When Fluff Met Crunch

[Demented]

Under that logic, the adventurer's guild is the same as the thieves' guild.
"We're just like the other thieves' guilds, but we only steal from evil and dead people."

Maybe that's what you're getting at. :elan: Ooh, suspense!

[Gamebird]

When PCs are motivated by a desire for more power and money, and they gain this without regard to how it helps anyone else, then they're evil. They're not psycho-evil, but yes, they're evil if they're killing creatures and robbing their corpses solely because it provides the PCs with an opportunity for repercussion-free increase in money and ability. That they choose to target bad or evil victims who are outside the protection of the law only means the PCs aren't blithering idiots.

A DM who wishes to run D&D and yet have the PCs retain good (or neutral) alignments will put into play other motivations for the PCs. They're defending their homeland from the assaults of invaders, they're rooting out a corrupt sect led by a truly psycho-evil person, they're fighting mindless undead or alien aberrations from another plane whose sole purpose in our world is to cause death, destruction and misery. Arrange it so that the PCs gain xp and gp from doing good things.

The DM and game style has a lot to do with what alignment the PCs show.

------------

On a related subject, while there could easily be a guild of people who assassinate people for money, but retain their scruples by only accepting contracts for evil people, these folks likely wouldn't be called "assassins". Nor will they get much business unless they greatly undercut the rates of their competition or offer some other compensation for their refusal to take a lot of contracts.

[Bouldering Jove]

This is probably the most persuasive argument in favour the assassin alignment restriction I've seen in a good long while.

It's related, actually, to one of my personal D&D hobbyhorses, which is the "morally absolute is not the same as morally simplistic" rant.

"Is it right to employ evil methods to fight evil" is an interesting in character moral dilemma. If you remove the alignment restriction from the Assassin class you actually *remove* that moral question.
I disagree. If you keep the alignment restriction on the assassin class then you're playing with the question already answered, and no dilemma can exist.


When PCs are motivated by a desire for more power and money, and they gain this without regard to how it helps anyone else, then they're evil. They're not psycho-evil, but yes, they're evil if they're killing creatures and robbing their corpses solely because it provides the PCs with an opportunity for repercussion-free increase in money and ability. That they choose to target bad or evil victims who are outside the protection of the law only means the PCs aren't blithering idiots.
You're evil if you pursue self-interest without trying to help others? I don't think that's the intention of the RAW:


“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Going out of your way to help others is good, exploiting others for your own good is evil, but looking out for your own selfish best interest without either helping or exploiting others seems to be neutral. If not, what distinguishes neutrality from good?

[Mewtarthio]

On a related subject, while there could easily be a guild of people who assassinate people for money, but retain their scruples by only accepting contracts for evil people, these folks likely wouldn't be called "assassins". Nor will they get much business unless they greatly undercut the rates of their competition or offer some other compensation for their refusal to take a lot of contracts.

Not to mention that every Evil assassin's guild (read: every other assassin's guild) will be attempting to kill them.

[Wren]

Not to mention that every Evil assassin's guild (read: every other assassin's guild) will be attempting to kill them.

And how would those "good" assassins sleep at night? Getting offers to kill good aligned people all the time and just saying "No, go get someone else to do it." and then not taking part in saving the guy. They'd still be an accessory to the murder, since they knew it was going to take place. If they DID prevent it, then no one would ever come to them with anything.. or just outright kill them.

That is, I can only imagine they'd be getting contracts from evil people. Good/lawful people have a contract system, they're called bounties and people who take them up are bounty hunters or law enforcers, not assassins (specifically, anyways, not that an assassin couldn't take up a bounty if he wanted to. Chances are though that the assassin is wanted, so collecting his reward would be tough).

[Tormsskull]

Ok, let's look at this a bit in-depth.

Good - Altruism (Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness), respect for life and a concern for the dignity sentient beings. Personal sacrifices to help others.

Now I don't know about you, but none of that screams Assassin to me. Particularly respect for life.

Evil - hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

Assassin nails down killing perfectly (that's specifically what he trains in). And is often associated with the other two.

Neutral - "compunctions against killing the innocent"

So even a neutral assassin (if it was possible) wouldn't work in a typical Assassin's guild.

If an Assassin is stalking his mark and there is a bodyguard protecting the mark, is the bodyguard an innocent person? If the mark has somehow magically connected his life force with anothers wherein if he dies the innocent dies, would a neutral assassin have to find a way to break the connection first?

If the mark themself doesn't know that they have committed some evil act that has made them the mark of the neutral assassin's guild, are they innocent?

Assassins should be evil because that's what helps them do their job. That's how they rationalize their thinking. They find their mark, find the easiest way to get in, complete the job, and get out undetected.

I still say this comes down to the players and not any kind of real moral debate. It comes down to a player looks at the assassin's class abilities/skills and says "I want that." The DM says "No evil." Now the player wants to find a way to be a non-evil assassin. In my opinion a player wanting to take a class only for the abilities isn't helping create a better game, isn't enhancing roleplay at all, isn't contributing to the story. I just don't see a reason to break the rules of the game because someone says "I want it, I want it!"

If a player explained to me the concept they were going for and I thought it was going to be good for the campaign/story/whatnot then I'd sit down and design a class with them, not just allow them to be an evil class without having to be Evil.

[Gamebird]

You're evil if you pursue self-interest without trying to help others? I don't think that's the intention of the RAW:

Sorry, my quote should have been:
"When PCs are killing and robbing creatures for more power and money, and they gain this without regard to how it helps anyone else, then they're evil."

The D&D system is set up to reward people for killing things (or "overcoming challenges" as it is so euphemistically called). When PCs do this killing without any motivation other than the desire to enlarge their ability portfolio and coin purse, then they're evil. If the DM provides them with other reasons, more virtuous motivations, and the increase in money and power is only incidental, then the PCs can remain good or neutral.

[Bouldering Jove]

Sorry, my quote should have been:
"When PCs are killing and robbing creatures for more power and money, and they gain this without regard to how it helps anyone else, then they're evil."

The D&D system is set up to reward people for killing things (or "overcoming challenges" as it is so euphemistically called). When PCs do this killing without any motivation other than the desire to enlarge their ability portfolio and coin purse, then they're evil. If the DM provides them with other reasons, more virtuous motivations, and the increase in money and power is only incidental, then the PCs can remain good or neutral.
The D&D system is indeed set up to reward people for killing things, and that's why I still disagree with you. I believe the intention of the RAW is that neutral and evil PCs both kill things to fill their coin purse, but evil PCs would be happy to kill anyone to pursue their ends while neutral PCs would not be willing to kill innocents to do so.

To put it another way, both neutral and evil rogues might steal, but only the evil character would slit a merchant's throat to do it.

[Diggorian]

I still say this comes down to the players and not any kind of real moral debate. It comes down to a player looks at the assassin's class abilities/skills and says "I want that." The DM says "No evil." Now the player wants to find a way to be a non-evil assassin. In my opinion a player wanting to take a class only for the abilities isn't helping create a better game, isn't enhancing roleplay at all, isn't contributing to the story. I just don't see a reason to break the rules of the game because someone says "I want it, I want it!"

I fully agree, this nails the debate's heart to me.

Druids cant wear metal but can wield it, is a debateable fluff/crunch contradiction. As is Bards not being allowed a lawful alignment, while their class description doesnt preclude lawful traits. The Assassin PrC fluff matches it's crunch though.

Paladins (and similar themed classes) are the evil killing specialists and they do it a certain way because the ends cant justify the means.

Real life good/evil is hard to delineate, but in D&D it's made very simple (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm).

[Malachite]

Just because a class gives you abilities, you don't have to use them, or use them in any way other than how you wish. The assassin class may perfectly nail down a bounty hunter who tracks his mark silently, before laying them out cold with one swift blow from behind. Not every bounty hunter is going to be buff enough to stand toe to toe with anyone else in a straight fight.

A rogue's sneak attack reflects striking in a particularly nasty spot for extra damage - I've seen rogues drop from the ceiling and inflict enough damage to instantly kill the opponent they dropped onto - this seems a perfect description of the assassin's 'death' attack, except that sneak attack cannot be made non-lethal other than with a 'merciful' weapon or sap.
The way I see it, the assassin is just an improved version of the rogue, with some extra abilities. That sounds right for a prestige class.:smallwink:


Alignment restrictions I feel should be a guide, in general. Granted, a paladin and monk should be lawful since they follow a strict code and a strict training regime respectively, and the paladin of a good god would by necessity need to be good, but other than that most of the other classes' seem to have little point to them. Why can't a barbarian be a good law-abiding citizen, but just derive his fighting prowess from tapping his anger rather than measured skill at arms? Equally, why couldn't a bard be a guy who makes himself practice every day for 4 hours, trying to find the perfect song? I'd class that as just as lawful as the monk, who practices his martial arts trying to make himself the perfect fighter.

Most skill and feat requirements make abundant sense, but the more classes I see, the more I think that the only reason an alignment restriction was tacked on was because that was the way the inventor saw it in their head and wanted to make it seem more exclusive.

So there :smallbiggrin:



Lastly, just to answer someone who said a page or so back something along the lines of "you think you should be made stronger or a better fighter... by just getting angry enough?"
Works for a barbarian...:smallamused:

[Gamebird]

Lastly, just to answer someone who said a page or so back something along the lines of "you think you should be made stronger or a better fighter... by just getting angry enough?"
Works for a barbarian...:smallamused:

That's the joke. In real life, getting angry doesn't make you stronger or tougher. Imagine a trained fighter and barbarian with equal strength. They get into a fight. The fighter swings his ax with all his strength. So does the barbarian. Both get angry. But for the barbarian, being angry strangely makes him able to hit harder than the fighter.

If being angry made a person hit harder, then why wouldn't it work for all classes?

[Dancing_Zephyr]

Monks
I still cant wrap my head around the idea. Temples where martial arts were practiced were exclusive to the orient. D&D is set (at least in core) in a western fantasy world. Monks just dont fit in IMO.

[Scorpina]

I think the point is that D&D isn't set in 'the west', given that it's set in a generic fantasy world...

In a lot of settings monks do come from the east...

[Tormsskull]

Most skill and feat requirements make abundant sense, but the more classes I see, the more I think that the only reason an alignment restriction was tacked on was because that was the way the inventor saw it in their head and wanted to make it seem more exclusive.


Abundant sense? Why should you have to know how to effectively use light armor in order to effectively use heavy armor? Totally different styles no? Why should you have to be effective at shooting point-blank ranges in order to shoot far? Or shoot fast?

Skills & Feat requirements 'make sense' to you because you are only looking at numbers. They are put there for balancing mechanics against mechanics. If all you are concerned about is mechanics, then you're all set. But if you hope to have a good RP game, you're going to be in trouble if you don't balance fluff versus fluff.

[Diggorian]

I've been toying with the idea of house ruling out monk weapons and granting them new Ki Strike abilities that makes their unarmed attacks effectively deal piercing or slashing, and eventually magic weapon special abilities.

[Mewtarthio]

That's the joke. In real life, getting angry doesn't make you stronger or tougher. Imagine a trained fighter and barbarian with equal strength. They get into a fight. The fighter swings his ax with all his strength. So does the barbarian. Both get angry. But for the barbarian, being angry strangely makes him able to hit harder than the fighter.

If being angry made a person hit harder, then why wouldn't it work for all classes?

Barbarian Rage isn't just anger. It's a sort of tapping into one's inner barbarism to enter a frenzied state of combat. An angry fighter is just an ordinary fighter who might power attack more often than usual, as is an angry barbarian. A barbarian in a Rage, however, is something far different.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Monks
I still cant wrap my head around the idea. Temples where martial arts were practiced were exclusive to the orient. D&D is set (at least in core) in a western fantasy world. Monks just dont fit in IMO.

It depends very much on the setting, in the better designed ones the Monks really do come from the mysterious orient. What I find peculiar are the settings where the Kung-Fu monks belong to pseudo-catholic monastaries.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I disagree. If you keep the alignment restriction on the assassin class then you're playing with the question already answered, and no dilemma can exist.

This might be an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but here's why I think otherwise.

D&D alignments are essentially arbitrary. This is not a bad thing, this is not an "oversimplification" rather it is the means by which the game chooses to approach moral issues.

If an army of Orcs, led by dark priests of Bane is invading your kingdom, stopping that army is undoubtedly a Good Thing. Which is good, because otherwise your PCs would wind up paralysed by indecision: "what if the Orcs have a *right* to this land, what if the priests of Bane just want their religious freedom!"

If the PCs are faced with an unambiguous evil, the only way you can introduce any kind of moral decision into the game is to present *other* unambiguous evils. "Do we ally with the evil necromancer against the evil Orcs" is a moral decision - you are asked to choose which is the greater evil. This is what we in the trade call a "metaphor" and reflects all those situations in real life when we are forced to choose between two equally horrible alternatives.

To put it another way, you can't ask a moral question about the nature of evil without having some evil to discuss the nature of.

[Scorpina]

I've been toying with the idea of house ruling out monk weapons and granting them new Ki Strike abilities that makes their unarmed attacks effectively deal piercing or slashing, and eventually magic weapon special abilities.

There's a feat in, um, one of those books, called 'Versatile Strike' that does just that. I think it'd be pretty fair to give Monks that, maybe even at first level, in exchange for taking away their monk weapons.

[Quincunx]

I thought a bit more about consensual assassination, and as a person-to-person contract, it doesn't work; the guild must assign the (unknown to be evil or consenting) targets and somehow get a list of potential targets. Who would be interested in potentially signing their life away without warning? Interest. . .

Assassin's Bank: No-questions-asked loans where the interest WILL kill you some day. (Anti-Magic field scan required. Zone of Truth scan required. Assassin's Bank is not responsible for any loss of memory pertaining to the loan. Not guaranteed by FDIC. Not valid for residents of the Plane of Positive Energy. Other restrictions may apply. Contact your nearest dark, mysterious alley for details.)

If only I had greedy players to dangle this in front of. . .

[Diggorian]

There's a feat in, um, one of those books, called 'Versatile Strike' that does just that.

And there it is, thanks Scorpina. :smallsmile: I'm thinking to give it free at 3rd level with Still Mind. So they gotta do a little bit of earning for it.

I may give'em an ability to invest certain magic weapon abilities in their strikes. Instead of crafting it with gp they could meditate on an element and spend equivalent XP over days (1 per 200 XP). Maybe grant this at 7th level; two levels after 5th when a wizard can take the Item feat?

*course correction back to topic*

The sorceror is another sticky wicket for me. Is it me or do warlock's crunch seem closer to what you'd expect from sorceror fluff? Raw magical power.

If wizards are the scientists of D&D, how could a kid be born a chemistry grad student?

[pestilenceawaits]

The sorceror is another sticky wicket for me. Is it me or do warlock's crunch seem closer to what you'd expect from sorceror fluff? Raw magical power.

If wizards are the scientists of D&D, how could a kid be born a chemistry grad student?

I think the psion is what the sorcerer should have been. but you are right about the warlocks fluff it fits the sorc.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Assassin's Bank: No-questions-asked loans where the interest WILL kill you some day. (Anti-Magic field scan required. Zone of Truth scan required. Assassin's Bank is not responsible for any loss of memory pertaining to the loan. Not guaranteed by FDIC. Not valid for residents of the Plane of Positive Energy. Other restrictions may apply. Contact your nearest dark, mysterious alley for details.)

If only I had greedy players to dangle this in front of. . .


Actually, that does sound pretty cool.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Under that logic, the adventurer's guild is the same as the thieves' guild.
"We're just like the other thieves' guilds, but we only steal from evil and dead people."

Maybe that's what you're getting at. :elan: Ooh, suspense!

Adventurers' guilds are a lame idea anyway. Adventuring isn't a trade, it's a lifestyle.

Adventurers are not theives. Thieves are theives. Adventurers are adventurers. Saying that Adventurers are "thieves who only steal from evil and dead people" is like saying that farmers are "thieves who only steal from willing people and give them corn in return."

Just because you make money doing something, that doesn't make you a thief.

[MrNexx]

Adventurers' guilds are a lame idea anyway. Adventuring isn't a trade, it's a lifestyle.

Adventures guilds are, essentially, mercenaries guilds for very small, non-traditional mercenary groups. Does that make you more comfortable with the concept?

[Telonius]

Least favorite fluff/crunch item: Bards cannot be lawful.

King: We've been advertising for a Court Minstrel for months now, but all the responses we've gotten are these Commoners with, like, two ranks in Perform: ukelele. And I hate the ukelele. Why can't we get a decent Bard?
Advisor: Well, you said in the ad that he'd have to write nice songs about you. Bards can't do that.
King: Huh?
Advisor: Well, you see, sire, you're the position of authority around here. Bards can't actually support that, or they'll never get better at being Bards.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Adventures guilds are, essentially, mercenaries guilds for very small, non-traditional mercenary groups. Does that make you more comfortable with the concept?

And mercenaries guilds are also lame.

A guild is a group of professional people working to protect the interests of the members of that profession, as well as to share training and knowledge, and protect trade secrets.

Mercenaries work in companies. You find a group of men willing to fight for money, you give them money, they fight. There is no need whatsoever for mercenaries to have a guild.

[Journey]

And mercenaries guilds are also lame.

A guild is a group of professional people working to protect the interests of the members of that profession, as well as to share training and knowledge, and protect trade secrets.

Mercenaries work in companies. You find a group of men willing to fight for money, you give them money, they fight. There is no need whatsoever for mercenaries to have a guild.

I'm not sure the historical purpose of guilds applies to the context of the D&D multi-verse, where the word "guild" has been used more as a synonym for "organization" or "syndicate."

[MrNexx]

Of course there is.

1) To enforce contracts. People who screw over guild mercenaries get known and get acted upon.
2) Provide a central hiring place. If you need to hire someone, you go to the guild. The guild knows who's good, and can recommend people, if not outright assign them.
3) Enforce exclusivity. A guild, sufficiently motivated and chartered, can control most of the freelance work in a city, even demanding fees from non-members.
4) Provide training. You want to learn Hold the Line? How about how to use a Spiked Chain? Brush up on your riding skills? These are things a guild can provide.
5) Provide lodging. A guildhouse can be a place for guildmembers to get lodging on the cheap; it may not be a sumptuous suite, but it's a place to sleep.

If you assume that there are numerous, small-scale mercenary groups (rogue-do-gooders, aka adventuring companies), it's not unreasonable that there would be guilds for them... in fact, in some cases, kings would insist upon them, so there would be some oversight.

[Fax Celestis]

In fact, I ran a campaign where the ruling class decided that it'd be more efficient to regulate thievery than prevent it, and thus created the Thieves' Guild.

[MrNexx]

In fact, I ran a campaign where the ruling class decided that it'd be more efficient to regulate thievery than prevent it, and thus created the Thieves' Guild.

So people would openly pay protection to the Theives' Guild as a form of insurance... and if they DID get robbed, they could go to the guild and expect some action?

[JadedDM]

Least favorite fluff/crunch item: Bards cannot be lawful.

King: We've been advertising for a Court Minstrel for months now, but all the responses we've gotten are these Commoners with, like, two ranks in Perform: ukelele. And I hate the ukelele. Why can't we get a decent Bard?
Advisor: Well, you said in the ad that he'd have to write nice songs about you. Bards can't do that.
King: Huh?
Advisor: Well, you see, sire, you're the position of authority around here. Bards can't actually support that, or they'll never get better at being Bards.

