-04-22, 08:21 PM

Saying a player cannot play an evil assassin (as a concept) is fine, saying one cannot play a character with an assassins set of abilities is just strange unless none in said world know how to sneak/stab/cast spells. Again, I would still play, I would just feel pretty arrogant toward the GM :smalltongue:

Wizard/rogues know how to sneak, how to stab, and how to cast spells. They just don't know the special ways of doing it that the evil assassins have developed. :smallsmile:

Particle_Man

2012-04-22, 08:23 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-04-22, 08:34 PM

So you would be fine with Drzzt clones in your human-only King Arthur campaign? :smallsmile:

It is the DM's responsibility to work with players to come to compromises regarding fitting the player's character into the DM's world; just saying "nope, sorry, can't," is the mark of a... DM I would not want to play with. The idea that a DM has a say in how the player builds his character is, to my mind, ludicrous. While the DM has ultimate authority and the player has to respect the DM's work and world (i.e. find a way to fit the character in, don't play something wildly outside the world's balance range, etc.), this should not be construed as the DM being able to tell the player what to play or not play.

So if the player built that, I think the appropriate response would be "you knew the rules. Leave".

Now, if the guy had built a human ninja? Make him some guy who had been blessed by the fae with some mystical powers, and his shuriken are newly designed weapons. Or an Asian explorer traveled to Europe, or a European explorer traveled to Asia,, and traded information with the Europeans/Asians, including how to make shuriken.

White_Drake

2012-04-22, 08:41 PM

Wizard/rogues know how to sneak, how to stab, and how to cast spells. They just don't know the special ways of doing it that the evil assassins have developed. :smallsmile:

Assassins have style!:smallbiggrin:

Answerer

2012-04-22, 08:58 PM

So you would be fine with Drzzt clones in your human-only King Arthur campaign? :smallsmile:
That's not what I said, not even remotely. I specifically said that players have a responsibility to tailor a character to the game world.

But DMs also have a responsibility to work with the player to allow the player to play. "I want to have access to these pretty neat spells they printed for the Assassin" is not an unreasonable request in any campaign where magic is available at all, so I think it is unreasonable for the DM to say "nope, you cannot."

Mithosaurion

2012-04-22, 10:27 PM

In response to the question that started this thread I have but one answer:

No

unundindur

2012-04-24, 01:41 PM

Wizard/rogues know how to sneak, how to stab, and how to cast spells. They just don't know the special ways of doing it that the evil assassins have developed. :smallsmile:

They just don't know the special ways of doing it that the evil assassins have developed. :smallsmile:

The good ones are likely just as capable :smallcool:

Particle_Man

2012-04-24, 02:17 PM

DMs also have a responsibility to work with the player to allow the player to play. "I want to have access to these pretty neat spells they printed for the Assassin" is not an unreasonable request in any campaign where magic is available at all, so I think it is unreasonable for the DM to say "nope, you cannot."

I think this comes down to different gaming styles then. I could see a situation where the styles would collide if at the same table, but each is ok on its own. When they collide you get something like this:

DM "You have discovered evidence of a mysterious organization that requires their entrants to commit an act of foul murder before they can learn the arcane and other secrets that only they have at their command."

Dave: "Except for Bob."

DM "What?"

Dave: "Except for Bob. Remember you let him have a refluffed version of the assassin class with the same abilities and spells, but not requiring the evil/kill someone prerequisites?"

DM "Oh, right. So (except for Bob) no one can gain access to the mysteries of this organization, save through foul murder!"

So, the effect the DM was trying to achieve might, um, lose something if the "exclusive" abilities are freely available to Bob. :smallsmile:

Personally, I don't see that as unreasonableness, just a DM style difference.

Answerer (and I presume Bob) would disagree. :smallsmile:

unundindur

2012-04-24, 03:22 PM

I think this comes down to different gaming styles then. I could see a situation where the styles would collide if at the same table, but each is ok on its own. When they collide you get something like this:

DM "You have discovered evidence of a mysterious organization that requires their entrants to commit an act of foul murder before they can learn the arcane and other secrets that only they have at their command."

Dave: "Except for Bob."

DM "What?"

Dave: "Except for Bob. Remember you let him have a refluffed version of the assassin class with the same abilities and spells, but not requiring the evil/kill someone prerequisites?"

DM "Oh, right. So (except for Bob) no one can gain access to the mysteries of this organization, save through foul murder!"

So, the effect the DM was trying to achieve might, um, lose something if the "exclusive" abilities are freely available to Bob. :smallsmile:

Personally, I don't see that as unreasonableness, just a DM style difference.