So you think "Lawful" only applies to government?

[Fax Celestis]

So people would openly pay protection to the Theives' Guild as a form of insurance... and if they DID get robbed, they could go to the guild and expect some action?

Exactly. My players made comparisons between it and the government.

[Green Bean]

In fact, I ran a campaign where the ruling class decided that it'd be more efficient to regulate thievery than prevent it, and thus created the Thieves' Guild.

Are you perhaps a fan of a certain British fantasy author? :smalltongue:

[Matthew]

Monks
I still cant wrap my head around the idea. Temples where martial arts were practiced were exclusive to the orient. D&D is set (at least in core) in a western fantasy world. Monks just dont fit in IMO.

Depends on your definitions. Templars were Monks who practiced Martial Arts at the Temple... Kung Fu fits in barely anywhere. Medieval Martial Arts in the Orient were based around real weapons for the most part.

[Fax Celestis]

Are you perhaps a fan of a certain British fantasy author? :smalltongue:

That was where I got the idea, yes.

[Dark]

I thought a bit more about consensual assassination, and as a person-to-person contract, it doesn't work; the guild must assign the (unknown to be evil or consenting) targets and somehow get a list of potential targets. Who would be interested in potentially signing their life away without warning?
I've been thinking about it too. The wannabe assassin will have to find out who the target is first, and then try to make an arrangement. I imagine it would go something like this...

Deep at night. Crickets chirp. Target wakes up with the business end of a crossbow jammed against his nose.
Target: Wuh... what?
Shadowy figure: Listen. You're a marked man. The Guild has taken a contract on you.
Target: Uhh...
Shadowy figure: And they're going to get you, you know. I mean, I got you, and I'm not even a real assassin yet. The Guild is much better at this than I am.
Target: But...
Shadowy figure: So I don't think you can get out of this without dying. On the other hand... I might have a deal for you. There are a couple of technicalities involved...

[Dan_Hemmens]

Of course there is.

1) To enforce contracts. People who screw over guild mercenaries get known and get acted upon.

Whereas people who screw over non-guild mercenaries get, what? Mercenaries are, by definition, heavily armed killers. They don't need to band together for mutual protection.


2) Provide a central hiring place. If you need to hire someone, you go to the guild. The guild knows who's good, and can recommend people, if not outright assign them.

"Mercenaries R Us: The Name You Can Trust"


3) Enforce exclusivity. A guild, sufficiently motivated and chartered, can control most of the freelance work in a city, even demanding fees from non-members.

And again, this works with milliners and coopers, where the guild has the resources to enforce its will on non-members. It even works for thieves: a large criminal organisation can crack down on a small criminal organisation. It does not work for mercenaries. "I'm sorry captain Luther, your two hundred armed men will have to either pay our dues or look for employment elsewhere."


4) Provide training. You want to learn Hold the Line? How about how to use a Spiked Chain? Brush up on your riding skills? These are things a guild can provide.

These are things a mercenary company can provide.


5) Provide lodging. A guildhouse can be a place for guildmembers to get lodging on the cheap; it may not be a sumptuous suite, but it's a place to sleep.

Can you provide lodgings for several hundred men, all spoiling for a fight?


If you assume that there are numerous, small-scale mercenary groups (rogue-do-gooders, aka adventuring companies), it's not unreasonable that there would be guilds for them... in fact, in some cases, kings would insist upon them, so there would be some oversight.

Ah, you see here I think we're using substantially different definitions of the term "mercenary."

As far as I'm concerned "mercenaries" are people you hire in their hundreds in order to fight wars. You pay them most of the time with looting rights and you hope to hell that you always have *enough* to pay them, or they'll probably turn on you.

That's not a "guild" in any sense of the word.

Of course, as Journey points out "guild" in D&D has mutated massively from its original meaning. The problem is that it still carries enough connotations of its original meaning that people make ludicrous assumptions about them. Most notably the assumption that any organisation with the word "guild" in their name automatically and flawlessly controls whatever sphere they are associated with.

[MrNexx]

Whereas people who screw over non-guild mercenaries get, what?

Slave labor. Read Joel Rosenberg's "The Sword and the Chain".



"Mercenaries R Us: The Name You Can Trust"
Provided they're known for providing reliable mercenaries, yes, they are the name you can trust.



And again, this works with milliners and coopers, where the guild has the resources to enforce its will on non-members. It even works for thieves: a large criminal organisation can crack down on a small criminal organisation. It does not work for mercenaries. "I'm sorry captain Luther, your two hundred armed men will have to either pay our dues or look for employment elsewhere."

Capt. Luther: Why?
Mercenaries R Us Rep: Because we have a charter from the King giving us exclusive right to negotiate contracts for mercenary work within this kingdom. Now, if you would like to become members, we will consider you as a large unit and only charge you 10%. If you break with us, you will be hunted down and hanged.



Ah, you see here I think we're using substantially different definitions of the term "mercenary."


I specifically defined adventuring parties as small mercenary units before this started, Dan.


As far as I'm concerned "mercenaries" are people you hire in their hundreds in order to fight wars. You pay them most of the time with looting rights and you hope to hell that you always have *enough* to pay them, or they'll probably turn on you.

Sometimes. And sometimes they're a random bunch of individuals; you don't always get units of mercenaries, nor do you get large units when you get units.

[Journey]

Ironically, guilds were quite often used to thwart royalty rather than help it, except where the decrees of the nobility were useful and beneficial.

But that's the point. In D&D "guild" doesn't mean anything at all like what the actual "guilds" of the medieval era were.

[Hallavast]

Whereas people who screw over non-guild mercenaries get, what? Mercenaries are, by definition, heavily armed killers. They don't need to band together for mutual protection.



"Mercenaries R Us: The Name You Can Trust"



And again, this works with milliners and coopers, where the guild has the resources to enforce its will on non-members. It even works for thieves: a large criminal organisation can crack down on a small criminal organisation. It does not work for mercenaries. "I'm sorry captain Luther, your two hundred armed men will have to either pay our dues or look for employment elsewhere."



These are things a mercenary company can provide.



Can you provide lodgings for several hundred men, all spoiling for a fight?



Ah, you see here I think we're using substantially different definitions of the term "mercenary."

As far as I'm concerned "mercenaries" are people you hire in their hundreds in order to fight wars. You pay them most of the time with looting rights and you hope to hell that you always have *enough* to pay them, or they'll probably turn on you.

That's not a "guild" in any sense of the word.

Of course, as Journey points out "guild" in D&D has mutated massively from its original meaning. The problem is that it still carries enough connotations of its original meaning that people make ludicrous assumptions about them. Most notably the assumption that any organisation with the word "guild" in their name automatically and flawlessly controls whatever sphere they are associated with.
Why do mercenaries have to come in the hundreds? I need a little extra muscle to accompany my caravan. I'll hire a half dozen swords to fill in on the trip. A guild composed of similarly sized groups such as this could enforce wage standards, influence legislation on the rights of mercenaries, control a maximum number of troops hired to any one group, and account for the credibility and reliability of such a group. A mercenaries guild is very feasible and even logical on this scale.

[Whamme]

Are you perhaps a fan of a certain British fantasy author? :smalltongue:

heh.

In regards to Evil Assassins... Teppec from Pyramids is a pretty good example of an Assassin who is not really evil, despite having met the entrance requirements for the Guild (which did include killing an unknown someone underneath a sheet). HE was trying to fail spectacularly, but accidently hit them. :)

My take: A player wants to play an Assassin. This is because they're badass and being badass is part of the game.

Allow it. If you must have them be evil, it's possible to have a _devious, sneaky_ evil being stay with a good party.

Bricia (a character I made) was a good example. Monk/Assassin. Lawful Evil. Incredibly disciplined, followed a strict code of conduct but placed no value on the life of her fellow sentients. A walking stereotype in some ways.

She'd sworn an oath to follow and serve a Good aligned fellow PC, due to a life-debt, which her masters had okayed (since her never breaking their Code was part of how they kept control of their killers).

So requiring it to be evil doesn't keep it out of PC reach. Bricia was clearly evil, she was just in a position where she couldn't show it.

I don't think she's a better concept than an old, grizzled Assassin who's decided to go straight 'cause his kid is grown up and has started down the path of the Paladin... or any of a number of non-evil 'Yeah, I used to be part of the Guild' concepts.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Ironically, guilds were quite often used to thwart royalty rather than help it, except where the decrees of the nobility were useful and beneficial.

But that's the point. In D&D "guild" doesn't mean anything at all like what the actual "guilds" of the medieval era were.

The problem though, is that that's not quite true. It is more correct to say that in D&D "guild" means something almost but not quite totally unlike the original meaning of the word "guild". The problem is that it carries just enough connotations of the original meaning to be ludicrous.

"Guild" in D&D means "organisation which has inexplicable and plot enforced control over the practice of a particular trade or craft."

"A group of mercenaries" is just a bunch of guys with swords. "The guild of mercenaries" is a completely nonsensical idea.

[Journey]

Oh, I agree with you on that, Dan. I also think that the concept of "guild" in D&D is often abused and/or nonsensical. A Guild of Thieves or a Guild of Mages or the Guild of Smiths has a place if it's done properly. "Guilds" of Adventurers, Mercenaries, or the like are unlikely to find any sort of rational justification.

You describe the problem well, I feel: often "Guild" is just short-hand for "quasi-government like syndicate with a ludicrous and probably contradictory backstory."

[MrNexx]

"A group of mercenaries" is just a bunch of guys with swords. "The guild of mercenaries" is a completely nonsensical idea.

Given the worlds as presented by TSR/WotC, I don't think so. There's a substantial amount of "freelance" work available, and that groups would want it controlled is not unreasonable. Heck, 2nd edition Cormyr was half-way there, with requiring each adventuring company to be chartered by the crown.

[Gamebird]

Tell me more about what guilds were historically so I can see the difference.

Edit: Please.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Given the worlds as presented by TSR/WotC, I don't think so. There's a substantial amount of "freelance" work available, and that groups would want it controlled is not unreasonable. Heck, 2nd edition Cormyr was half-way there, with requiring each adventuring company to be chartered by the crown.

I think you're making a classic mistake of setting design, namely the assumption that because something would be beneficial to people, it would automatically happen.

Imagine the following game:

You and ten strangers are playing a game. You are each to write either the letter A or the letter B on a piece of paper, and then all the papers are going to be flipped over at once.

If you write the letter A, every other person at the table will be given a dollar. You will be given nothing.

If you write the letter B, every other person at the table will lose a dollar, but you will be given five dollars.

Now if everybody was sensible, everybody would write the letter A. That way everybody walks away with ten dollars. However, because no individual person benefits by giving money to everybody else, nobody will do this, so everybody will walk away owing the house five dollars.

[Journey]

Tell me more about what guilds were historically so I can see the difference.

Edit: Please.

Typically a Guild was an organization of members of the same class of merchants, tradesmen or service providers. The express purpose of the organization was to collude to set prices for their goods or services, regardless of the purchaser (noble or common), to provide the medieval equivalent of networking for apprentices and journeymen of the trade, and to present a modicum of power/political weight to throw around with the government (i.e. the Court) with an eye for protecting their respective goods, trades, or services.

"Guilds" of adventurers and mercenaries are completely nonsensical in this context. Even the usual "Thieves' Guild" as presented in D&D canon isn't really a "guild" in this sense; it's merely a syndicate with its own internal quasi-government structure.

I think this is just an issue where the requirements for verisimilitude are different from one person to another.

[Gamebird]

It should also be kept in mind that the vast majority of adventuring work involves finding and hurting or killing intelligent, belligerant creatures. The sort of creatures who are far more likely than humans to form and join a mercenaries or adventurer's guild.

So how does an adventurer's guild respond when the Red Company of humans raids the lair of the Thumb-Smasher Orcs, both of whom are members of the guild?

Why haven't these guilds been co-opted by the local authorities? If they have been co-opted, then what benefits does the guild offer a group that isn't from within their own area? What happens when people join the guild who want to prey on or rebel against the local authorities, or who don't support the local population (like the Thumb Smashers join the adventurer's guild and "adventure" against frontier human settlements in exactly the same way the Red Company adventures against frontier orc settlements)?


In my game world, I couldn't figure out a logical way to have adventurer guilds exist. I have plenty of guilds, for smiths, masons, millers, leather-workers, money-changers, wizards, etc. But each of these occupations requires a non-movable investment in a building and customer base. It's easy for a guild to enforce membership by visiting every practitioner in the area and requiring dues of them. If they don't pay, then you damage their business until they do. (I didn't bother to have a thieve's guild, since the regular guilds handle all the organized crime anyway.)

I'd like to read more about how guilds were supposed to work.

[MrNexx]

I didn't say that it would automatically happen, Dan. Just that it was not unreasonable for it to happen.

Furthermore, your example is somewhat flawed. Your example assumes individuals, acting only in their own interests, without coercion. Let's look at some other possibilities, shall we?

First, you have a kingdom who wants to control the number of people running around, with swords, spells, and various other methods of inflicting harm upon people. They see advantages to having a pool of deniable assets, but lack the work for them full-time. So, they establish a system of tracking them... a guild... which will provide them the benefits of guild membership, provide the kingdom with a pool of troubleshooters it can keep an eye on (through the kingdom's liason through the guild; part of the charter the guild received).

Or a mercenary company who does have the right to work in a city or town. It, however, doesn't have the manpower to do all the work it gets offered, so it sub-contracts to other people. Those people eventually start coming to this company for work... not their field operations, but their side work. Eventually, this develops into a formal system, instead of an informal one, quite easily.

Two situations where it develops.

[Gamebird]

Typically a Guild was an organization of members of the same class of merchants, tradesmen or service providers. The express purpose of the organization was to collude to set prices for their goods or services, regardless of the purchaser (noble or common), to provide the medieval equivalent of networking for apprentices and journeymen of the trade, and to present a modicum of power/political weight to throw around with the government (i.e. the Court) with an eye for protecting their respective goods, trades, or services.

Okay, those are guilds in my game. Though in my game they also require dues and involve themselves in politics a bit. The guildmaster and other officials of the guild might make a contract agreeing to grant lower prices in X county, or they might blackball Y county because the ruling noble there interfered with the guild prosecuting unguilded practitioners of their trade.

Guilds also involve themselves in elections of rulers (although my game isn't a democracy, elections sometimes occur, especially for urban administrative positions like mayor or ombudsman). The guild promises to deliver a certain number of votes in exchange for certain privileges from the elected party.

None of these functions make sense for a highly mobile job such as that of a mercenary or adventurer.

[Gamebird]

First, you have a kingdom who wants to control the number of people running around, with swords, spells, and various other methods of inflicting harm upon people. They see advantages to having a pool of deniable assets, but lack the work for them full-time. So, they establish a system of tracking them... a guild... which will provide them the benefits of guild membership, provide the kingdom with a pool of troubleshooters it can keep an eye on (through the kingdom's liason through the guild; part of the charter the guild received).

I can't imagine any situation where a government would allow groups of armed bandits to run around. Nor do I see any reason why groups of armed bandits would run around without preying upon the nearest available targets: their own people. Yes, those on the fringes might go prey on other targets across the borders. However, anyone who didn't want to prey on their own people and wasn't near a border would join the regular armed forces or military. They wouldn't just put a sword over their shoulder and wander off down the road hoping for an "encounter". That sort of thing only happens to PCs and only for connivance - because it makes for a better story.


Or a mercenary company who does have the right to work in a city or town. It, however, doesn't have the manpower to do all the work it gets offered, so it sub-contracts to other people. Those people eventually start coming to this company for work... not their field operations, but their side work. Eventually, this develops into a formal system, instead of an informal one, quite easily.

Why would it sub-contract instead of adding additional people to their own company?

In the real world, there is no guild for temporary workers. They are easily replaceable by virtue of being temporary. They are relatively untrained for the same reason. They get pooped on all the time. Despite there being lots of companies that specialize in finding and retaining a roster of available temps to hire out to larger corporations, these temp agencies do NOT operate for the good of their members. They don't provide training or much of anything to the temps, other than a promise that a lot of companies come to them with work opportunities. I suppose such a thing could arise for adventurers, though it require a communication system not existent in most low to moderate magic worlds, for it to be worthwhile. Either that, or the majority of "adventurers" would have to take jobs involving menial labor in between the occasional big-money job of killing someone.


Edit: It seems to me that a guild is essentially a labor union.

[Tormsskull]

Without worrying about what to call it right away, imagine this situation.

A group of 4 'adventurers' go out and clear a cave of the evil kobolds inside. They come back, sell loot, rest up and go out and do it again. After a lot of these expeditions these 4 adventurers become quite well known around town. Young people interested in that kind of lifestyle start showing up at these adventurers doors and asking to be taught a craft.

The adventurers, seeing a potential interest here, purchase a large building (or have one made), complete with training halls, mess halls, sleeping quarters, class rooms, pretty much a mini-society. They take 20 young people who have come to them for training and apprentice them in one of their crafts (let's assume that the 4 adventurers are fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric). So each of the adventurers takes 5 students. In exchange for training & room and board, the students agree to be apart of the _______.

________ trains the students over the course of whatever timeframe. Once the students become level 1 classed characters, they are grouped into fours and sent on adventurers that the founders of __________ discovered (gather information checks or whatever). The students agree to pay 20% of all their loot to ________.

The first wave of students out, the founders decide to take twenty more students, and the cycle repeats its self. The __________ can eventually take on more than twenty students assuming some of their accomplished students are willing to become teachers.

Now what would you put in the blanks? Couldn't they be considered an Adventurer's Guild?

[MrNexx]

I can't imagine any situation where a government would allow groups of armed bandits to run around. Nor do I see any reason why groups of armed bandits would run around without preying upon the nearest available targets: their own people. Yes, those on the fringes might go prey on other targets across the borders. However, anyone who didn't want to prey on their own people and wasn't near a border would join the regular armed forces or military. They wouldn't just put a sword over their shoulder and wander off down the road hoping for an "encounter". That sort of thing only happens to PCs and only for connivance - because it makes for a better story.

Then why aren't all adventurers rounded up and thrown in jail? The default and classic settings of D&D (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance) assume, to an extent, that there are people who run around doing odd jobs. Some of them may be little better than bandits, others may see themselves as heroes, but the fact is that the standard lowl-level D&D adventure is essentially a cross between privateering ("I'm the King. Go beat up my enemies, and I'll let you give you money."), mercenary work ("I'm rich. Go beat up my enemies and I'll give you money."), and freelance troubleshooting, with the hopes that something will fall off the back end ("There's a problem. We should go beat up these people and hope there's some money in it.").



Why would it sub-contract instead of adding additional people to their own company?

Because not everyone is going to be suited to their field operations? Because not everyone is going to want to join their company, but they have more work than they can do, and charging them a brokerage fee is a way to still make money?


In the real world, there is no guild for temporary workers. They are easily replaceable by virtue of being temporary.

Guilds are almost always local, and a lot of the problems you'd be dealing with would be the same. A lot of the jobs would be "We need caravan guards to get us to this city" or "I need a guide to a given location." You're not going to have a ton of "adventurers", but you'll also have a fair number of caravan guards and unattached mercenaries who can find work easier by being in (or coming to) a central location, than by being strung across the city.

[Fhaolan]

Now what would you put in the blanks? Couldn't they be considered an Adventurer's Guild?

Personally, I would consider it more of an Adventuring Academy, but my mind works oddly that way.

I'm going to avoid getting into the rest of this discussion, because I don't think it's resolvable. My arguments for or against assassination as non-evil rely on linguistic and cultural biases that render them unusable in this forum.

[Deus Mortus]

In the real world, there is no guild for temporary workers. They are easily replaceable by virtue of being temporary. They are relatively untrained for the same reason. They get pooped on all the time. Despite there being lots of companies that specialize in finding and retaining a roster of available temps to hire out to larger corporations, these temp agencies do NOT operate for the good of their members. They don't provide training or much of anything to the temps, other than a promise that a lot of companies come to them with work opportunities. I suppose such a thing could arise for adventurers, though it require a communication system not existent in most low to moderate magic worlds, for it to be worthwhile. Either that, or the majority of "adventurers" would have to take jobs involving menial labor in between the occasional big-money job of killing someone.

Wrong, I worked as a temp for a long time and still do, the company I work with provides me with discounts on training and studies as long as work for them while I am on such a training. They also make sure I get good money for it and when people hire me, I usually get a fair amount of respect, because I'm usually hired as an AI expert. True this only counts for those with good skills in their field of work, but it does so as well when you have a stable job. This might not be true in USA, but social welfare over there sucks anyway and so does support for workers who make less then 100k per year...

[Gamebird]

Wrong, I worked as a temp for a long time and ...This might not be true in USA, but social welfare over there sucks anyway and so does support for workers who make less then 100k per year...

Yeah, I should have prefaced my points to clarify that I was speaking of the US, which is the only place I have much experience with. I'd be interested to know how much of your temp agency's policies regarding education and training are mandated by the government.


Then why aren't all adventurers rounded up and thrown in jail?

In my game, random folk who take up a lifestyle of robbing tombs, attacking humanoids/dragons/etc., climbing around in distant caves, or even poaching ARE rounded up and thrown in jail. Their weapons and armor are taken from them and there's an investigation as to whether they're of a suitable social station to be allowed to carry such things. That's because even though everyone agrees that most humanoids/dragons/etc. are evil slime who deserve to die, they also agree that such creatures tend to take revenge when one of their groups is wiped out. And when they take revenge, precisely because they're evil slime, they don't care too much if they kill the exact people who caused their problem, or just some people related to them.

But I begin to see the problem here. I thought we were discussing a disconnect between fluff and realism (or verisimilitude if you prefer). D&D fluff assumes a world where the PCs are adventurers who wander around freely and find an endless stream of CR-appropriate encounter opportunities, as well as an economy set up to cater to them and a social structure (including guilds) designed to fulfill their desires. The fluff works fine if you suspend disbelief and don't try to look behind the curtain. And that's a fine way to play - after all, this is a world where dragons fly through the air and skinny men in bathrobes flick balls of bat poo at you and cause a major explosion.

However, if we're talking about the disconnect... well, there is one. Adventuring guilds don't make sense in the context of realism or verisimilitude. They only work if you have specialized circumstances or a PC-centric world.


Without worrying about what to call it right away, imagine this situation.

A group of 4 'adventurers' go out and clear a cave of the evil kobolds inside. They come back, sell loot, rest up and go out and do it again. After a lot of these expeditions these 4 adventurers become quite well known around town.

And here's the problem - how is it that there are caves and caves of kobolds nearby, and the kobolds do not retaliate or move away when these four people start killing them? If the hills were packed full of stupid kobolds and other creatures who hated each other and were very stupid (INT 1-4 here), then why haven't they been eliminated before now? Why would anyone need to get training to do it? Obviously these four guys didn't need any training. They just went out there and did it.

In the context of a contrived game world, this works fine. But I'm not saying that you can't have an adventuring guild in a contrived game world. You can have freakin' Elminster in a contrived game world. Or a tarrasque. Or 17 tarrasques who meet on the sixth Wednesday every three hundred years to play poker. What I'm saying is that in a world where a high degree of verisimilitude is observed, you won't have guilds of adventurers in any but very limited, very specialized circumstances. (Nothing keeps a good DM from locating the campaign at these locations. Nor is there anything to keep a verisimilitude-minded DM from locating the PCs where they'll be able to adventure without a guild, or giving them the sorts of adventure hooks and plots that don't involve the "raid the these same hills over and over for kobold caves" that the more contrived campaigns involve.)

[Dan_Hemmens]

I didn't say that it would automatically happen, Dan. Just that it was not unreasonable for it to happen.

Furthermore, your example is somewhat flawed. Your example assumes individuals, acting only in their own interests, without coercion. Let's look at some other possibilities, shall we?

First, you have a kingdom who wants to control the number of people running around, with swords, spells, and various other methods of inflicting harm upon people. They see advantages to having a pool of deniable assets, but lack the work for them full-time. So, they establish a system of tracking them... a guild... which will provide them the benefits of guild membership, provide the kingdom with a pool of troubleshooters it can keep an eye on (through the kingdom's liason through the guild; part of the charter the guild received).

"The King Decreed It" is to social organisations what "A Wizard Did It" is to monsters: a catch all, meaningless "justification."


Or a mercenary company who does have the right to work in a city or town. It, however, doesn't have the manpower to do all the work it gets offered, so it sub-contracts to other people. Those people eventually start coming to this company for work... not their field operations, but their side work. Eventually, this develops into a formal system, instead of an informal one, quite easily.

"Subcontracting" being a concept common in the middle ages, clearly.


Two situations where it develops.


Two situtations which are completely implausible.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Now what would you put in the blanks? Couldn't they be considered an Adventurer's Guild?


A plot device.

You can always justify anything by saying "somebody decided to set it up and it flourished."

The devil is in the details. Your four adventurers, skilled at kobold-killing, are not suited to careers in administration or to education. Furthermore they are involved in a scheme which sees no return on its (substantial) investment for (potentially) decades, and which also keeps them away from the adventuring which they, presumably, deliberately chose for themselves as a lifestyle.

[Captain van der Decken]

"Subcontracting" being a concept common in the middle ages, clearly.


Because D&D is exactly like the middle ages.

[MrNexx]

"The King Decreed It" is to social organizations what "A Wizard Did It" is to monsters: a catch all, meaningless "justification."

In an autocracy, the "King decreed it" is not a meaningless justification. Attack the reasoning, if you please.


"Subcontracting" being a concept common in the middle ages, clearly.

Actually, it was; in a sense, that's what the ideal of feudalism was. I received a grant of land that was too extensive for me to care for on my own. I loaned out part of it to other people, in exchange for part of their revenues from the land. They, in many cases, would loan out parts of it to other people.

Masters in guild shops would function similarly, giving work commissioned from them to journeymen or apprentices to either do or complete, while their own talents were applied elsewhere.

Of course, journeymen would eventually leave a guild situation if it grew too stifling, and set off elsewhere, where there was not a guild or there were less masters competing for work.

[Tormsskull]

You can always justify anything by saying "somebody decided to set it up and it flourished."


Oh yeah, for sure. I mean, those students could all take off, they could get more powerful than their teachers, they could simply not learn anything. The details are huge. I was just saying that in some campaigns an Adventurer's Guild could be plausible.

[Matthew]

I can't imagine any situation where a government would allow groups of armed bandits to run around. Nor do I see any reason why groups of armed bandits would run around without preying upon the nearest available targets: their own people. Yes, those on the fringes might go prey on other targets across the borders. However, anyone who didn't want to prey on their own people and wasn't near a border would join the regular armed forces or military. They wouldn't just put a sword over their shoulder and wander off down the road hoping for an "encounter". That sort of thing only happens to PCs and only for connivance - because it makes for a better story.

Whenever a war ended pre modern civilisations had major problems with large numbers of armed men suddenly no longer being needed or paid for (hell, even modern civilisation has that problem).
These did prey on their 'own people' and often, as well as 'not their own people', depending on where they were situated. Sometimes they found work as mercenaries or became involved in a military ventures of some sort, sometimes they organised themselves to do so.
Unlanded and landed Medieval and Ancient Warriors did go off in search of adventure, usually because it wasn't very difficult to find a private or public war or feud in which to take part, or failing that a tournament.

[Gamebird]

Yes. And to quote myself, "I can't imagine any situation where a government would allow..." If the government were able to stop adventurers, they would.

[Matthew]

They did allow it, though. They were well acquainted with the consequences of disbanding. So the situation would be, whenever a war ends.

[Diggorian]

I cant get behind an Adventurer's guild usually for the same reason I cant see a "good" Assassin guild: the niche is taken. Threats to said town/village/hamlet mandates the Militia/Army be deployed. You're paying taxes for it anyway, might as well use'em. Commission an adept or two from the state church, a Wizard from the university, and a couple of "trap experts" along with a couple of warrior squads; problem solved. With all the treasure going to the crown.

Adventurers are amazingly powerful homeless people. A war or plague can tie up the government enough to provide adventurers a job opportunity, but once the crisis is over, "Thanks. Keep watcha find. Here's some trail rations and a letter of recommendation. Gods bless your path, that path ... the road out of town. Buh-bye." :smallamused:

In Monte Cook's Ptolus setting, a game I play in, a Delver guild has been established to explore and clear the ancient abandoned Dwarven kingdom the city is built upon. The military defends the city from it's political neighbors while a steady influx of transient adventures (whom few know or care about) defend the uber-dungeon from insanely archaic evil for money and prizes. The guild exists to give the King and Emperor their cuts, and also to sell ya intel on the dungeon. :smallbiggrin:

This could qualify as one of those very specialized circumstance, if not limited.

[Gamebird]

They did allow it, though. They were well acquainted with the consequences of disbanding. So the situation would be, whenever a war ends.

It sounds like you're saying that governments "allow" crime because it exists. I doubt the governments *wanted* the former soldiers roaming around jobless and desperate. It was a known side-effect of war, yes. Was it a desired side-effect? No, I don't think so.

[Matthew]

Sure, it's a necessary evil and it depends on what you mean by allow.

A centralised government is a bad way to think about this in a medieval context. The degree of local autonomy was much greater and private small scale wars were a normal part of life. War was the rule, peace the exception. The point is that there were numerous unenlisted armed men within medieval states, and though governments may have wished to suppress their activities, they often did not. Sometimes this was a result of impotence, sometimes it was politically motivated opportunism.

[Gamebird]

I agree with all that, but I don't see how this leads to an established business, with a storefront and widespread knowledge of its existence. Governments had a lot of trouble cracking down on individual rogue armed men - I'm with you there. But it's not hard to find a guild headquarters. If the place is well known enough that strangers to the area are able to find it, then it would follow that it's well known to the rulers in charge. And while the government/rulers might tolerate it for a time, Machiavelli had a lot to say about what happened to any ruler or government who tolerated mercenaries and other armed ne'er-do-wells loitering too long on their land.

Hm, let's see if I can find a quote...
Here's one: "Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy ..."

Here's another: "In the end, the arms of another will fall from your hand, will weigh you down, or restrain you."

[Stephen_E]

Machiavelli had a lot to say about what happened to any ruler or government who tolerated mercenaries and other armed ne'er-do-wells loitering too long on their land.

Hm, let's see if I can find a quote...
Here's one: "Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy ..."

Here's another: "In the end, the arms of another will fall from your hand, will weigh you down, or restrain you."

And yet Rulers continued to happily put up with Mercanaries for centuries after Machavelli. Why? Because they're just to damned useful. The ability to pump up you standing army at short notice without having the crippling drain of a permanent large army (keep in mind that it wasn't unkonwn for rulers to pimp out their standing army to raise cash). Also standing armies were often less well trained/skilled and were still quite vunerable to local treachery (remember also, Machavelli lost!).

As for why would Mercanaries/Adventurers not loot their own town, rather than travel to some other place. Evolution. Those who persist on doing so find they have no place to sleep, or get burned out in their sleep. A relatively safe base, where you can rest or retire to is rather nice (Note Eoropes two popular mercanary peoples, the Scots and Swiss, both went away from home to fight.)

Stephen

[Matthew]

Yes indeed, and I quite agree with Machavelli, but, much like Vegetius, his advice was contrary to the habits of the times.

Mercenary 'Guilds' are often tolerated because they are useful and too much trouble to put down. Once their usefulness is ended and sufficient resources are at hand, they inevitably will be put down or absorbed. They can exist for prolonged periods, though. There is not a lot of difference between a mercenary guild and a private (or rather 'professional') army.

Mercenaries existed in all ages and they were both a problem and an advantage in all ages.

[Diggorian]

I think y'all are missing the lady's point.

A kingdom can tolerate vacationing adventurers, in between quests, whose spoils of victory boost the local economy.

But ...

An adventuring guild is an organization that virtually collects powerful individuals without allegiance to the crown.

The foundation of all authority is the threat of physical violence, ie coercive force. A group that rivals the power of the official force, tacitly threatens it's authority.

"Your Majesty, I am Sir Goodian, 17th level Gods-Chosen paladin Knight of the Chalice. Several of your subjects have come to me complaining of your new tax. Can you justify your royal choice to me, please?"

*King squirms uncomfortably*

[Matthew]

Yes, but powerful internal organisations were also a fact of medieval life. The Templars are a rather good case in point, but virtually any organisation with autonomy from the central government makes the king squirm; that's one of the challenges of kingship.
The other side of things is that an Adventurers' Guild need not be filled with powerful Adventurers. Wizard's Guilds, Thieves' Guilds and Churches are all going to be a challenge to central government.

[Diggorian]

Challenge of kingship, yes. And, they try to lessen their challenges if wise. The individual guilds you mention can be played against each other and arent generally that powerful cause they do simple civic jobs mostly.

Adventurers get stronger all the time, and by the RAW in a pretty short time. You may as well call them: "The-Guild-of-PC-Classes-that-Train-to-kill-things-and-take-their-stuff, and will-do-the-same-to-the-king-if-he-doesnt-watch-himself".

Did someone cry Tyrant? :smallbiggrin:

[Deus Mortus]

Yeah, I should have prefaced my points to clarify that I was speaking of the US, which is the only place I have much experience with. I'd be interested to know how much of your temp agency's policies regarding education and training are mandated by the government.

None of them, it's their selling point, the commision is a bit higher, but due to the extra education I can earn it back...

[Fhaolan]

Yes, but powerful internal organisations were also a fact of medieval life. The Templars are a rather good case in point, but virtually any organisation with autonomy from the central government makes the king squirm; that's one of the challenges of kingship.

Unfortunately, using the Templars as an example will inevitably bring up King Philip IV. All of Europe was quite happy with the Templars and their existance as what boils down to a large mercenary company... when they were in the Holy Land, and not in Europe. :smallsmile: Once they moved the majority of their members to Europe, people were not quite so happy. The Templars defied the kings of Europe based on their economic and military might. So, Philip and the Catholic church banded together and had the Templars wiped out.

I'm not saying you can't form mercenary companies. That happened, and it happened fairly often. It was legal, and it was encouraged by many goverments. When there was a war on, which was pretty much all the time. Even if the government had to manufacture a war to send those mercenary companies away to. Far away, preferentially. On the rare occasion there *wasn't* a war, two things might happen. The likely thing is that the mercenary company would simply leave and go to wherever there was a war, and there's always a war somewhere. Afterall, they don't get paid sitting around in a peaceful area and mercenaries are all about being paid.

The second thing... well, that's when mercenary companies were forcibly disbanded by the government, ambushed by government forces and wiped out, or any manner of nasty tricks necesary to remove the existing threat. Because every government is fully aware that an unemployed mercenary company will become employed very quickly, by someone wanting to overthrow the government. That's life.

[Turcano]

Edit: It seems to me that a guild is essentially a labor union.

Pretty much, although the principle of collective bargaining was probably low to non-existent, since there really wasn't any managment to speak of.

In my personal opinion, I don't really see mercenaries' or adventurers' guilds taking shape, mainly due to the nature of theoretical inter-guild relations. In a normal guild, members are at worst competition; in a fighters' guild, other members may be actively trying to kill you. Licences and something analogous to letters of marque would be far more plausible, as it allows a wide range of independence while maintaining some kind of control over armed groups of people.

[Matthew]

Unfortunately, using the Templars as an example will inevitably bring up King Philip IV. All of Europe was quite happy with the Templars and their existance as what boils down to a large mercenary company... when they were in the Holy Land, and not in Europe. :smallsmile: Once they moved the majority of their members to Europe, people were not quite so happy. The Templars defied the kings of Europe based on their economic and military might. So, Philip and the Catholic church banded together and had the Templars wiped out.

I wouldn't agree with that analysis, as the story is a good deal more complicated than that (The Templars weren't the only Military Order at large!), but I have to admit this probably isn't the place to discuss it.

I would certainly agree that once an organisation of this sort no longer served a purpose and the resources were at hand to disband them, they would be disbanded. Indeed, I chose the Templars as an example with that in mind!:smallwink:

[Fhaolan]

I wouldn't agree with that analysis, as the story is a good deal more complicated than that (The Templars weren't the only Military Order at large!), but I have to admit this probably isn't the place to discuss it.

I would certainly agree that once an organisation of this sort no longer served a purpose and the resources were at hand to disband them, they would be disbanded. Indeed, I chose the Templars as an example with that in mind!:smallwink:

I oversimplified to the point of insanity on that one, but as we both agree on the end result I think we're good. :smallsmile:

[Gamebird]

Well, looks like the point has been beaten to death in my absence. Yay.

And now, a blast from the past...
[comm is blinking, Han hits the button]
Han Solo (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000148/): Uh, everything's under control. Situation normal.
Voice: What happened?
Han Solo (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000148/): Uh, we had a slight weapons malfunction, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?
[winces]
Voice: We're sending a squad up.
Han Solo (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000148/): Uh, uh, negative. We had a reactor leak here now. Give us a minute to lock it down. Large leak, very dangerous.
Voice: Who is this? What's your operating number?
Han Solo (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000148/): Uh...
[shoots comm]
Han Solo (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000148/): [mutters] Boring conversation anyway.

We now return to our regularly scheduled post...

Yeah, so what I don't like about adventuring guilds is their presumption of enough (extra-societal) work to keep so many adventures employed. Work within a society, fighting other humans or elves or the next kingdom or whatever - that I get. But the idea of a constant stream of tombs, dragons, discovered dungeons and the like - it's hard for me to wrap my mind around. Why are people always hiring adventurers to do these things? Why aren't they doing it themselves? After all, adventuring is ridiculously lucrative and not very dangerous.

Unless we accept the fact that player-characters get breaks that NPCs don't. In which case adventuring may well be fraught with peril and hardly ever worthwhile. In this case we're back to the 'contrived game world' situation. And if the only contrivance is that PCs get breaks, then there's not much reason for an adventuring guild to exist for the NPCs, since they don't get breaks, they're unlikely to be part of a guild.

Or perhaps we postulate that a random allotment of NPCs get similar breaks. The gods smile on them and no one knows why. Boy, that would screw with the mind, if you actually lived in such a game world. Your little brother, for no reason you can fathom, mysteriously gets all the good breaks while adventuring and progresses to the point where he is the foremost member of his religion and can raise the dead. Meanwhile, you're still having trouble milking the cows.

[Scorpina]

...well that world view does seem to be borne out by the RAW, what with PC classes vs NPC classes and elite ability scores for PCs vs standard scores for NPCs...

Not that I think that's a good thing in the slightest. Bleargh.