Answerer (and I presume Bob) would disagree. :smallsmile:

Which is exactly what I touched upon earlier. The problem with the Assassin is that "Assassinguild" isn't such a unique organization, it is a whole cathegory.

If the Assassin class was called "Balshuga Zelir" (making it unique) or something, all of what you say would make a whole lot more sense.

I don't like this either though (but as opposed to many others, this is a valid point), since I want players to be able to play whatever they want within the same frame of power and options as their opponents. :smallsmile:

Particle_Man

2012-04-24, 04:01 PM

Yeah, I guess I take the "stuff (like prestige classes) in the DMG guide is for the DM, not the players, to choose" route, but I can see others going the other way.

Doughnut Master

2012-04-25, 11:14 AM

You could also have a guild that only chooses evil targets. Your reasons for killing the person are the same: to join the guild. However, the guild is actually a force for good. They just don't want anybody who can't stomach their work.

Answerer

2012-04-25, 11:27 AM

I think this comes down to different gaming styles then. I could see a situation where the styles would collide if at the same table, but each is ok on its own. When they collide you get something like this:

DM "You have discovered evidence of a mysterious organization that requires their entrants to commit an act of foul murder before they can learn the arcane and other secrets that only they have at their command."

Dave: "Except for Bob."

DM "What?"

Dave: "Except for Bob. Remember you let him have a refluffed version of the assassin class with the same abilities and spells, but not requiring the evil/kill someone prerequisites?"

DM "Oh, right. So (except for Bob) no one can gain access to the mysteries of this organization, save through foul murder!"

So, the effect the DM was trying to achieve might, um, lose something if the "exclusive" abilities are freely available to Bob. :smallsmile:

Personally, I don't see that as unreasonableness, just a DM style difference.

Answerer (and I presume Bob) would disagree. :smallsmile:
Aside from being a particularly hackneyed example, I'd be fine with this on two conditions:
It's actually important to the plot that these things remain exclusive; little of what the assassins get is actually exclusive but whatever.
The DM doesn't try to pretend that every class is that critical. That's just neither realistic nor appropriate to the game. The DM does get to shape the world in a lot of ways, but it is abusive of the DM/player relationship to claim that every given class must be played the way you say.

Callos_DeTerran

2012-04-25, 12:04 PM

How many PC's have you known or played that used Vow of Poverty? Every single one that didn't would have gained treasure, gold, magic items, and other sources of wealth, in the course of dungeon crawling or otherwise adventuring, the quintessential D&D activity. In other words, every single one of them profited from from their killing of other living creatures, unless the enemies consisted entirely of constructs, undead, or other non-living things.

You've missed my point. I'm not saying that all games are "kill people and take their stuff." However, The characters will kill stuff, and they will attain more wealth, often as a direct result of said killing. Are my players being hired by random creatures to kill other random creatures for money? Heavens no. But are you seriously suggesting that adventurers are constantly passive, just wandering arround doing "heroic" stuff and they happen to be attacked by monsters? That there has never been a case of a raid on a lair of trolls, or slaying some evil dragon, or otherwise doing something that manages to both be heroic and violent? My point isn't that all players are murdering psychos, but that in the D&D universe, profiting from other sentient creatures dying isn't a reprehensible thing like it is in our world.

These are the only real comments I want to respond to on this thread...In short, I agree that 90% of adventuring isn't killing things and taking their stuff. If that's the sole motivation for a character, that character is evil. Plain and simple. If they're trying to kill only evil creatures/people and taking their stuff...still evil really, though at least it has a 'good' outcome...somewhat. Heroic and good characters, in my opinion and play-style, don't immediately resort to violence when confronted with a problem. Trolls attacking the village? Find out why, maybe there's a way for both to live together in harmony. Evil dragon need slaying? Then that evil dragon has likely done something slay-worthy and the goal isn't to acquire the dragon's hoard but to end it's evil.

Every single one of my characters that's been Good has never taken on an adventure or job for the money or possible rewards. It's always been about helping people, places, enriching history, whatever. Do they acquire stuff? Sure, they need to keep themselves and their friends alive. But they avoid what fights they can and have, on more then one occasion, donated the majority of their 'rewards' to charities, temples, to beggars, or simply flat-out refused to accept it.

Good isn't invading the troll den for their loot. That's neutral, at best. Good is invading the troll den because it's the only option left and lives are at stake. By my understanding and application of the Alignment system, there isn't and never will be anything like a Good assassin. By it's very class abilities and fluff (even waiving the evil alignment requirement and killing someone to join the assassins...which I don't) an assassin is someone who looks at killing as the best solution to a problem. It's what their abilities are geared towards. I don't blame the assassin for that, but to me it can only be 'neutral' at best with as an assassin who uses evil means to carry out good ends. A Well-Intentioned Extremist who uses fire to fight fire, but can never be truly considered Good.