[pita]

Clerics have always irked me.
I imagine the high cleric of pelor and I see a man in a white robe, with two yellow stripes, and the symbol of pelor hanging from his neck.
In D&D, he has a full plate, a morningstar, a tower shield, and more. He's a soldier, not a cleric.
Bah.
D&D is a modern approach to midieval times. It's a wrong ideal.
We should destroy it, like we did with the things we destroyed!

[Scorpina]

Cloistered Clerics definately do a better job of seeming 'priestly' than do their standard bretheren.

[MrNexx]

Personally, I like Archivists more than Cloistered Clerics.

[Scorpina]

Archivists look cool from a distance.

They're non-SRD though, an I lack the funds to buy Heroes of Horror...

[MrNexx]

I simply like the basic idea: Clerics who have to learn spells like wizards. It brings them down to a more reasonable level, IMO.

[Matthew]

Clerics have always irked me.
I imagine the high cleric of pelor and I see a man in a white robe, with two yellow stripes, and the symbol of pelor hanging from his neck.
In D&D, he has a full plate, a morningstar, a tower shield, and more. He's a soldier, not a cleric.
Bah.
D&D is a modern approach to midieval times. It's a wrong ideal.
We should destroy it, like we did with the things we destroyed!

Something odd happened to the Cleric Base Class in 3.x (and at some point during 2.x). What you have to bear in mind is that Cleric does not mean Priest. In pevious editions they were modelled on the Medieval Military Orders [i.e. Warrior Monks]. Once that is the case they become a whole lot easier to imagine, though the Spell Casting part has little to no historical analogue.

In short

Warrior Monk = Cleric
Monk = Cloistered Cleric

[Diggorian]

Where are these cloistered clerics found? Now that I've 'fixed' my monks may want to check on my clerical options.

I find that a Status Quo approach to encounter/adventures adds more accuracy to a D&D world than Tailored encounters. After level 10 challenges start to come farther between as common problems are beneath the PC's now.

A level 13 cleric heads a church, but gets an urgent letter of orcs taking over a local mine. He dusts off his armor, maybe gets his fighter friend that now runs the local bar. They wade through the CR 1 orc bandits, kill the chief, tell the lieutenant to get the survivors out of here and never come back (cleric is good), they do, and a week later they're back to 'regular life'. No more orc trouble around them for years.

I dont run them through everyday of regular life, maybe just a few roleplaying encounters during the months or years between true adventures. A new BBEG every month is silly to me. Little BEG's trying to get big are more regular. By the time a foe of their high level shows up they may be middle aged if Human.

[Matthew]

I think it appears in Unearthed Arcana, but you can also find it in the SRD under Cloistered Cleric (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#clericVariantCloistere dCleric).

[Dausuul]

Typically a Guild was an organization of members of the same class of merchants, tradesmen or service providers. The express purpose of the organization was to collude to set prices for their goods or services, regardless of the purchaser (noble or common), to provide the medieval equivalent of networking for apprentices and journeymen of the trade, and to present a modicum of power/political weight to throw around with the government (i.e. the Court) with an eye for protecting their respective goods, trades, or services.

"Guilds" of adventurers and mercenaries are completely nonsensical in this context. Even the usual "Thieves' Guild" as presented in D&D canon isn't really a "guild" in this sense; it's merely a syndicate with its own internal quasi-government structure.

I think this is just an issue where the requirements for verisimilitude are different from one person to another.

Uh... why are they nonsensical?

Let's go through your points in order:


To collude to set prices for their goods or services, regardless of the purchaser (noble or common).

Obviously, if the price is "you get to keep the plunder," that's pretty much that. However, if the purchaser is a merchant in need of half a dozen caravan guards, wages become an issue and the ability to set them becomes valuable.


To provide the medieval equivalent of networking for apprentices and journeymen of the trade.

Why is this not useful? Mercenary Joe-Bob is an up-and-coming young fellow who shows promise with the bow. Mercenary captain Robert Josephson needs a good archer and is willing to put in some time to train one. They both stand to benefit from an organization that can put them in touch with one another.


To present a modicum of power/political weight to throw around with the government (i.e. the Court) with an eye for protecting their respective goods, trades, or services.

Again, this seems very useful to me. Even in the rare event that you do have a mercenary company comprising several hundred armed men, you're more than likely dealing with kings who have several thousand... and the king has knights in full plate, mounted on heavy warhorses and armed with lance and sword, whereas most of your men are wearing scrounged bits of armor and old rusted weapons they took off the dead. A guild to protect your interests and negotiate on your behalf is a Good Thing.


Yeah, so what I don't like about adventuring guilds is their presumption of enough (extra-societal) work to keep so many adventures employed. Work within a society, fighting other humans or elves or the next kingdom or whatever - that I get. But the idea of a constant stream of tombs, dragons, discovered dungeons and the like - it's hard for me to wrap my mind around. Why are people always hiring adventurers to do these things? Why aren't they doing it themselves? After all, adventuring is ridiculously lucrative and not very dangerous.

Now this I agree with. Mercenaries' guilds make sense to me, at least in a typical war-torn feudal world. Adventurers' guilds, not so much.

[Turcano]

Archivists look cool from a distance.

They're non-SRD though, an I lack the funds to buy Heroes of Horror...

Well, you're in luck, because WotC decided to give you the archivist for free (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20051007a&page=3).


Uh... why are they nonsensical?
The main problem with the idea is that different mercenary companies move around looking for work and probably fight other mercenary companies on a regular basis. This pretty much precludes the chances of mercenaries organizing above the company level.

[Wolf53226]

See, I have no problems with the cleric class, and while I grant you the Cloistered Cleric is more "Priestly" then the cleric base class, I don't feel that is who they were trying to portray. More aptly, I think they were looking at Joan of Arc, or at least the standard beliefs of her, who was able to dismiss injury and lead an army in both spiritual and martial matters, while dismissing the orders of her superiors.

[Matthew]

Nah, Joan of Arc was a Paladin.

[Fhaolan]

See, I have no problems with the cleric class, and while I grant you the Cloistered Cleric is more "Priestly" then the cleric base class, I don't feel that is who they were trying to portray. More aptly, I think they were looking at Joan of Arc, or at least the standard beliefs of her, who was able to dismiss injury and lead an army in both spiritual and martial matters, while dismissing the orders of her superiors.

Is the character of Joan of Arc a Cleric, or a Paladin?

I've played D&D for a *long* time, and I've always had issues with the way Clerics are portrayed. If the Cleric flavour is the warrior-monk, chosen by their god to lead the armies in both spiritual and martial matters... what's the Paladin again? I think the Paladin's flavour is too narrowly defined and is being co-opted by the Cleric.

If I was to rewrite D&D... oh, don't tempt me... The Cloistered Cleric rules and writeup would replace the Cleric as the true 'priest' class, while the Paladin would be revised and opened up a bit more to provide the 'warrior monks' of the various gods.

But that's just me. :smallcool:

[Matthew]

It's simple

Paladins are exemplary Secular Warriors
Clerics are Warrior Monks

The difference is in whether they are Monks or not.

[This only works in Campaign Worlds where there is a division between the Secular and Spiritual people]

[Journey]

See, I have no problems with the cleric class, and while I grant you the Cloistered Cleric is more "Priestly" then the cleric base class, I don't feel that is who they were trying to portray. More aptly, I think they were looking at Joan of Arc, or at least the standard beliefs of her, who was able to dismiss injury and lead an army in both spiritual and martial matters, while dismissing the orders of her superiors.

I've always had issues with the cleric class, since I started playing the game years and years ago. It's always been mixed up, and the 3.x version is just asinine, especially with respect to how powerful it is.

I agree with the sentiment that the cleric as-is is closer to a deity-specific paladin/holy champion type class than an actual cleric. Clerics should be less combat oriented and should also have to actually perform clerical duties in order to maintain their gods' favor--otherwise they should face divine wrath for presuming to invoke their gods' name while unworthy.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Uh... why are they nonsensical?


Firstly, because as has already been pointed out, mercenaries frequently wind up fighting each other.

Secondly, because mercenaries move around a lot. Having a centralised structure is easy when you're living in the same town, less so when half your organisation is going to trot off to the other side of the world.

Thirdly, because mercenaries die a lot. It's kind of hard to have any sort of centralised authority when your membership keeps dying, deserting, switching sides, and generally changing all over the place.

Fourthly, because mercenaries are scum. We aren't talking about private security firms here, we're talking about killers for hire. They're just not going to get along in a worker's collective.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I've always had issues with the cleric class, since I started playing the game years and years ago. It's always been mixed up, and the 3.x version is just asinine, especially with respect to how powerful it is.


Clerics never made sense, even the in the original rules where you had to have two of them, and they could only move diagonally.

[Fax Celestis]

Clerics never made sense, even the in the original rules where you had to have two of them, and they could only move diagonally.

That's because those were originally ships, representing the naval forces of the king, and the diagonal movement was so that they could tack into the wind.

[Dark]

Firstly, because as has already been pointed out, mercenaries frequently wind up fighting each other.

That need not be a problem. In fact there might be an incentive to establish a sort of "Geneva conventions" that regulate mercenary-to-mercenary fights. The emphasis would be on rules that make all mercenaries better off, without affecting the outcome of a battle. For example:


The side that holds the battlefield is entitled to loot the bodies. The bodies themselves must be offered to their mercenary company for possible resurrection.
If one side flees, it may not regroup to attack again. It has lost the battle and must leave. The other side may not pursue with intent to kill.
Prisoners must be offered for ransom to their mercenary company. Until an answer is received, they must not be harmed and must not try to escape.

[Journey]

The only problem with that is how does the guild enforce any of it? Send another mercenary company after the rule breakers?

Guilds enforce their rules by thuggery, complicity with the authority granted by the nobility, or some combination of the two. If for no other reason, this one is the reason there can't really be anything like a "Geneva Convention" for the kind of setting that D&D is based on.

[Bouldering Jove]

Clerics never made sense, even the in the original rules where you had to have two of them, and they could only move diagonally.


That's because those were originally ships, representing the naval forces of the king, and the diagonal movement was so that they could tack into the wind.
And here I thought it was a chess joke.

[Fax Celestis]

And here I thought it was a chess joke.

It was a chess joke, a chess joke that was trumped by my Knowledge (Gaming Trivia) check.

[Scorpina]

...is that really why bishops move diagonally in Chess?

[Fax Celestis]

...is that really why bishops move diagonally in Chess?

Unfortunately, yes.

[Scorpina]

So how did they change from Ships into Bishops?

[Fax Celestis]

The church paid off the manufacturers of chess sets to change them to bishops, so that the church would be closest to the throne (and a powerful piece as well).

[Scorpina]

Wow...

...so what's the deal with the Rooks then?

[Journey]

Rook pieces move like this: +
Bishop pieces move like this: x

[Dark]

The only problem with that is how does the guild enforce any of it? Send another mercenary company after the rule breakers?

Guilds enforce their rules by thuggery, complicity with the authority granted by the nobility, or some combination of the two. If for no other reason, this one is the reason there can't really be anything like a "Geneva Convention" for the kind of setting that D&D is based on.
In this case, it could be enforced by reputation. If a mercenary company follows the rules, other mercenaries will honor the rules with them. If a mercenary company gets a reputation for breaking the rules, then losing a single battle will probably wipe them out, as the other side will take no chances.

[Matthew]

The church paid off the manufacturers of chess sets to change them to bishops, so that the church would be closest to the throne (and a powerful piece as well).

This doesn't sound true (though it does sound possible). Where is this information derived from? I thought Chess was a very old game.

[Turcano]

Wow...

...so what's the deal with the Rooks then?

They used to be called castles, but the International Predatory Birds Council bribed them to change the name.*




*If anyone actually believed that, I am truly, deeply ashamed of you.

[Matthew]

What this article has to say sounds a good deal more likely to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_chess

[Fax Celestis]

...and you believe Wikipedia?

[Matthew]

When it's cited and accords with what I have read elsewhere, yes. Unless there is evidence to the contrary. Always remember to read the discussion, of course.

[Fax Celestis]

For what it's worth, I received the information from my Chess teacher.

[shaka gl]

...and you believe Wikipedia?

I practically worship the site. Theres a problem? :smallsmile:

[Khantalas]

Well, as Turkish names for the chess pieces are still similar to the originals (I'm telling you, the language is hungry for new words), I can tell you for a fact that the bishop is called "fil", meaning elephant, the rook is called "kale", meaning castle, the queen is called "vezir", meaning vizier, and the king is called... well, something pronounced the same as "shah", which means king.

So, I do believe Wikipedia has it right. Even though citations are often highly appreciated.

Oh, another fluff met crunch thing... Well, I'm kind of surprised nobody mentioned it yet. I may have missed it, though.

Illithid Heritage feats. Well, 'nuff said.

[cokefiend]

Illithid... heritage... :smalleek:

Another great fluff vs. crunch battle of mine is the thri-kreen favoured class. Yay, psychic warriors! But wait... thri-kreen don't sleep. What? So... they're pre-disposed towards a class whose main feature relies on something they're pre-disposed against. How does that make sense?

[Green Bean]

I can tell you for a fact that the bishop is called "fil", meaning elephant.

Interestingly enough, in some Arab countries, the bishops are still elephants.

[Fhaolan]

Interestingly enough, in some Arab countries, the bishops are still elephants.

Wow. They must take out all the pews to get them into the cathedrals...

Sorry, sorry. Couldn't resist. :smallbiggrin:

[Green Bean]

Wow. They must take out all the pews to get them into the cathedrals...

Sorry, sorry. Couldn't resist. :smallbiggrin:

I understand. Who could? :smallbiggrin:

[Diggorian]

Illithid heritage ... for people that want to play Illithid, but their DM wont let'em? Fluff wise ... for Mon Calmarians and Quarren, sure.


Another great fluff vs. crunch battle of mine is the thri-kreen favoured class ... So... they're pre-disposed towards a class whose main feature relies on something they're pre-disposed against. How does that make sense?

I'm not sure what you mean, fiend. Thri-kreen need not sleep, but still need 8 hrs of 'rest' to recharge special abilities that need it. It's just that they never experience sleep penalties (blindness, and -10 to Listen), unless they're rendered unconscious some how.

My Thri-kreen PC comes from a source where their favored class is Ranger (perfect fluff/crunch match). Maybe a Monster Manual version? With maxed spot and listen, he takes all watch shifts alone pondering questions with his 8 Int: Why are soft-skins so lazy? What does the other side of the horizon look like? What do the party members taste like (especially elves)? :smallamused:

[shaka gl]

I never understood why the Favored Soul has good Reflex saves.

Nor the Monkey Grip feat.

[Iron_Mouse]

Hmm, Githzerai?
A race that's native to Limbo, the most chaotic plane in the multiverse. The plane *is* chaos itself. Okay, they live in stable cities, but they're surrounded by pure chaos the whole time. Now, what's their favored class?

Monk.

Must be lawful. :smallconfused:

Oh, did I mention they have inborn psionical abilities? Still...monk.

[Leush]

Familiars: Familiars are the assoicates a witch gets to help her and guide her. She gets it when she makes her pact with the Red Guy Down There. That qualifies familiars as an accompaniement to divine spellcasting to me. Why do arcane spellcasters get familiars?

[Khantalas]

Hmm, Githzerai?
A race that's native to Limbo, the most chaotic plane in the multiverse. The plane *is* chaos itself. Okay, they live in stable cities, but they're surrounded by pure chaos the whole time. Now, what's their favored class?

Monk.

Must be lawful. :smallconfused:

Oh, did I mention they have inborn psionical abilities? Still...monk.

Wait... I thought Githzerai had Wilder as a favored class.

Bad Mouse, ignoring XPH. The greatest thing around.

[Ninja Chocobo]

Okay, they live in stable cities, but they're surrounded by pure chaos the whole time.
Firstly, those "cities" are monasteries. Secondly, that's their whole point. they're the few places Law holds sway in a plane of Chaos.

Oh, did I mention they have inborn psionic abilities?
Well....let's look at the abilities. Oh look. Not only are they all Arcane spells, only one is mind-affecting. I know they're described as Psionics, but they're really just spell-like abilities under a fancy new name.

[Khantalas]

Chocobo, you are given one warning as of this post. If you continue ignoring XPH, you will be banned from the Baatezu Lovers club and hunted by pit fiends.

[Ninja Chocobo]

It's not my fault I haven't read the XPH, my local gaming store only stocks the DMG, PHB, Monster Manuals 1-3, and the Fiend Folio.
Therefore, I was going by their stats in the MM.

[Starbuck_II]

Hmm, Githzerai?
A race that's native to Limbo, the most chaotic plane in the multiverse. The plane *is* chaos itself. Okay, they live in stable cities, but they're surrounded by pure chaos the whole time. Now, what's their favored class?

Monk.

Must be lawful. :smallconfused:

Oh, did I mention they have inborn psionical abilities? Still...monk.
They have monk because Monks are best against Minde Flayers (those originally enslaved them).

Look: Good grapple damage (in case Mind flayer grapples), Good Will (Mind Blast), and good Mobility (to escape).

Fighter has higher bab, but poor Will. Also Knight was not yet invented (a Good Will good Bab class).

[Stephen_E]

Familiars: Familiars are the assoicates a witch gets to help her and guide her. She gets it when she makes her pact with the Red Guy Down There. That qualifies familiars as an accompaniement to divine spellcasting to me. Why do arcane spellcasters get familiars?

A couple of points.

You're refering to the christian culture/concept of familiars, and under that culture Witchs are Arcane casters. Satan and the powers he gives people weren't/aren't considered divine. It should also be noted that general christian culture sees all magic outside priests as linked to Satan.

Now if you go outside the christian culture you'll find that Arcane casters aren't specifically linked to any BBEG and they are the ones who have familiars (sometimes). Priests (Divine casters) don't normally have them.

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

Firstly, because as has already been pointed out, mercenaries frequently wind up fighting each other.

Yes, and they often ended up working with each other. Keeping grudges wasn't a great business idea as a rule. Also note that they were paid to fight, not die or kill (not that they minded killing, but they definitely weren't thrilled at the dieing part). Mercanaries were well known for taking a hike if they thought the battle was hopeless. Having a system where you could get out in reasonably one peice is a great idea. After all, fight enough battles and you will be on the losing side sooner or later.


Secondly, because mercenaries move around a lot. Having a centralised structure is easy when you're living in the same town, less so when half your organisation is going to trot off to the other side of the world.

They didn't exactly trot off to the otherside of the world. Mercanaries worked in an area (travelling cost money, with no income). For example a Mercanary company might work in Western Europe. Since various organisations managed Guild structures over most of Europe I don't see the problem.


Thirdly, because mercenaries die a lot. It's kind of hard to have any sort of centralised authority when your membership keeps dying, deserting, switching sides, and generally changing all over the place.

Everyone kept dying in medievil worlds. It didn't stop people having centralised structures. Having a centralised structure could be useful in those circumstances, for the purpose of handling things when crucial people in the field die.


Fourthly, because mercenaries are scum. We aren't talking about private security firms here, we're talking about killers for hire. They're just not going to get along in a worker's collective.

Can you provide any evidence that Mercanaries were anymore scum than any other soldier of the time. I've never seen any. Just because they're killers doesn't mean they don't understand the concept of working together!! Think about it. If fighting in battle doesn't teach you the advantage of having someone covering your back and the strength of working together (formation fighting anyone) I don't know what will!!