As the assassin class as written...no. It'll never be a good class. Can a character join it, progress through the levels, and have a change of heart? Sure, distinctly possible. Could make for a fascinating character arc...but if a player did that and expected to just swap back to a good/neutral alignment cause they had gotten all they had wanted from the class, my response would be 'lulzno, you still murdered people just to join a group of hired killers and were a selfish bastard across whatever time span was needed to get to Assassin 10, redemption isn't that easy'.

unundindur

2012-04-25, 12:19 PM

As the assassin class as written...no. It'll never be a good class. Can a character join it, progress through the levels, and have a change of heart? Sure, distinctly possible. Could make for a fascinating character arc...but if a player did that and expected to just swap back to a good/neutral alignment cause they had gotten all they had wanted from the class, my response would be 'lulzno, you still murdered people just to join a group of hired killers and were a selfish bastard across whatever time span was needed to get to Assassin 10, redemption isn't that easy'.

What exactly do you find evil about the class? Death attack is a very critical hit. Poison is an effective way to kill of a terror you might otherwise not be able to defeat. The spell list has a very few spells that might be evil, but those are the exceptions. There is just nothing in the mechanics of the class that warrant it being evil by nature.

Morithias

2012-04-25, 02:15 PM

What exactly do you find evil about the class? Death attack is a very critical hit. Poison is an effective way to kill of a terror you might otherwise not be able to defeat. The spell list has a very few spells that might be evil, but those are the exceptions. There is just nothing in the mechanics of the class that warrant it being evil by nature.

Yeah...at least the Deathstalker has you worshiping the god of murder...and even then it doesn't have that many "evil" abilities. Probably the worst is the ability to make someone else attack a target you desire, but then again I consider mind control to be morally questionable.

Hell, you don't even need to be evil to take the poison master feat. So the argument that "poisons are only for evil people" kinda falls apart.

LordBlades

2012-04-25, 02:30 PM

DM "You have discovered evidence of a mysterious organization that requires their entrants to commit an act of foul murder before they can learn the arcane and other secrets that only they have at their command."

What if you frame the murder/bluff them into think you have committed it? What if you diplomatize/blackmail/charm/dominate/mindrape somebody high enough to waive the murder requirement?

Drelua

2012-04-25, 02:54 PM

These are the only real comments I want to respond to on this thread...In short, I agree that 90% of adventuring isn't killing things and taking their stuff. If that's the sole motivation for a character, that character is evil. Plain and simple. If they're trying to kill only evil creatures/people and taking their stuff...still evil really, though at least it has a 'good' outcome...somewhat. Heroic and good characters, in my opinion and play-style, don't immediately resort to violence when confronted with a problem. Trolls attacking the village? Find out why, maybe there's a way for both to live together in harmony. Evil dragon need slaying? Then that evil dragon has likely done something slay-worthy and the goal isn't to acquire the dragon's hoard but to end it's evil.

Every single one of my characters that's been Good has never taken on an adventure or job for the money or possible rewards. It's always been about helping people, places, enriching history, whatever. Do they acquire stuff? Sure, they need to keep themselves and their friends alive. But they avoid what fights they can and have, on more then one occasion, donated the majority of their 'rewards' to charities, temples, to beggars, or simply flat-out refused to accept it.

Good isn't invading the troll den for their loot. That's neutral, at best. Good is invading the troll den because it's the only option left and lives are at stake. By my understanding and application of the Alignment system, there isn't and never will be anything like a Good assassin. By it's very class abilities and fluff (even waiving the evil alignment requirement and killing someone to join the assassins...which I don't) an assassin is someone who looks at killing as the best solution to a problem. It's what their abilities are geared towards. I don't blame the assassin for that, but to me it can only be 'neutral' at best with as an assassin who uses evil means to carry out good ends. A Well-Intentioned Extremist who uses fire to fight fire, but can never be truly considered Good.

As the assassin class as written...no. It'll never be a good class. Can a character join it, progress through the levels, and have a change of heart? Sure, distinctly possible. Could make for a fascinating character arc...but if a player did that and expected to just swap back to a good/neutral alignment cause they had gotten all they had wanted from the class, my response would be 'lulzno, you still murdered people just to join a group of hired killers and were a selfish bastard across whatever time span was needed to get to Assassin 10, redemption isn't that easy'.

Slight problem with this logic; as I've said before, Assassins do not have any abilities that make them more focused on murder than a Rogue, Fighter or certain types of spellcasters, like an evoker. Poison use can be used to put people to sleep or paralyze them with Strength or Dexterity damage. The Dungeon Master's Guide lists 29 types of poison, only 12 of which can possibly kill because they do either Constitution or HP damage. Death Attack? The name is misleading. It can also be used to paralyze someone, so if you don't want to kill people get a sap. Many DMs would even let you get an Assassin's Sap, functioning like an Assassin's Dagger.

So, what can Assassin's do that makes them more focused on killing people than any other combat focused class? Sure, they get useful abilities for killing people, but none of those can only be used for murder. There's no reason that you can't play a combat-heavy game without killing anyone, and if I was playing a game like that, the Assassin would be the perfect prestige class.

Particle_Man

2012-04-26, 01:50 AM

What if you frame the murder/bluff them into think you have committed it? What if you diplomatize/blackmail/charm/dominate/mindrape somebody high enough to waive the murder requirement?

I say the assassins have appropriate counter-measures and the pc's automatically fail. :smallcool:

LordBlades

2012-04-26, 02:12 AM

I say the assassins have appropriate counter-measures and the pc's automatically fail. :smallcool:

So DM fiat to preserve an arbitrary prerequisite is preferable to having a prerequisite that makes sense in game?

Shadowknight12

2012-04-26, 07:23 AM

Assassins should be logically consistent with the rest of the setting. If all killing is evil, then assassins are evil, but so are adventurers, soldiers, paladins and everyone who kills in self-defence. If only some kinds of killing are evil, and assassination is one of them, then everyone who is rewarded by a third party for the slaying of a second is evil. It doesn't matter if the third party is a group of grateful townsfolk freed from the oppression of a devil-tyrant or a good-aligned church freed from the horrors of the undead.

Pointing fingers and saying "Assassination is evil, but PCs can still get paid for killing bad guys" is hypocritical. I do not stand by that.

So I usually make assassination non-evil.

Marlowe

2012-04-26, 07:36 AM

Andezzar

2012-04-26, 08:23 AM

A good assassins' guild would be patently ridiculous, at least if they actually engage in assassinations. There would be less problems with an organization of possibly neutral assassins that restrict their contracts or aren't actually freelancers but part of a neutral government. Oh wait, WotC already wrote that up. It's the Avenger PrC.

Wings of Peace

2012-04-26, 08:30 AM

Personally I fluff most of the assassins in my campaign settings as very socially aloof neutrally aligned people. Generally I view assassin's as having three categories in stories: The guy who does it because he has to (needs enough to feed family, can't pay for x operation, etc.), the guy who does it because it pays well and he's not a very emotional person (the professional), and the guy who just enjoys it (the evil dude).

Deodarthethird

2012-04-26, 08:34 AM

I don't see why the restrictions on Assassins at all. after all there are important people of all walks of life that someone somewhere wants taken care of. That evil overlord for example, or that good and benign king. Assassins should work on a moral ethics based code. for example Good assassins exist solely to kill the enemies of his people, note the people not his lord, where as a neutral assassin would maybe do it for pay and an evil assassin would do it to spread discord and anarchy. As for separate guilds, well they would operate like this as well. Think of the movie wanted and what the assassins where meant to be like there or even assassins creed

Particle_Man

2012-04-26, 09:56 AM

So DM fiat to preserve an arbitrary prerequisite is preferable to having a prerequisite that makes sense in game?

You should see what I do to keep non-druids from learning to speak druidic. :smallcool:

LordBlades

2012-04-26, 10:35 AM

You should see what I do to keep non-druids from learning to speak druidic. :smallcool:

Your table, your rules I guess, but it sounds like the kind of game I wouldn't touch with a 10 ft. pole:smallcool:

Lord_Gareth

2012-04-26, 10:37 AM

I suppose the DM could create a "Good" assassin's guild where you learn such techniques as Kindness To All Creatures Disemboweling Slash, Pacifist Kidney Punch, Celebration of the Preciousness of Mortal Life Double-Handed Eyegouge and Protection of the Innocent Underhand Heartseeker, but I am aware not everyone enjoys playing in Anime-inspired settings.

Or you could write an order dedicated to Illmater, known as the Bringers of Mercy. They spend their lives in prayer, meditation, contemplation of the nature of suffering, in service to charitable works, and, sometimes, assassination. There are many who bring great suffering into the world, and when the clerics of the Bringers of Mercy can confirm that such an agent is both evil and unwilling to repent or atone (messengers sent by the Bringers of Mercy have a high fatality rate, a trait they share with the Church of Illmater in general) they send their agents to eliminate the target swiftly and painlessly, removing the suffering they bring to the world.