Stephen

[cokefiend]

My Thri-kreen PC comes from a source where their favored class is Ranger (perfect fluff/crunch match). Maybe a Monster Manual version? With maxed spot and listen, he takes all watch shifts alone pondering questions with his 8 Int: Why are soft-skins so lazy? What does the other side of the horizon look like? What do the party members taste like (especially elves)? :smallamused:

Oops, my mistake. I was looking here: http://www.athas.org/ ... but still, rangers need sleep for their spells anyway.
Okay, so it isn't as bad as I made it sound, but the impression I've always gotten about spellcaster/manifester "rest" is that it allows for absolutely no action whatsoever.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Yes, and they often ended up working with each other. Keeping grudges wasn't a great business idea as a rule. Also note that they were paid to fight, not die or kill (not that they minded killing, but they definitely weren't thrilled at the dieing part). Mercanaries were well known for taking a hike if they thought the battle was hopeless. Having a system where you could get out in reasonably one peice is a great idea. After all, fight enough battles and you will be on the losing side sooner or later.

And how can a Mercenary's guild help with this? By having a rule that guild members aren't allowed to kill each other?


They didn't exactly trot off to the otherside of the world. Mercanaries worked in an area (travelling cost money, with no income). For example a Mercanary company might work in Western Europe. Since various organisations managed Guild structures over most of Europe I don't see the problem.

"Western Europe" is quite a large area.

The point is this: if you're running the Cobbler's guild, and Mr Cobbler of 47 Short Street is breaking guild rules, you send some goons around to break his legs and burn his shoes.

If you're running a "Mercenary's guild" and the Company of Whoever are breaking the rules, and they could be anywhere in western Europe what are you going to do? And as journey points out - how do you enforce your rules anyway, you can't send a group of people to beat up a mercenary company.


Everyone kept dying in medievil worlds. It didn't stop people having centralised structures. Having a centralised structure could be useful in those circumstances, for the purpose of handling things when crucial people in the field die.

People had very few centralised structures, by comparison to the modern world. Because communications technology sucked. Those centralised structures that *did* exist had to be enforced with overwhelming spiritual or secular authority, otherwise it's virtually impossible to exert any influence over somebody in another part of the world, because you will never find out what they do.


Can you provide any evidence that Mercanaries were anymore scum than any other soldier of the time.

Lets see, how about the fact that you, yourself say in the first line of your post that mercenaries were well known for running away if the battle looked like it was going badly.

Or the long quote from Machiavelli which Gamebird provided further up the thread.


I've never seen any. Just because they're killers doesn't mean they don't understand the concept of working together!!

Oh the understood the concept of working together just fine, that's the problem. They understood the concept of working together in the same way that LA street gangs understand the concept of working together: you're a group of armed men, and you can take what you want.


Think about it. If fighting in battle doesn't teach you the advantage of having someone covering your back and the strength of working together (formation fighting anyone) I don't know what will!!

Which is why mercenary *companies* existed.

What it doesn't teach you is the value of co-operating with somebody you've never met who might theoretically be doing a similar job in a different country.

[Iron_Mouse]

Wait... I thought Githzerai had Wilder as a favored class.

Bad Mouse, ignoring XPH. The greatest thing around.
They do? I looked in Manual of the Planes, the old Psionics Handbook and Expanded Psionics Handbook. Monk everywhere...:smallfrown:

It's true that monk is best against mind flayers but to give them monk just because of that feels a bit like metagaming to me. And the githyanki hate and hunt illithids with the same passion and they have favored class fighter...excpt in the PH, there it's fighter or psychic warrior. Psychic warrior makes sense to me.

Ah well, I really liked the githzerai back in 2ed. Now they're just the Shaolin-Rrakkma-Guys.

[Khantalas]

You are looking at the wrong place. Look for a sidebar.

[Stephen_E]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E
Yes, and they often ended up working with each other. Keeping grudges wasn't a great business idea as a rule. Also note that they were paid to fight, not die or kill (not that they minded killing, but they definitely weren't thrilled at the dieing part). Mercanaries were well known for taking a hike if they thought the battle was hopeless. Having a system where you could get out in reasonably one peice is a great idea. After all, fight enough battles and you will be on the losing side sooner or later.



And how can a Mercenary's guild help with this? By having a rule that guild members aren't allowed to kill each other?

By arranging a code for surrendering which doesn't destitute the surrendering Mercanaries.



"Western Europe" is quite a large area..

But nonetheless one that messages were passed back and forth over during the times that mercanarie companies existed. Note when there was little trade there tended not to be the wealth to support mercanary companies.


The point is this: if you're running the Cobbler's guild, and Mr Cobbler of 47 Short Street is breaking guild rules, you send some goons around to break his legs and burn his shoes.

If you're running a "Mercenary's guild" and the Company of Whoever are breaking the rules, and they could be anywhere in western Europe what are you going to do? And as journey points out - how do you enforce your rules anyway, you can't send a group of people to beat up a mercenary company..

You put out the word that Company "X" is expelled and if they surrender you can do what ever you like to them. I would also note that large bodies of armed men didn't exactly teleport around Europe. Tibbles Company butchered another Mercanary company in Spain 2 months ago. Our local agents confirmed they didn't ship out, so how far do you think they can ride in 2 months (any port big enough to be able to ship out of probably has a Guild Rep who can find out where they were shipping to)

Quote:
Can you provide any evidence that Mercanaries were anymore scum than any other soldier of the time.


Lets see, how about the fact that you, yourself say in the first line of your post that mercenaries were well known for running away if the battle looked like it was going badly.

Or the long quote from Machiavelli which Gamebird provided further up the thread..

The Mercanaries were paid to fight, not die. Been intelligent is different from been Scum. It isn't scummish to refuse to get butchered for just a paycheck, especially if taking heavy casulties made it more likely your employer would try and stiff you (and the contract didn't specify you getting butchered). For all that Mercanaries often had damned solid reputations compared to local levies. The Swiss had tough reps, as did the Scots TTBOMK. Been a Mercanary wasn't for wimps. They weren't out to commit suicide, but they weren't to squemash about the risk of dying.

Machavelli had his own POV on this issue. Keep in mind that during the 30 years war the Holy Roman Emperor had his best Mercanary General (Wallenstein) assassinated. I did say they were no scumier in behaviour than everyone else.

Quote:
I've never seen any. Just because they're killers doesn't mean they don't understand the concept of working together!!


Oh the understood the concept of working together just fine, that's the problem. They understood the concept of working together in the same way that LA street gangs understand the concept of working together: you're a group of armed men, and you can take what you want..

Given that the Mercanariy companies actually made a living hiring out their services, I think they understood the concept a bit better than you average street gang.

Quote:
Think about it. If fighting in battle doesn't teach you the advantage of having someone covering your back and the strength of working together (formation fighting anyone) I don't know what will!!


Which is why mercenary *companies* existed.

What it doesn't teach you is the value of co-operating with somebody you've never met who might theoretically be doing a similar job in a different country.

Actually it did. You might well not know the joes holding left flank when you were on the right, but you still worked together if you wanted to come out ahead. As mentioned earlier the sort of thinks a guild would do is help setup rules to improve the ability of everyone to make a living out of it. You aren't required to have close copoperation with someone 3000kms away. The point is knowing that the guys on the otherside of the battlefield will accept your surrender if it comes to it, and you'll do the same if things go well for you.

Stephen

[Iron_Mouse]

You are looking at the wrong place. Look for a sidebar.
I don't own it, just browsed through it, once. In that case, nevermind :smallsmile:

[Starbuck_II]

They do? I looked in Manual of the Planes, the old Psionics Handbook and Expanded Psionics Handbook. Monk everywhere...:smallfrown:

It's true that monk is best against mind flayers but to give them monk just because of that feels a bit like metagaming to me. And the githyanki hate and hunt illithids with the same passion and they have favored class fighter...excpt in the PH, there it's fighter or psychic warrior. Psychic warrior makes sense to me.

Ah well, I really liked the githzerai back in 2ed. Now they're just the Shaolin-Rrakkma-Guys.
I don't know. Shouldn't the race have knowledge that mind flayers can Mind blast, grapple/suck brain, etc. Seems more racial knowledge than metagame. It isn't like Gith stop remembering Mind flayers existed. They probably tell stories about them.

[Fhaolan]

Mercenary companies existed. That's a fact, and one that is not in dispute, I believe. The problem seems to be that there is a dividing line between a mercenary company and a mercenary guild. It might be purely linguistic difference though.

Personally, the difference between a company and a guild is one of organization. A company is tightly-organized and regimented, with authority resting in a hierarchy of well-defined leaders with final authority in a single charismatic commander. Authority of the commanders over the individual is absolute and unbending. The company as a unit is hired out, the individuals being employees of the company. In modern American Tech industry terms, these are 'Vendor Companies'.

A guild is loosely-organized, with authority resting in a council of masters, possibly with a single guildmaster. Authority of the guildmaster over the individual is partial, based on an elaborate set of guild rules, mostly created to maximize senior guildmember's profits. Individual guild members still work for themselves or others, but the guild can act as a 'hiring hall', taking a percentage of the wages for their services. A guild does protect it's members, and provides a buffer between the members and the local authority. In modern American Tech industry terms, these are 'Contractor Agencies'.

Then there are the true hiring halls. These are rarely more elaborate than a structure with job postings. They might have people employeed to monitor the job postings and funnel prospective employees to the employeers. If the hall has employees, they get paid from fees charged to both the prospective employees and employers during the job search process. I'm not sure how far back in history these kinds of places existed. But I do know they go back as far as Victorian times. I've not run into references for anything earlier than that, though. In modern American Tech industry terms, these are 'Employment Agencies'.

In my mind, all the privately employeed guards in a city might belong to a guild (or secret brotherhood which is effectively the same thing). The thieves might as well. I would think that true mercenaries would work better in companies or through hiring halls. I just can't see mercenaries in true guilds due to personality conflicts.

[Diggorian]

... but still, rangers need sleep for their spells anyway.

Rangers are divine casters, who dont need to rest to cast the next day. See here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/divineSpells.htm#timeofDay), under "Time of Day":


A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just as a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and receive spells.

Kek'Kess, my Kreen, chose sunrise.

[cokefiend]

Again, oops. I stand corrected. I've never payed a great deal of attention to divine casters, so I just assumed they followed the same rules as the arcane guys.
But I still think my point stands with respect to elves, maybe? Depending on the difference between sleep and rest, which I still can't find details on.

[Diggorian]

Sleep is ... sleep. Rest is not doing anything that takes exertion (wondering what to wear tomorrow, doodling in the dirt, not thinking about the drooling Thri-kreen staring at you.)

As I understand it, elves wizards trance for 4 hours (equivalent to human sleep for 8 hrs), come out of it and then rest for another 4 hours.

[Stephen_E]

Mercenary companies existed. That's a fact, and one that is not in dispute, I believe. The problem seems to be that there is a dividing line between a mercenary company and a mercenary guild. It might be purely linguistic difference though..

I'm not sure that anything existed in Europe historically that I'd call a Mercanaries guild, although in Italy I think things may've come close. I thought the argument was whether it was possible for such a thing to exist, and whether there would be reason for such. My contention been that it could exist, and there are reasons for it to exist. Good enough for a GM to put one into his world if he wished.


In my mind, all the privately employeed guards in a city might belong to a guild (or secret brotherhood which is effectively the same thing). The thieves might as well. I would think that true mercenaries would work better in companies or through hiring halls. I just can't see mercenaries in true guilds due to personality conflicts.

The Hiring hall would be very useful for Mercanary companies. Lets face it, even the best will lose people and letting local fighters know that "x", "y" and "z" companies are in the area and looking for people would be handy. I think the hiring hall concept is the more likely situation, but I don't think Merc Guilds are unreasonable. Personality conflicts were pretty endemic in other guilds to, as I understand it, but that didn't stop them existing or functioning. I think you'd probably need a critical mass of Mercanary companies for such a organisation to form. The Italian City states (1300-1700) would be a example where the critical mass was there to make it worthwhile.

Stephen

[Thrawn183]

Just because a class gives you abilities, you don't have to use them, or use them in any way other than how you wish. The assassin class may perfectly nail down a bounty hunter who tracks his mark silently, before laying them out cold with one swift blow from behind. Not every bounty hunter is going to be buff enough to stand toe to toe with anyone else in a straight fight.

I (respectfully, I hope) disagree. A paladin is a killing machine. A paladin keeps its lawful good alignment by adhering to a strict code. A paladin that breaks its code loses many of its abilities. An assassin has no code. If you were to make a class with an assassin's abilities but also containing a code, then you would have made a whole different class that isn't an assassin at all.

[Dareon]

If you work from the historical aspect of the hashshashin, the group was apparently very lawful, not always in the sense of following Islamic law, but through complete loyalty to their leader (Which was aided by a simulated heaven in order to play upon the individual assassin's heavily-imprinted belief system).

And of course D&D is completely faithful to all aspects of the historical groups it portrays. :smalltongue:

I'm still unable to adequately explain my reasoning, even to myself, but I am of the personal belief that several PrCs are made strictly for NPC use. Loremaster, Teleport Guide, Blackguard, and Assassin are among these. I wouldn't have a problem with a PC taking Loremaster or Teleport Guide, however, and Blackguard is acceptable under the right circumstances, but, and again, I can't explain this, I object to a player working his way towards Assassin. In an appropriately high-level game, I don't think I'd mind a player playing a lapsed, failed, ejected, or otherwise ex-assassin, provided that he understood that some people were going to be hunting him, others would be recognizing him and calling the guards, and overall his life would be far more hassle than if he was just a straight Rogue or Ninja.

For some reason, having been an assassin is far more interesting from a roleplay perspective than actually being one to me. Also for some reason, the Ninja, a class with similar abilities, an equally dark historical basis, and no restrictions on who can take it, is perfectly all right with me.

[Stephen_E]

I have no particular problem with PC Assassin's (and as I've mentioned previously I see little value in the Evil prereq).

It should be noted that the chracter James Bond is an Assassin. With all due respect he's never been portrayed as Evil (neutral at worst).

My major problem with a PC Assassin is simply that most DnD games they would fit. A Ex-Assassin who moved on before the game started (The Preacher character from Firefly) works, but unless you're running a campaign where the party is hunting down and killing specific people (for good or bad reasons) which could be a very interesting campaign, there isn't much reason for an assassin to be part of an adventuring group.

Stephen

[Dark]

James Bond isn't sent to kill people. He's sent to solve problems. Killing people is incidental :)

It shows in his mode of operation. He doesn't lurk around, figure out that the Evil Genius leaves his base at 14:55 every day to have coffee at Starbucks, and then do a Death Attack from cover at 14:57. Instead, he secretly infiltrates the Evil Genius's base to blow it up, and, when caught, goes for the showdown.

So, if anything, James Bond is a ninja!

[MaN]

Mercenary Guilds? Sure, they're in the DMG2. What benefits do they provide a PC? With the new Guild Membership feats your character receives competence bonuses to guild-associated skills, guild-specific special abilities, and so on. Not to mention room and board, healing, jobs, and (last but not least) plot hooks, plot hooks, plot hooks!

How many more reasons do you need?:smallwink:

[Turcano]

If you work from the historical aspect of the hashshashin, the group was apparently very lawful, not always in the sense of following Islamic law, but through complete loyalty to their leader (Which was aided by a simulated heaven in order to play upon the individual assassin's heavily-imprinted belief system).

They were also, "at the same time, inclined to giggle, groove to interesting patterns of light and shade on their terrible knife blades and, in extreme cases, fall over."

[Jade_Tarem]

James Bond isn't sent to kill people. He's sent to solve problems. Killing people is incidental :)

QFT. :smalltongue: Bond is a British agent with a 00 license - a license to kill. Ironically, Casino Royale implies that you have to kill 2 people to be a 00, but you're killing them because they're traitors/spies/bad guys and not JUST to get into the 00 country and breakfast club. Besides, I don't think anyone is going to take Casino Royale seriously in terms of Bond's life anyway. And while bond is frequently sent to places with the sole intent of quietly eliminating (leveling cities optional) a target, the target is usually a guy out to kill people/take over the world/nuke Fort Knox/etc. You can picture it as Bond going on quests, quests with extremely high collateral damage totals.:smallamused:

Wow, look at me, I sound like I know what I'm talking about. Someone who's actually seen all the movies and read the books is about to stomp me, I can feel it.

[Green Bean]

They were also, "at the same time, inclined to giggle, groove to interesting patterns of light and shade on their terrible knife blades and, in extreme cases, fall over."

Whoo! Two reference in one thread!

[Stephen_E]

Lets face it. Assassin are evil in DnD because Assassins were evil in the original Gary Gygax game. Gary Gygax, or whoever created the 1st official Assassin class (this was back when Rangers had to be Good because Aragorn was the Ranegr model) thought they were evil for whatever reason. As a result Assassins have been evil ever since because no one at DnD has ever had both the gumption and power to standup and say "this is stupid". Fiction is full of non-evil, or even good assassins but obviosly the original creator was focused on some a particular example that was evil.

Stephen

[Jayabalard]

James Bond isn't sent to kill people. He's sent to solve problems. Killing people is incidental :)

It shows in his mode of operation. He doesn't lurk around, figure out that the Evil Genius leaves his base at 14:55 every day to have coffee at Starbucks, and then do a Death Attack from cover at 14:57. Instead, he secretly infiltrates the Evil Genius's base to blow it up, and, when caught, goes for the showdown.

So, if anything, James Bond is a ninja!Nope; he's definitly an assassin. That's what the 00 means.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'm not sure that anything existed in Europe historically that I'd call a Mercanaries guild, although in Italy I think things may've come close. I thought the argument was whether it was possible for such a thing to exist, and whether there would be reason for such. My contention been that it could exist, and there are reasons for it to exist. Good enough for a GM to put one into his world if he wished.

There are very few things to which the criteria "it could exist" and "there are reasons for it to exist" do not apply.

Owlbears, for example could exist, if some mad wizard decided to combine an owl and a bear, and there are reasons for them to exist (namely that some mad wizard wanted to combine an owl and a bear).

It doesn't stop them from being a lame idea.

Pretty much anything can be made to exist, as long as you posit, some point in the past, that somebody came along and went out of their way to create it.

[Stephen_E]

There are very few things to which the criteria "it could exist" and "there are reasons for it to exist" do not apply.

Owlbears, for example could exist, if some mad wizard decided to combine an owl and a bear, and there are reasons for them to exist (namely that some mad wizard wanted to combine an owl and a bear).

It doesn't stop them from being a lame idea.

Pretty much anything can be made to exist, as long as you posit, some point in the past, that somebody came along and went out of their way to create it.

Fine. I correct myself.

There are Good reasons to have a Mercanaries Guild if the political/military envioriment has a decent amount of mercanaries/mercanary companies existing.

Stephen

[Mewtarthio]

Nope; he's definitly an assassin. That's what the 00 means.

The 00 means that he's allowed to kill people at his own discretion. I've never read the books, but I've heard that he actually didn't even like killing people in Fleming's novels.

[Journey]

Lets face it. Assassin are evil in DnD because Assassins were evil in the original Gary Gygax game. Gary Gygax, or whoever created the 1st official Assassin class (this was back when Rangers had to be Good because Aragorn was the Ranegr model) thought they were evil for whatever reason. As a result Assassins have been evil ever since because no one at DnD has ever had both the gumption and power to standup and say "this is stupid". Fiction is full of non-evil, or even good assassins but obviosly the original creator was focused on some a particular example that was evil.

Stephen

The particular example in 3.x, the Prestige Class Assassin, is an evil assassin. Waiving the alignment requirement can be done by a DM because Rule 0 says so, of course, but the only legitimate reason to do so is to allow a character to have abilities and powers he otherwise wouldn't (i.e. powergaming/optimization). On the other hand, Rule 0 also allows the DM to use the class creation rules--or any others he chooses--to crreate a class that he calls "assassin" that is available to "good" characters, in both "fluff" and "crunch."

[Ambrogino]

Waiving the alignment requirement can be done by a DM because Rule 0 says so, of course, but the only legitimate reason to do so is to allow a character to have abilities and powers he otherwise wouldn't (i.e. powergaming/optimization).

You don't consider the GM waiving the restriction because they think it's stupid to be legitimate. Funnily enough, I disagree with you.

I drop a hell of a lot of rules I think are stupid, with no feedback about optimisation from my players whatsoever. The legitimacy comes from that rule 0, not from the reasoning in choosing to use it.

[Tormsskull]

You don't consider the GM waiving the restriction because they think it's stupid to be legitimate. Funnily enough, I disagree with you.

I drop a hell of a lot of rules I think are stupid, with no feedback about optimisation from my players whatsoever. The legitimacy comes from that rule 0, not from the reasoning in choosing to use it.

Yeah, but a DM that wants to run a stable game has to pay close attention to the rules that he is changing/ignoring. Often times a DM may remove a rule without looking at the full scope of it, and then a problem occurs later down the line.

To me the very idea of a 'good' assassin is crazy, but that's because I think the mindset of a character, roleplaying, and story development are important and I think this would be a huge disconnect in all of that.

I think a lot of people get fed up with the alignment system to a point where they just throw it out all together. Once they start viewing the game without alignment, they don't think the alignment requirements are important for PrCs. The same goes for fluff. Some players/DMs read the fluff, don't like it, throw it out.

Once you throw either of these out you are basically saying that they are not important. And a DM that runs a campaign where alignment/fluff are not important would be so alien to my concept of D&D that I think it would be hard to find similarities between DMing styles.

[Ambrogino]

Often times a DM may remove a rule without looking at the full scope of it, and then a problem occurs later down the line.


Which is why removing individual alignment restrictions is preferable to removing the alignment system entirely. This doesn't make me or any of my players powergaming or optimising.

I already find it hard to comprehend anyone having your interpretation of the Alignment rules wrt real life Tormsskull. I'd be very surprised if you didn't find it hard to find similarities between our DMing styles.

[Diggorian]

Maybe it's me, but the whole assassin thing seems just off-topic axe-grinding (yeah, I'm guilty for discussing it).

Does anyone think the actual fluff of the PrC does not match the crunch?

[Journey]

Does anyone think the actual fluff of the PrC does not match the crunch?

I think the whole reason some DMs lift the alignment restriction is because they feel the fluff doesn't match the crunch.

[Tormsskull]

Which is why removing individual alignment restrictions is preferable to removing the alignment system entirely. This doesn't make me or any of my players powergaming or optimising.


But what are you doing when you remove an individual alignment restriction? You are setting a prescedent. When you say "I disagree with how the assassin is portrayed in this fluff. I want to play an assassin who is good, and only kills using his assassin's skills when the target is evil and needs to be removed." you just invalidated the assassin PrC fluff description.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't do that, just understand what it is that you are doing. Eventually this causes the whole 'if fluff doesn't fit, ignore it' mantra, which as I have said numerous times in the past, is completely against my type of D&D gaming.



I already find it hard to comprehend anyone having your interpretation of the Alignment rules wrt real life Tormsskull. I'd be very surprised if you didn't find it hard to find similarities between our DMing styles.

Yeah, it is just different interpretations of the game, I suppose. I find that my way of doing things leads to the type of gaming I and my players have fun with. I really disdain certain types of campaigns, specifically hack n slash which I see occurs much more often than before. Or campaigns that don't really make sense. That's why I will always argue from a roleplaying perspective rather than a mechanical one.



I think the whole reason some DMs lift the alignment restriction is because they feel the fluff doesn't match the crunch.


I would say that only occurs 1/10 times. The other 9/10 times is the 'I want, I want!" syndrome.

[Mike_G]

Does anyone think the actual fluff of the PrC does not match the crunch?

Since I forget, and I'm not going to reread that many pages, has anyone complained about the Ranger yet?

Why such a specific narrow archetype for a wilderness fighter type? Why the restricted combat styles, and why two weapon? Why do they get spells, and why a specific favorered enemy?

So, all guides, scouts, and so on are dual wielding spellcasters with a mad vengeful streak? What the hell is that all about?

That's why I like the Scout much more for the wilderness skilled fighter type. It's less seemlingly arbitrary. No spells, no favored enemy, no specific combt styles, just bonuses for mobile combat, which makes perfect sense in a light skirmisher, and lots of skill point and the appropriate class skills for a wilderness type.

[Mewtarthio]

So, all guides, scouts, and so on are dual wielding spellcasters with a mad vengeful streak? What the hell is that all about?

Ranger's aren't just guides, scouts, and the like. They're wilderness survivors with a deep connection to nature. And favored enemy doesn't have to mean "mad vengeful streak": It can just mean the type of creature you hunt regularly.

[Mewtarthio]

So, all guides, scouts, and so on are dual wielding spellcasters with a mad vengeful streak? What the hell is that all about?

Ranger's aren't just guides, scouts, and the like. They're wilderness survivors with a deep connection to nature. And favored enemy doesn't have to mean "mad vengeful streak": It can just mean the type of creature you hunt regularly.

[Mike_G]

Ranger's aren't just guides, scouts, and the like. They're wilderness survivors with a deep connection to nature. And favored enemy doesn't have to mean "mad vengeful streak": It can just mean the type of creature you hunt regularly.

But, being the only core class, (pre Scout) other than the Druid, who had any outdoors type skills at all, meant that they did encompass those roles. The Ranger is a very specific arcahetype, as opposed to just about any other core class. Even Paladins or Barbarians aren't confined to a specific combat style (or a choice of two, in 3.5). And if you find the Paldin too confining, the Cleric or Fighter cn easily be tweaked to be an "almost paladin" to fit your specific concept.

There was no way to make a Davy Crockett/Robin Hood/Aragorn type character without getting a bunch of stuff that didn't fit, or multi-classing Ftr/Rogue, slanting your skill choices to outdoors, burning extra feats and gimping the character mechanically. I think the Ranger is far too narrow for an archetype. It's specificity seems more prestige classish, like "Hunter of the X."

I think the Scout is more generic, which I like better in a Core class.

[pestilenceawaits]

I The ranger is the way it is because of previous versions of the game. I think the restricted combat options are strange also. There was a dragon magazine awhile back that had 4 or 5 new options besides the twf or archery paths I think having those available makes the ranger much more adaptable along with the non magic variant in the CW. I really like the favored enemy though and agree with mewtharios view on that.

[Mike_G]

I The ranger is the way it is because of previous versions of the game. I think the restricted combat options are strange also. There was a dragon magazine awhile back that had 4 or 5 new options besides the twf or archery paths I think having those available makes the ranger much more adaptable along with the non magic variant in the CW. I really like the favored enemy though and agree with mewtharios view on that.

If the Scout existed in the PHB, and the Ranger was an option, or a PrC, I'd be fine with it. I just don't think it's a big enough class, fluff or crunch, to accomadate all the traditional wilderness "rangery" archetypes.

I dislike the restrictive combat styles, I dislike the spellcasting,a nd I see the favored enemy as interesting for a certain type of character, but I'd sooner see Terrain Mastery, where you gain bonuses to certain skills (spot, hide, etc) in specific terrains, increasing the bonus and addding more terrain types as you levle up, which was offered in a module as an alternative, for a lot of wilderness concepts.

I think the Ranger as written is much more specific and prestige classy than say, Fighter or Rogue or Wizard, or pretty much anything except possibly the Paladin.

[pestilenceawaits]

If the Scout existed in the PHB, and the Ranger was an option, or a PrC, I'd be fine with it. I just don't think it's a big enough class, fluff or crunch, to accomadate all the traditional wilderness "rangery" archetypes.

I dislike the restrictive combat styles, I dislike the spellcasting,a nd I see the favored enemy as interesting for a certain type of character, but I'd sooner see Terrain Mastery, where you gain bonuses to certain skills (spot, hide, etc) in specific terrains, increasing the bonus and addding more terrain types as you levle up, which was offered in a module as an alternative, for a lot of wilderness concepts.

I think the Ranger as written is much more specific and prestige classy than say, Fighter or Rogue or Wizard, or pretty much anything except possibly the Paladin.

I think you are right for the most part, but the ranger is built into the game in a strange way. There are a ton of PrCs that require a hated enemy and the baggage of previous versions of the game keep the ranger from really becoming anything other than what it is.

[MrNexx]

But, being the only core class, (pre Scout) other than the Druid, who had any outdoors type skills at all,

Barbarian?

[Rumda]

Nope; he's definitly an assassin. That's what the 00 means.
actually bond has had ninja training in you only live twice,

[Diggorian]

I think the whole reason some DMs lift the alignment restriction is because they feel the fluff doesn't match the crunch.

I find this hard to believe as nothing in the fluff contradicts having an evil alignment.

Rangers I never had much of a problem with (but enjoy the new topic). :smallamused:

What other combat styles do ya wanna see? Two handed? Thrown? Firearms? Swapping out the feats the RAW gives for feats along one of these paths would do it.

[Mewtarthio]

I suppose we are overlooking the possiblity that WotC really didn't intend to stick Rangers on one of two paths but just couldn't think of anything other than "archery" and "two-weapon fighting." Well, there's also "two-handed fighting," with a path that takes things like PA and Leap Attack to maximize damage, but a Ranger with a Greatsword seems a touch ridiculous to me.

[pestilenceawaits]

I suppose we are overlooking the possiblity that WotC really didn't intend to stick Rangers on one of two paths but just couldn't think of anything other than "archery" and "two-weapon fighting." Well, there's also "two-handed fighting," with a path that takes things like PA and Leap Attack to maximize damage, but a Ranger with a Greatsword seems a touch ridiculous to me.

What about Minsc?

[Maglor_Grubb]

Yeah, I could totaly see that, a ranger with THF. He could call his sword Andúril!

[Fhaolan]

The various base classes and PrCs don't always have fluff and crunch line up nicely in individual campaigns. Even in 'generic' campaigns there are glitchy things going on.

I know a couple of people who have attempted to truely genericize d20 D&D, by rejiggering all the classes. This falls under the 'to much work to be worth it' as far as I'm concerned. :)

What they've done is reduce all the classes down to three base classes: Warrior (feat based with ToB-like combat forms), Mystic (a Sorcerer-type but requires Wizard-like specializations), Rogue (skill based). All other classes are PrC's or multi-classes off of these three. The Cleric is a Warrior/Mystic, the Ranger is a Warrior/Rogue, the Bard is the Rogue/Mystic. Paladin is a Prc off of a Cleric, Druid is a nature-specialized Mystic, etc.

I've not played with them. I'm just vaguely aware of what they've done. Again, it seems more work than it's worth to me.

[pestilenceawaits]

There is a variant that is very similar to this in the SRD.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm

[Captain van der Decken]

I agree that Ranger can be fairly narrow. I think the only problems are the spells and the animal companion. If there were options to take instead of those, the class could cover pretty much any wilderness character. Favoured Enemy could be a problem, but less so.

[Stephen_E]

Maybe it's me, but the whole assassin thing seems just off-topic axe-grinding (yeah, I'm guilty for discussing it).

Does anyone think the actual fluff of the PrC does not match the crunch?

Well depending on whether you define the alignment restriction for entry (note: The restriction is for entry only, not continuing in the class) and the requirement to kill for entry, as fluff or crunch, I'd say that the alignment restriction matchs neither the other fluff or crunch.

None of the abilities are specifically evil (look at Blackguard if you want an example of abilities that are clearly evil). Poison use ISN'T per se "Evil" (it is often considered dishonourable and illegal, but that isn't evil).

The fluff is that they are Spys, Informants, Killers for hire, or Agents of vengance. None of these things are evil. NPC Assassins work in Guilds or Secret Societies. Again nothing evil.

The only bit that hints at evil is "Sometimes they serve more powerful evil characters singly or in a group", but even that is a farly broad statement that equally applies to the Fighter class.

In short there is nothing in the class that supports the Evil Alignment and Murder for entry prereqs, other than the realworld prejudice that has been created around non-Govt Assassins. Note I say non-govt Assassins. Your Military Snipers, Govt Spys (when they're on your side), inteligance field agents all fit in the Assassin class, and are considered ok by most people (and the response by those who think Assassins should be evil, will be to insist these approved assassins aren't really assassins)

The Assassin must be evil argument seems to run that Assassins are evil, and if you have all the assassin abilities, but aren't evil, you're not an assassin, but some other class that smells, looks and sounds like assassin, but isn't.

Note that the absense of debate on the Blackguard class. It is "cool" and has interesting abilities (the reasons some suggest for people wanting non-evil assassins) but no ones arguing that they shouldn't have to be evil to enter.

Stephen

[Scorpina]

What about Minsc?

He'd probably be a Barbarian in Third Edition.

[pestilenceawaits]

He'd probably be a Barbarian in Third Edition.

Probably true.

[Talyn]

Yeah, I could totaly see that, a ranger with THF. He could call his sword Andúril!

"Ranger" was to Aragorn what "Samurai" is to Miko. It's his job/place in the world, not his class. I figure Aragorn is either a Fighter or a low-magic Paladin with a homebrew prestige class of some kind. Yeah, he can track and he's got his Knowledge: Nature skill maxed out, but you don't see a whole lot of D&D ranger in him otherwise.

[MrNexx]

On the contrary, I see a lot of (A)D&D ranger in him.

It's just that Ranger has changed from "wilderness warrior who fights humanoids" to "two-weapon or archer fighter with critters following him around."

Hmm... reinterpretation of LotR into D&D for a moment... Aragorn was a PC, with two demihuman followers (Leggo-lass and Gimli).

[Mike_G]

Barbarian?

Not really.

Or, kinda, but that compounds the problem, not solves it.

While making up an Aragorn or Robin Hood or Kit Carson/Davy Crockett type as a Ranger, the spells and Animal Companion are incongruous, making them up as a Barbarian makes even less sense. The Barbarian is a secific archetype, and works for that type of character, the R E Howard, Fritz Leiber, Karl Edward Wagner style pulp hero.

And of all fantasy literature, who is more of an archetypical Ranger than Aragorn? If the class doesn't fit him, who does it fit. Beside the Drow Who Must Not be Named.

[Scorpina]

Oh yes, gods forbid a class might be modelled on a non-Tolkein character...

[Mike_G]

Oh yes, gods forbid a class might be modelled on a non-Tolkein character...


Lots of classes are modelled on non-Tolkein characters.

In fact, I can't think of a class that is, other than possibly the Ranger, badly. There are no Assassins or Rogues or Paladins or Clerics or Druids in any of JRRT's works.

D&D Wizards and Sorcerers are nothing like the Gandalf-style LOTR wizard, and have multiple sources and origins. Fighters are from everywhere, as are Rogues. Barbarians are based off the Conan style pulps, monks off Jackie Chan movies and Kung Fu. God knows where the Druid and Cleric came from, other than very poor representations of real life religious orders.

Races pretty much steal from Tolkien. Classes not so much

[Scorpina]

I object more to the idea that the Ranger class might be influenced by Drizzt is horrific beyond belief, while the idea that it's modelled on Aragorn is just dandy...

[MrNexx]

And of all fantasy literature, who is more of an archetypical Ranger than Aragorn? If the class doesn't fit him, who does it fit. Beside the Drow Who Must Not be Named.

Gwydion, Prince of Don (The Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander; based upon the Gwydion of Welsh mythology)
Fionn Mac Cumhaill, Leader of the Fianna (aka Finn McCool; not quite fantasy literature but...)
Ullr, son of Sif and stepson of Thor (Norse god of the hunt; also good to call upon in duels; again, not fantasy literature)

[Mike_G]

I object more to the idea that the Ranger class might be influenced by Drizzt is horrific beyond belief, while the idea that it's modelled on Aragorn is just dandy...

Drizzt should not be able to influence D&D, since he was created as a D&D character.

The books were written based on D&D First Edition, like Dragon Lance. The (1e) Ranger already existed before Drizzt, and thus any influence is ackbasswards.

Basically it would be like modelling a class in a Harry Potter d20 off a character in an HP fanfic, as opposed to the original.

[Talyn]

Harry... Potter... d20.

I'm both horrified and strangely fascinated. Does it exist!?

[FdL]

I object more to the idea that the Ranger class might be influenced by Drizzt is horrific beyond belief, while the idea that it's modelled on Aragorn is just dandy...

QFT.

IMHO the link between LOTR and D&D is so lost in the years and tenuous that people shouldn't bother bringing it up anymore. Besides, there's so much of a point in "decoding" Aragorn or other LOTR character's class as in doing it with Batman or Indiana Jones.

Personally I don't consider Drizzt a four letter word, and I agree in that it IS an influence to present day D&D.

Incidentally, I recall that in Tolkien's work the race/class stereotypes are too mixed, and sometimes indivisible. Except for humans.

[Mike_G]

QFT.


Incidentally, I recall that in Tolkien's work the race/class stereotypes are too mixed, and sometimes indivisible. Except for humans.

Huh?

What race/class stereotypes?

[Fhaolan]

There is a variant that is very similar to this in the SRD.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm

It might even be what they are using, but I was under the impression that they came up with it on their own. I could be wrong, of course, it's been quite some time since I talked with them. :)

[FdL]

Huh?

What race/class stereotypes?

All dwarves are axe-wielding fighters. All hobbits are "rogue-like". Elves do what elves do, so they are archers and light swordsmen types, with just a dash of magic.

I know that these are moderately big generalizations :p , but are clearly there.

[Matthew]

Yup, Rangers annoy the hell out of me.

The film version of Aragorn may have a nice big sword, but the book version has Sword, Shield, Mail and Helm from Edoras onwards...

Rangers are definitely first on my list of Core Base Classes in need of revision.

[Stephen_E]

A large part of the problem I have with Rangers centre on 2 things.
1) The silly half your level counts towards CL and Animal Companions.

2) None of the core (or splat books I've seen) semi-spell users work, and no prestige caster advancement class works with them. Note - I don't have PHB2 - I'm aware that many consider Duskblade a workable semi-spell user, but I haven't seen it.

When I say they don't work - I mean the spellcasting side of them all tend to be lame.

I can't help wondering if they allowed stronger Animal Companions and stronger casting progrssion as "Combat Style" options, would it be more interesting.

Stephen

[Tormsskull]

The fluff is that they are Spys, Informants, Killers for hire, or Agents of vengance. None of these things are evil. NPC Assassins work in Guilds or Secret Societies. Again nothing evil.

The only bit that hints at evil is "Sometimes they serve more powerful evil characters singly or in a group", but even that is a farly broad statement that equally applies to the Fighter class.


So I suppose "Their training in anatomy, stealth, poison, and the dark arts allows them to carry out missions of death with shocking, terrifying precision" isn't suggesting they are evil in the slightest?