Andezzar

2012-04-26, 10:46 AM

What's so problematic with non-druids learning druidic? For "secure" communication, they could have chosen any other dead or invented language.

Answerer

2012-04-26, 10:47 AM

The Faceless Men from A Song of Ice and Fire make a decent case for assassins who at the very least defy easy alignment adjudication. And the entry requirements to the Faceless Men happen to be rather similar to that of the DMG's "Assassins"

Nero24200

2012-04-26, 10:49 AM

I don't believe they should be evil. Being trained to kill isn't evil, otherwise paladins wouldn't gain bonus damage as their main class feature.

The main thing that struck me was the poison use - Since poison is considered evil in D'n'D I figured that was the main reason the assassin is considered evil. Meaning that in a game like PF (were poison use isn't automatically evil) then the assassin shouldn't be evil either.

Andezzar

2012-04-26, 10:50 AM

Finding good or neutral people according to D&D's alignment system in all the world of "A Song of Ice and Fire" will be very difficult.

Answerer

2012-04-26, 10:51 AM

The main thing that struck me was the poison use - Since poison is considered evil in D'n'D I figured that was the main reason the assassin is considered evil. Meaning that in a game like PF (were poison use isn't automatically evil) then the assassin shouldn't be evil either.
It isn't, though. One poorly-written book (Book of Exalted Deeds) claimed it was, contradicting numerous books written before and after it. But outside of BoED, poison has never been inherently evil. Paladins weren't allowed to use it because it was unlawful (deceptive, underhanded, not in keeping with a hero of the light, whatever), not because it was evil. Apparently the authors of BoED were confused on this point. But then I suspect they were confused about a lot of things, because that is hardly the only thing in the book that was absolutely awfully conceived.

Finding good or neutral people according to D&D's alignment system in all the world of "A Song of Ice and Fire" will be very difficult.
Yeah, I... can't really argue with that. But the two Faceless Men that are actually met in person make a better case for being Good or at least Neutral than the vast majority of characters in the book.

hamishspence

2012-04-26, 12:26 PM

But outside of BoED, poison has never been inherently evil. Paladins weren't allowed to use it because it was unlawful (deceptive, underhanded, not in keeping with a hero of the light, whatever), not because it was evil. Apparently the authors of BoED were confused on this point.

Defenders of the Faith (3.0 paladin & cleric splatbook) also brings it up-

Some parties may be leery of you because they would rather keep their options open: lying, cheating, and using al the weapons at their disposal, including poison. You know that these methods breed weakness in those who use them and, like any evil act, create future consequences that are ultimately harmful.

I vaguely recall reading a theory that Gygax made poison use an evil act, because at that time poisons were unbalancingly powerful.

White_Drake

2012-04-26, 06:01 PM

I seem to recall something implying evilness in the rules for the original dagger of venom, along the lines of: "use by good characters should be carefully monitored" or some such. As for poison being a gamechanger, yeah, I can see that, as it was always fatal, and saving throws were set percentiles.

joca4christ

2012-04-27, 10:20 AM

I have read the majority of the posts in this thread, and feel like it is now time to offer my 2 cps. If I say something redundant, I apologize beforehand.

Here is the thing: I am gearing up to run a campaign, and my players are talking to me about the character choices and paths. The campaign is designed as a good aligned, or heroic fantasy type setting. One of my players said he wanted to be an assassin type character. So we had this huge discussion about whether the Assassin PRC class is evil and whether or not I as the DM would hand wave that requirement or not.

My opinion is the matter is this: Murder is an evil act. Period. When I say murder, I mean the act of killing someone either maliciously, or simply personal gain. The Assassin PRC as written seems pretty evil to me.

After discussing things with my player, I found out it isn't even the mechanics of the PRC that he is after. He just wants to be an efficient killer, and the "killing bad things for good of society/party" example was given. Since he wants to go with a CN alignment, I said I could work with that. In my mind, if his PC commits evil act after evil act, his alignment would shift, and he'd have to face whatever circumstances may come from that.

I had to think about characters who were trained killers, but weren't necessarily evil. I thought about how they tend to straddle the line a bit, and that fits the CN alignment, in my opinion.

I ended up telling the player that if he ended up as an Assasin, he'd have to be evil, but if he didn't want to go that route, I would allow some of the mechanics of the PRC to be latter stage rogue talents.

And that's how this DM handled the situation.