Again, if you want to argue from the point that you should be able to alter them to be non-evil, I disagree but fine. If you are seriously going to try to argue that their fluff does not represent them as evil then let me give you a little Peter Griffin "C'mon! C'mon! C'mon!"

[Mewtarthio]

In short there is nothing in the class that supports the Evil Alignment and Murder for entry prereqs, other than the realworld prejudice that has been created around non-Govt Assassins. Note I say non-govt Assassins. Your Military Snipers, Govt Spys (when they're on your side), inteligance field agents all fit in the Assassin class, and are considered ok by most people (and the response by those who think Assassins should be evil, will be to insist these approved assassins aren't really assassins)

Military Snipers, assuming they shoot military targets, are just well-hidden soldiers with really good accuracy. Intelligence agents are probably better covered by "Rogue": Rogues train in all kinds of stealthy things (including the ability to kill people effecienctly via Sneak Attack) whereas Assassins are focused primarily on killing people effeciently. Rogues get those two extra skill points that let them focus on other valuable skills and tricks.

[Dareon]

The ranger works decently enough in crunch and fluff both, although I have my problems with its crunch.

The slow style feat progression (I have little to no problem with the choice between dual-wield or archery), the half-casting, and the occasionally relatively weak animal companion are the biggies, and I see I'm not alone in these gripes. All can be fixed, if you don't mind straying a little off-core.

Complete Warrior has the non-spellcasting variant, who instead gets some SLAs and miscellany.

For combat style, you can either give them wild shape and fast movement (d20srd.org) in exchange, or Dragon 326 has five new progressions.

As for animal companion, the PHBII has the Distracting Attack replacement, which is very handy.

Throw all three of these on one character and your other players will look at you VERY oddly. But you'll be interesting!

Additionally, you can trick your Ranger out with all manner of nifty things to take advantage of some of their abilities. Two-Weapon Pounce and Rend (PHBII) are handy if you take that style, Races of the Wild has a few things to aid your animal companion and such, and there are others, mostly feats, too numerous to count. (Seriously, you can't even get 1% of the available feats out there over 20 levels, there's bound to be something you'd like and can take.)

[Stephen_E]

So I suppose "Their training in anatomy, stealth, poison, and the dark arts allows them to carry out missions of death with shocking, terrifying precision" isn't suggesting they are evil in the slightest?



No. At least not in DnD terms, where "carry out missions of death with shocking, terrifying precision" covers all the melee types.
"Dark arts" is the traditional term for magic, and frankly the Assassin spell list doesn't look particuly evil.
"Stealth" = Evil? Now whose been silly....
Anatomy and Poison. Gosh, I never realsied all those Doctors and Herbalists where evil. It explains so much...............

In short, scarey, yes, evil, no.

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

Military Snipers, assuming they shoot military targets, are just well-hidden soldiers with really good accuracy. Intelligence agents are probably better covered by "Rogue": Rogues train in all kinds of stealthy things (including the ability to kill people effecienctly via Sneak Attack) whereas Assassins are focused primarily on killing people effeciently. Rogues get those two extra skill points that let them focus on other valuable skills and tricks.

Sniping so matchs Death Attack (except the Assassin can be non-lethal). Snipers sit under cover and kill people who never see them, and often have no idea someones about to kill them. That is so the fluff and crunch of Assassin's combat style. Is an assassin adventuring with a party less the assassin.

Inteligence agents may well be covered by Rogues, but since Rogue is the easiest entry into Assassin, and they specifically say Assassins are Spys, Informants, and Agents of Vengance, I think you're hard put to claim that at least some Feild Op Intell Agents don't fit the Assassin class (not all, but some).

As for the "Assassins are focused on killing" myth that keeps coming up. Assassins don't have full BAB, get no faster Sneak Attack advancement than Rogues, no killer spells, and "Death Attack" may be scary sounding, but is pretty weak, and despite it's name is designed to kill OR paraylyse. So the Killer Assassin is one of the classes designed to take people alive!

In short. The Assassin class isn't particuly focused on killing by DnD standards.

Stephen

[Ambrogino]

Yeah, it is just different interpretations of the game, I suppose. I find that my way of doing things leads to the type of gaming I and my players have fun with. I really disdain certain types of campaigns, specifically hack n slash which I see occurs much more often than before. Or campaigns that don't really make sense. That's why I will always argue from a roleplaying perspective rather than a mechanical one.

Emphasis mine. That's the entire point of the change - to me, arbitrary restrictions that don't make sense to me are stupid, and need to be removed to retain My verimisilitude. As Stephen said - people aren't complaining about the Blackguards restrictions, as to them they make sense. To many people Assasins' doesn't.



I would say that only occurs 1/10 times. The other 9/10 times is the 'I want, I want!" syndrome.

Only the GM is capable of making the change, the players wants have nothing to do with it. If he disagrees, it doesn't matter what they want. If he thinks it's stupid, it doesn't matter whether they'll want the change or not, he'll make it anyway. So I very much disagree with your ad hoc statistic, unless you also believe 9/10 GM's do whatever their players want regardless of their own opinions.

[Tormsskull]

No. At least not in DnD terms, where "carry out missions of death with shocking, terrifying precision" covers all the melee types.


Can you explain what your definition of DnD terms is? Have you thought perhaps your interpretation of this specific fluff is incorrect?



"Dark arts" is the traditional term for magic, and frankly the Assassin spell list doesn't look particuly evil.


Ok, so you read "dark arts" and it made you think magic. Did it make you think of a particular kind of magic? Perhaps, evil magic? Magic used to injure/kill/do evil things. But then you looked at the Assassin spell list and decided that you did not agree with what the designers considered "dark arts". Ok.



"Stealth" = Evil? Now whose been silly....


I was posting the entire sentence for your reading ease, I wasn't implying that each and every word in the quote screamed evil.



Anatomy and Poison. Gosh, I never realsied all those Doctors and Herbalists where evil. It explains so much...............


I'd say this is a lack of reading the passage in context. If there was a class called 'Doctor' and the fluff explained how they studied anatomy in order to perfect their healing ability, that would be one thing. But when the class is called 'assassin' and the requirement is that a person has to be evil, I think it is safe to say that the assassin is studying anatomy to know how to end life most effectively.

And calling an herbalist as someone who uses poison is an absurd arguement. Using your language, in 'D&D terms' poison is meant to injure/kill/debilitate people. I can't think of any core effect in D&D that is described as a 'poison' that doesn't have a negative effect on someone's health.



Emphasis mine. That's the entire point of the change - to me, arbitrary restrictions that don't make sense to me are stupid, and need to be removed to retain My verimisilitude. As Stephen said - people aren't complaining about the Blackguards restrictions, as to them they make sense. To many people Assasins' doesn't.


Assassins have been romanticized in pop culture and media. People read a book or watch a movie with an assassin and think 'That's way cool!' Thus they want to be able to play such a character in D&D. The same is not true for the Blackguard.



Only the GM is capable of making the change, the players wants have nothing to do with it. If he disagrees, it doesn't matter what they want. If he thinks it's stupid, it doesn't matter whether they'll want the change or not, he'll make it anyway. So I very much disagree with your ad hoc statistic, unless you also believe 9/10 GM's do whatever their players want regardless of their own opinions.


I'm not sure I am conveying my point clearly. I would see this change occuring because of a player request, such as when a player says "Hey DM, can I be a good assassin?" Then the DM has to decide weather or not to allow it. If the DM says no, and then the player says "But I want to play that really bad!" That is "I want, I want" syndrome.

[Ambrogino]

Assassins have been romanticized in pop culture and media. People read a book or watch a movie with an assassin and think 'That's way cool!' Thus they want to be able to play such a character in D&D. The same is not true for the Blackguard.

The Anti-Paladin's not romanticised? What about Darth Vader, enormous pop-culture icon. I'm sure I could find dozens more if I bothered to dig. People know the anti-paladin's evil, but some think assasin's (like anyone who kills people) are open to interpretation. But your (frankly, still absurd and insulting) interpretation of all members of any military as evil will preclude any non-evil assasin interpretation.


I'm not sure I am conveying my point clearly. I would see this change occuring because of a player request, such as when a player says "Hey DM, can I be a good assassin?" Then the DM has to decide weather or not to allow it. If the DM says no, and then the player says "But I want to play that really bad!" That is "I want, I want" syndrome.

Who cares what the players then says? The DM's made his decision - if the player doesn't like it he can find a different game. And why are you fixated that removing a restiction to only Evil means people automatically become good - what about Neutral?

[Tormsskull]

The Anti-Paladin's not romanticised? What about Darth Vader, enormous pop-culture icon. I'm sure I could find dozens more if I bothered to dig. People know the anti-paladin's evil, but some think assasin's (like anyone who kills people) are open to interpretation.


I think Darth Vader's fame comes from the fact that he is a bad guy who gives up his own quest for power in order to save his son, showing that he wasn't truly pure evil all along. Also I am sure that being apart of one of the most popular series of movies ever created had something to do with it.

Some people also thought Belkar was open to interpretation, even when the person who created him said they were wrong.



But your (frankly, still absurd and insulting) interpretation of all members of any military as evil will preclude any non-evil assasin interpretation.


I've addressed my reasons with you in a PM, rather than derailing the thread. Frankly, I'm disappointed in your inability to accept other people's opinions. We can discuss all we want, and as I have said before, everyone is entitled to their own opinons. Don't you think that is important to foster an online community where people can disagree on things?



Who cares what the players then says? The DM's made his decision - if the player doesn't like it he can find a different game. And why are you fixated that removing a restiction to only Evil means people automatically become good - what about Neutral?

That's a very narrow-minded DM perspective. If a DM makes a ruling he should be able to explain it to his players and give them the reasons why things are the way they are, not simply say "I am the DM, what I say goes."

As far a neutral, yeah I mentioned before that would be easier to argue than good, but since some people (Stephen in particular) were trying to say that the assassin description only barely hinted at an evil alignment, I infered that he was claiming that an assassin could be good.

[Matthew]

I think it is more the case that the Anti-Hero has become more popular over the years, leading to a greater sympathy with assassination 'when done for the greater good'.

[Dark]

I think Darth Vader's fame comes from the fact that he is a bad guy who gives up his own quest for power in order to save his son, showing that he wasn't truly pure evil all along.
I'm pretty sure it's the suit and the voice, actually :)

The whole redemption thing was a bit uncool, and people rarely mention it when fantasizing about Darth Vader. They're more likely to do the "Failure is not an option" bit, or "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further".

Besides, saving his son hardly makes up for blowing up Alderaan. Assassinating the Emperor, though -- that was probably the best thing Darth Vader's ever done!

[Orzel]

The Assassin PrC is the No. 1 reason why I hate 1 word PrCs that are not compound words. The name overcomes the idea easily because of synonyms. We don't have this problem with Arcane Archers. I'd laugh at a someone who wanted to take the casting prereq out of that class. The last guy who wanted a good blackguard is still being mocked.

"Isn't that a whiteguard." "No it's a moonguard. Hail. Lunarion!"

The whole "Assassins are assasssins".and "Bodyguards are fighters." annoy me. Members of the assassin class are all "Evil Assailants" in my book. Roll a rogue or ranger.

[Tormsskull]

I'm pretty sure it's the suit and the voice, actually :)


Hehe, good point.



The whole redemption thing was a bit uncool, and people rarely mention it when fantasizing about Darth Vader. They're more likely to do the "Failure is not an option" bit, or "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further".


Yeah. That I would say is mostly because it is way cooler to be in a group of your peers and say catch phrases like "If you only knew the POWER of the darkside" rather than "Let me look on you with my own eyes".



Besides, saving his son hardly makes up for blowing up Alderaan. Assassinating the Emperor, though -- that was probably the best thing Darth Vader's ever done!

I have a theory which I think makes a lot of sense about this, but boy are we talking about another derail. I'm sure Darth Vader will get hiw own thread sooner or later :)

[MrNexx]

Sniping so matchs Death Attack (except the Assassin can be non-lethal). Snipers sit under cover and kill people who never see them, and often have no idea someones about to kill them. That is so the fluff and crunch of Assassin's combat style. Is an assassin adventuring with a party less the assassin.


Is it a death attack? Or is it a Sneak Attack with a high-damage weapon, improved critical, and favored enemy (human)? If you were looking at the results, do you think you could tell the difference?

[JellyPooga]

Is it a death attack? Or is it a Sneak Attack with a high-damage weapon, improved critical, and favored enemy (human)? If you were looking at the results, do you think you could tell the difference?

I would say that sniping is certainly more like Death Attack than SA+ImpCrit+FavEnemy on account of most sniping takes at least a little time to prepare effectively. The SA approach can be done spontaneously, the DA can't. A sniper in the middle of a firefight, whilst trying to dodge bullets, is not going to do the same job as when he has time to prepare. Sure, the results are the same, but the execution (heh) is different. Just like cooking beans in the microwave or on a stove is different.

Just my 2p.

[Ambrogino]

Don't you think that is important to foster an online community where people can disagree on things?

Very much so - but there are certain opinions which whilst may be held, are considered verboten to display in polite company. I do consider your's on this particular subject to be one of them. But to be honest, I do aplogise for bringing it up again, as I was merely trying to illustrate why I feel your position on Evil (rather than Assasin) would preclude many other peoples position on Assasin (rather than Evil)


That's a very narrow-minded DM perspective. If a DM makes a ruling he should be able to explain it to his players and give them the reasons why things are the way they are, not simply say "I am the DM, what I say goes."

I'm presuming a good DM would have given his reasoning when he initially turned down the players request, not wait to be moaned at before giving it. Given he's already explained his reasoning, I see no reason to suffer any further whining about that decision.

[MrNexx]

I would say that sniping is certainly more like Death Attack than SA+ImpCrit+FavEnemy on account of most sniping takes at least a little time to prepare effectively. The SA approach can be done spontaneously, the DA can't. A sniper in the middle of a firefight, whilst trying to dodge bullets, is not going to do the same job as when he has time to prepare. Sure, the results are the same, but the execution (heh) is different. Just like cooking beans in the microwave or on a stove is different.


Yes, but sniping also violates the 30' rule... a good portion of that set-up time is getting data to make up for the fact that you might be half a mile away.

[Dan_Hemmens]

So, all guides, scouts, and so on are dual wielding spellcasters with a mad vengeful streak? What the hell is that all about?


To be fair, the same is true of pretty much every core class in D&D. They take a single broad archetype and model it in a single specific way.

Look at Wizards. There's a thousand and one different ways a "Wizard" could work in a fantasy setting. They could be like Gandalf (few explicit powers, a lot of meddling in politics), like Ged (True Names and a couple of spells), like Elric (demons demons and more demons), like Merlin or like Dr Faustus.

That's just how D&D character classes work. They pick your interpretation of the archetype for you.

[Gamebird]

The Assassin PrC is the No. 1 reason why I hate 1 word PrCs that are not compound words. The name overcomes the idea easily because of synonyms. We don't have this problem with Arcane Archers. I'd laugh at a someone who wanted to take the casting prereq out of that class. The last guy who wanted a good blackguard is still being mocked.

"Isn't that a whiteguard." "No it's a moonguard. Hail. Lunarion!"

The whole "Assassins are assasssins".and "Bodyguards are fighters." annoy me. Members of the assassin class are all "Evil Assailants" in my book. Roll a rogue or ranger.

Good point. I agree. It's the name that's causing the dispute - not the class abilities or fluff. If you had a class called "Evil Assailant" with all the Assassin fluff and crunch, I don't think anyone would argue that the fluff and crunch were out of synch.


Very much so - but there are certain opinions which whilst may be held, are considered verboten to display in polite company. I do consider your's on this particular subject to be one of them.

But does an internet community reflect polite company, with the restrictions on discussing controversial topics of any kind? Should it?

I took a tour of the Alexander Ramsey house a few months ago. He was a muckety-muck in Minnesota back in 1850-1900. The tour guide talked about the very limited topics of conversation allowed for polite entertaining. Anyone in the sitting room was not allowed to discuss current events, politics, religion, other people, the world around them, dreams, hopes or pretty much anything. The allowed list was the weather or curios in the room that had been placed there specifically by the host so they could be discussed.

Our society has changed a lot (though who knows - perhaps the rules only apply to a certain social station and it may be this hasn't changed at all - it's just that more people are talking, on internet forums and elsewhere, who aren't part of the elite). I know the Giant has forbiddon some topics and wants to have a board where flaming doesn't occur. The problem isn't the points of view themselves - I'm sure Rich Burlew holds some controversial points of view. The problem is people getting upset about them.



I'm presuming a good DM would have given his reasoning when he initially turned down the players request, not wait to be moaned at before giving it. Given he's already explained his reasoning, I see no reason to suffer any further whining about that decision.

Good point. I've found that it's fine to argue things out or discuss them as equals, sitting around and having a drink, or while eating, or whatever. But when speaking as DM, deliver your ruling and don't be drawn into justifying it or trying to make your players agree with it. They don't have to be persuaded. They just have to obey the new rule.

[Ambrogino]

But does an internet community reflect polite company, with the restrictions on discussing controversial topics of any kind? Should it?

Given this individual internet community already has restrictions and moderation what what is considered reasonable to discuss, I say yes. It's possible to discuss controversial topics without proclaiming personally held controversial opinions, and I think it's the latter that's more likely to cause flaming and offense. /tangent

[Starbuck_II]

To be fair, the same is true of pretty much every core class in D&D. They take a single broad archetype and model it in a single specific way.

Look at Wizards. There's a thousand and one different ways a "Wizard" could work in a fantasy setting. They could be like Gandalf (few explicit powers, a lot of meddling in politics), like Ged (True Names and a couple of spells), like Elric (demons demons and more demons), like Merlin or like Dr Faustus.

That's just how D&D character classes work. They pick your interpretation of the archetype for you.
Gandalf fits better as Sorceror as he had no Spellbook.
Ged would be a Truenamer.
Elric...I'm not sure Wizard I guess.

Merlin was Favored Soul. He was more divine than arcane.

[Maglor_Grubb]

Very much so - but there are certain opinions which whilst may be held, are considered verboten to display in polite company. I do consider your's on this particular subject to be one of them.

Excuse me? Did you just say: "Your opinion on this topic differs so much from mine, that it 'is considered' inpolite to speak of it"?

And then you go on in a next post saying that it is good to discuss a controversial topic, but only if the participants are not allowed to express their own opinions on the topic? (I wonder how you want to discuss it, then)

It might be the culture barrier that causes this, but I find this a very controversial opinion. That's the problem with international fora, everyone has other values and comes from different society's were different things are considered controversial, polite or simple normal. This is the Giant's sandbox, so he has some rules to make sure it stays at least inside what he deems appropriate, but last time I checked, there was no rule against being opposed to killing.

[Gamebird]

Excuse me? Did you just say: "Your opinion on this topic differs so much from mine, that it 'is considered' inpolite to speak of it"?

Here in the US, it is okay to express mainstream opinions, even quite strongly. [snipped things that I'm not allowed to talk about. See PM.] It is not okay to express opinions that are not held by the majority, or which the majority might find offensive.

[MrNexx]

Here in the US, it is okay to express mainstream opinions, even quite strongly. [snipped things that I'm not allowed to talk about. See PM.] It is not okay to express opinions that are not held by the majority, or which the majority might find offensive.

I was not aware of this. I say things that people find offensive all the time.

[Orzel]

If everyone is doing or saying it, you can do it or say it. It's in the 4.75 ed. of the handbook.
...
...

The names of the classes in DnD hold too much mental weight. (Too) Many fluff vs crunch problems are caused by a build chosen by the classes name rather than abilities. Then when the class is chosen, the abilities have to be changed to fit. DnD classes aren't general enough to fit each flavor. If the classes were all guids or schools instead, arguing would seem silly. They don't teach "X" in "Y" school. You must be an "A" to be in the "B" guild. Apply elswhere.

[Stephen_E]

The Assassin PrC is the No. 1 reason why I hate 1 word PrCs that are not compound words. The name overcomes the idea easily because of synonyms. We don't have this problem with Arcane Archers. I'd laugh at a someone who wanted to take the casting prereq out of that class. The last guy who wanted a good blackguard is still being mocked.

"Isn't that a whiteguard." "No it's a moonguard. Hail. Lunarion!"

The whole "Assassins are assasssins".and "Bodyguards are fighters." annoy me. Members of the assassin class are all "Evil Assailants" in my book. Roll a rogue or ranger.

I think you've summed up where a lot of the two opinions split.
To many people the word "Assassin" has a silent "Evil" in front of it (Orzel himself makes the point with his "Assassin = Evil Assailent". For others "Assassin" is more like my dictionary definition (Collins Modern English 1978) - "One who assassinates", and "Assassinate" = "Murder someone by sudden attack (ussually for political reasons)".

If the class was named "Evil Assassin" I wouldn't argue. It's not.

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1843784#post1843784)
No. At least not in DnD terms, where "carry out missions of death with shocking, terrifying precision" covers all the melee types.


Can you explain what your definition of DnD terms is? Have you thought perhaps your interpretation of this specific fluff is incorrect?

In DnD killing is the path to gaining XP and advancing your character. There are some ancillary ways and variations, but the core method is, and awlays has been, kill creatures, mostly sentient creatures. In DnD terms killing isn't evil. Killing by stealth isn't evil. Killing for gain isn't evil. In DnD killing is essentially a neutral activity until placed in a context. If killing is done to knowingly advance evil it is evil. If killing is done to knowingly advance good or defeat evil, it's good. Whatever you think about killing in real-life it is important when discussing DnD to remember that in DnD everybody, good, bad or neutral (ugly :-) ), kills.
My interpretation could indeed be incorrect but the weight of DnD history would suggest otherwise. Have you considered yours might?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1843784#post1843784)
"Dark arts" is the traditional term for magic, and frankly the Assassin spell list doesn't look particuly evil.



Ok, so you read "dark arts" and it made you think magic. Did it make you think of a particular kind of magic? Perhaps, evil magic? Magic used to injure/kill/do evil things. But then you looked at the Assassin spell list and decided that you did not agree with what the designers considered "dark arts". Ok.

"Dark Arts" is a traditional term (particuly in Europe) for arcane magic. It is the reason that most settings have the common people be uneasy about arcane magic. Note - it wasn't that any particular spell was "dark" but that magic not from a divine god was inherently suspect. If they meant something else by "Dark Arts" in this case I'd like to know what?



I was posting the entire sentence for your reading ease, I wasn't implying that each and every word in the quote screamed evil.

I would go further and say the entire sentance didn't scream "Evil". "Disturbing" and "Dangerous"? Yes, "Dodgy" even (although that appies to Adventurers as a whole). James Bond in book and much of the movies has been a suave and charming exterior covering a cold calculating killer that appears as needed. Definitely a disturbing character when described, but not per se "Evil".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1843784#post1843784)
Anatomy and Poison. Gosh, I never realsied all those Doctors and Herbalists where evil. It explains so much...............


I'd say this is a lack of reading the passage in context. If there was a class called 'Doctor' and the fluff explained how they studied anatomy in order to perfect their healing ability, that would be one thing. But when the class is called 'assassin' and the requirement is that a person has to be evil, I think it is safe to say that the assassin is studying anatomy to know how to end life most effectively.

This raises several points I addressed in the post I just made. You are conflating the terms "Assassin" and "end life" with evil. Outside of the prereq which we're arguing over there is no consistent equivalence in real-life, fiction, or DnD for the former, and while the latter is considered equivalent by some in real-life, it most certainly ISN'T in DnD.


And calling an herbalist as someone who uses poison is an absurd arguement. Using your language, in 'D&D terms' poison is meant to injure/kill/debilitate people. I can't think of any core effect in D&D that is described as a 'poison' that doesn't have a negative effect on someone's health.

Herbalists are trained in Poison. I didn't say they used it, and neither did the fluff on Assassins. They're trained in Poisons. Any Herbalist worth there salt has some training in poison. Herbalism is making substances from herbs, and many poisons come from herbs, as well as treatment against poisons. My point is that "Trained in Poisons" isn't evil except in context, and that given "killing" isn't evil without context, neither is killing with poision "evil" without contect (although it IS dishounourable by the Paladin code. But the Paladin code isn't a definition of evil).

Stephen

[Dareon]

With thought, I have come to the conclusion that the Assassin might be more easily palatable if their alignment requirement was changed to "any lawful", placing them more in line with historical basis, and adding a code of conduct to each alignment, violation or alignment change carries the same penalties as losing paladin status. For instance, an LG Assassin would have strictures against using Con poison and be required to only paralyze with their death attack.

I'd still be leery of letting a PC take the class, simply because of one thing: They're guild-based. This can be worked around, often in the form of supplying hooks, but do you know if an assassin's guild would be amenable to hiring the 3 or more other people the assassin has following him around, with nothing more than a "Oh, them? They're cool. Don't mind the guy in shiny armor, he's cool. Just, uh, carry a lead sheet if you need to talk with him."?

Anyway, the assassin discussion has its intended effect, we have determined that the fluff of the assassin collides with its crunch, but only in the region of the alignment prerequisite. Each of us has our own opinions, now may we please stop attempting to persuade everyone else that our opinion is the only correct one? Edit: Wow, WTF. The Quick Reply box is kinda borkish.

[TimeWizard]

I may have found the light of insight into this argument. I received a 3rd edition (i think) splatbook (or something, i'm really not sure what constitutes a splat book) as a christmas gift from my dm. the book you ask?

The Assassin's Handbook
It's a book about the Assassin base class. The alignment restriction is nongood. Death attack is called killing blow, a variant sneak attack (they get sneak attack too). Check it out, it has the stamp MASTER CLASS if that means anything to anyone, by green ronin publishing.

Ok, it really doesn't help the argument but Assassin's are cool and i wanted to share.

[Yahzi]

Killing an orc in the face
:smallbiggrin:

That's just classic.

:smallbiggrin:

[Tormsskull]

In DnD killing is the path to gaining XP and advancing your character. There are some ancillary ways and variations, but the core method is, and awlays has been, kill creatures, mostly sentient creatures. In DnD terms killing isn't evil. Killing by stealth isn't evil. Killing for gain isn't evil. In DnD killing is essentially a neutral activity until placed in a context. If killing is done to knowingly advance evil it is evil. If killing is done to knowingly advance good or defeat evil, it's good. Whatever you think about killing in real-life it is important when discussing DnD to remember that in DnD everybody, good, bad or neutral (ugly :-) ), kills.


I disagree. Killing is nearly always evil. Your typical D&D game paints everyone the PCs come up against as EVIL, thereby exonerating them from having performed an evil act themselves. Instead of delving into minute details about weather or not Mr. X is truly evil or perhaps only misguided, he will actually be pure evil, trying to summon demons, or doing other things that are super obvious evil.



My interpretation could indeed be incorrect but the weight of DnD history would suggest otherwise. Have you considered yours might?


The weight of D&D history? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I've played since Basic, I've been in hundreds of different campaigns with various different DMs and run many myself as well. Aside from when I was really young, I can't recall being in an adventure where we could kill NPCs/monsters without having to worry about the reprecussions/consequences. I did consider my interpretation could be incorrect, but since my intepretation is murder = evil & 'Assassin' class = assassin like I imagine them, and the D&D designers painted a perfect picture in the fluff of the assassin class that matches up to exactly what I thought, AND the fact that the class requires an evil alignment, I'm pretty sure I got this one right.



"Dark Arts" is a traditional term (particuly in Europe) for arcane magic. It is the reason that most settings have the common people be uneasy about arcane magic. Note - it wasn't that any particular spell was "dark" but that magic not from a divine god was inherently suspect. If they meant something else by "Dark Arts" in this case I'd like to know what?


"Dark Arts" is a traditional term (particularly in my neck of the woods) for black magic. Interestingly enough, if you look up "Dark Arts" in wikipedia it leads you to three different things 1) black magic, 2.) dark arts as used in Harry Potter, 3.) dark art as a form of art work. When I see "Dark Arts" in the assassin description I'm quite sure they are speaking of the first definition. It has a lot of text to read, but here is the thing that sticks out for me: "Black magic would be invoked to kill, injure, or cause destruction, or for personal gain without regard to harmful consequences to others." That pretty much sums up what I think of when I hear the words "Dark Arts".



This raises several points I addressed in the post I just made. You are conflating the terms "Assassin" and "end life" with evil. Outside of the prereq which we're arguing over there is no consistent equivalence in real-life, fiction, or DnD for the former, and while the latter is considered equivalent by some in real-life, it most certainly ISN'T in DnD.


"Assassin" IS evil, according to the D&D game. The rest of your paragraph I would like to analyze but I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say. Something about alignments aren't represented in real life or something?



Herbalists are trained in Poison. I didn't say they used it, and neither did the fluff on Assassins. They're trained in Poisons. Any Herbalist worth there salt has some training in poison. Herbalism is making substances from herbs, and many poisons come from herbs, as well as treatment against poisons. My point is that "Trained in Poisons" isn't evil except in context, and that given "killing" isn't evil without context, neither is killing with poision "evil" without contect (although it IS dishounourable by the Paladin code. But the Paladin code isn't a definition of evil).


You are totally right. The fluff on rogues doesn't say they use sneak attacks either. They're trained in sneak attacks. Any rogue worth his salt has some training in sneak attacks.

i.e. This is a stretch. The way the D&D designers created the class, they gave the class the ability to use poisons, they assumed that 99.9% of the members of the class would use poisons. In fact, the assassin is so well trained with poisons he suffers no chance of accidently poisoning himself. Interestingly enough, Profession (Herbalist) doesn't have that ability..... Poison in and of its self does NOT make the assassin evil, but the context it is placed in does.

[Diggorian]

*Diggorian fails a Will save ...*


To many people the word "Assassin" has a silent "Evil" in front of it (Orzel himself makes the point with his "Assassin = Evil Assailent". For others "Assassin" is more like my dictionary definition (Collins Modern English 1978) - "One who assassinates", and "Assassinate" = "Murder someone by sudden attack (ussually for political reasons)".
If the class was named "Evil Assassin" I wouldn't argue. It's not.

That pretty much seals the point to me. "Evil assassin" is redundant because murder (an evil act) is part of the definition. Many other classes may be good at killing, but the assassin's class automatically implies wrongful killing (murder). Killing those that pose a mortal threat to you or innocents isnt murder. An assassin that devotes his life to doing this no longer fits the definition, becoming an "Ex-", "former", or "Reformed" assassin.


Anyway, the assassin discussion has its intended effect, we have determined that the fluff of the assassin collides with its crunch, but only in the region of the alignment prerequisite.

I fully understand the spirit of this, "Lets move on". I was gonna, but since Stephen is likely gonna rebut Tormskull again, I might as well add my last 2 cents to make an even dollar. :smallamused:

Just wanna point out that the assassin fluff -- at best -- doesnt explicitly say 'evil'. It certainly doesnt preclude the evil-only restrictor, hence no conflict or collision.

There ... On to Rangers. :smallbiggrin:

I've been considering what feats would be gained by a two-handed style option. The spirit of the existing two seems to go for more attacks with TWF and better accuracy with the archery style. Two-handed would suggest a trend to more damage. Feats in supplements can easily build toward this trend but what core feats would we give this style? Power Attack at level 2, sure. But cleave and greater cleave, though fitting the more damage path, dont match up to the comparable feats in TWF and Archery (waiting until level 11 for Greater Cleave?).

[Stephen_E]

*Diggorian fails a Will save ...*



That pretty much seals the point to me. "Evil assassin" is redundant because murder (an evil act) is part of the definition. Many other classes may be good at killing, but the assassin's class automatically implies wrongful killing (murder). Killing those that pose a mortal threat to you or innocents isnt murder. An assassin that devotes his life to doing this no longer fits the definition, becoming an "Ex-", "former", or "Reformed" assassin.



I fully understand the spirit of this, "Lets move on". I was gonna, but since Stephen is likely gonna rebut Tormskull again, I might as well add my last 2 cents to make an even dollar. :smallamused:


I'll rebut you instead. :-) Although this applys to Tormskull as well.

Murder = Evil Act is pretty dubious unless you're using a circular definition. In fact by most definitions this claim is unsupportable (this doesn't mean murders can't be evil. They just aren't automatically so).

I suggest you look at the Killing isn't Evil thread if you want to continue this point.

Stephen

[Khantalas]

Diggorian, most PCs will kill critters just because they're green and there. They don't care if they mean no harm, have a society of their own and feed orphans in weekends. How is that rightful killing? And if it is not, how come we have good PCs running around?

[Stephen_E]

I've been considering what feats would be gained by a two-handed style option. The spirit of the existing two seems to go for more attacks with TWF and better accuracy with the archery style. Two-handed would suggest a trend to more damage. Feats in supplements can easily build toward this trend but what core feats would we give this style? Power Attack at level 2, sure. But cleave and greater cleave, though fitting the more damage path, dont match up to the comparable feats in TWF and Archery (waiting until level 11 for Greater Cleave?).

Try Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack with the advantage that you don't have to get the Dodge/Mobility/Combat Expertise prereqs. These work well with Power Attack and 2H Style.

Stephen

[Serenity]

As given the fluff for the Assassin doesn't conflict with the crunch. The fluff says they have to kill someone for no other reason than to join the guild and receive training as an Assassin. It's been agreed that that is basically an evil act. If that requirement was removed, then we could talk about contradictions, but while it stands, 'Any Evil' is quite accurate. For that matter, many of the examples of good Assassins have involved created fluff. The fluff given in the book is 'hired killer who delivers silent, deadly strikes from the shadows on targets he cares not who', not 'paladin who learns how to subdue enemies quickly.'

That said, I would have no problem expanding the alignment restriction to 'Any Non-good'. For the most part, however, would disallow it as a prestige class for the PCs unless we were playing an evil game.

[TimeWizard]

Even if the class was called "evil assailant", I would still have the same problem I do now, which is that it is strongly implied flavor wise that killing is evil if it's done to sleeping targets from the shadows.

Did anyone (or everyone) read the OoTS: Origin book? spoiler free, the line "they're listed as CE anyways, i could kill them and still keep my [LG] alignment" - paladin

That sums up killing in DnD for me, even if it is satirical. Besides, as any forum poster is quick to point out, your class's "power level" or effectiveness is directly determined by its ability to kill others.

[Diggorian]

Diggorian, most PCs will kill critters just because they're green and there. They don't care if they mean no harm, have a society of their own and feed orphans in weekends. How is that rightful killing?

It's not.


And if it is not, how come we have good PCs running around?

Because not all PC's do that.

Stephen, Whirlwind is a good suggestion for the 11th level slot, but does Spring Atack follow the More Damage trend? See, all the feats in the TWF and Archery styles piggyback off one another, no doubt the 3.5 PHB was re-written with these styles in mind.

Could the Two handed style include, in progression: Power Attack, then Great cleave, then Whirlwind Attack in a non-broken way?

[Stephen_E]

Stephen, Whirlwind is a good suggestion for the 11th level slot, but does Spring Atack follow the More Damage trend? See, all the feats in the TWF and Archery styles piggyback off one another, no doubt the 3.5 PHB was re-written with these styles in mind.

Could the Two handed style include, in progression: Power Attack, then Great cleave, then Whirlwind Attack in a non-broken way?

It would work, and since Great Cleave and Whirlwind attack don't stack it probably wouldn't be broken. Be an interesting style. A Barbarian style Ranger (I suspect you would ussually see a Ranger using this style taking 1 level of Barbarian. I personally wouldn't even consider it munchkin).

Spring Attack - I was thinking that you could pickup Shock Trooper to work with Spring Attack, but have checked and found it doesn't work. The other feature is that it helps keep you alive. Your Ranger in Light Armour and no Shield is really looking a bit suicidal if he can't bounce backout after doing his Power Attack.

Two most important feat chains for a Ranger with this combat style -
Impr Bullrush - Shock Trooper - Leap Attack
Dodge - Mobility - Elusive Target
Ranger 11/ Barb 1/ Fighter 1 has the lot. :-)

Stephen

[Kyn]

Alright, I've a view to pose on being an assassin that I don't really think has been adressed yet. Many people have pointed out the following things:

Using Poisons doesn't have to be evil- it can simply be a means to an ends
Just because you know how to assassinate people doesn't mean you have to be evil. What if you assassinate evil assassins? or evil liches? or vampire lords? Or mob/cult leaders?


But that's just it! these actions do not have to be evil when viewed by the person commiting the action. However, the rest of the world is going to see this as evil. I could be a perfectly good necromancer running around using my undead to save the day, but the townspeople are going to rush after me with torches and pitchforks. The Assassin doesn't necessarily need to be evil at heart- its just that everyone else is going to believe he's evil. The alignment prerequisite can be done away with, but people are still going to go "Oh my god! You just assassinated the baron!". His party members are going to mistrust him. No one's going to allow him to stand watch, and they'll be afraid to sleep when he is near. Eventually the party might learn to trust him, and to understand that he's good, but then they're going to be looked down upon for assossiating with an assassin.

[Stephen_E]

Alright, I've a view to pose on being an assassin that I don't really think has been adressed yet. Many people have pointed out the following things:

Using Poisons doesn't have to be evil- it can simply be a means to an ends
Just because you know how to assassinate people doesn't mean you have to be evil. What if you assassinate evil assassins? or evil liches? or vampire lords? Or mob/cult leaders?
But that's just it! these actions do not have to be evil when viewed by the person commiting the action. However, the rest of the world is going to see this as evil. I could be a perfectly good necromancer running around using my undead to save the day, but the townspeople are going to rush after me with torches and pitchforks. The Assassin doesn't necessarily need to be evil at heart- its just that everyone else is going to believe he's evil. The alignment prerequisite can be done away with, but people are still going to go "Oh my god! You just assassinated the baron!". His party members are going to mistrust him. No one's going to allow him to stand watch, and they'll be afraid to sleep when he is near. Eventually the party might learn to trust him, and to understand that he's good, but then they're going to be looked down upon for assossiating with an assassin.

Ummm...., An Assassin is unlikely to go around with a big sign say "I'm an Assassin". An Assassin has little outward difference from a Rogue with 1 Sorceror level. If a Rogue traveling with a party occasionally "assassinates" their enemies is the party really likely to be upset (Most of my PC's wouldn't). If he takes a level in Assassin is it going to make a difference?

Stephen

[TimeWizard]

Alright, I've a view to pose on being an assassin that I don't really think has been adressed yet. Many people have pointed out the following things:

Using Poisons doesn't have to be evil- it can simply be a means to an ends
Just because you know how to assassinate people doesn't mean you have to be evil. What if you assassinate evil assassins? or evil liches? or vampire lords? Or mob/cult leaders?
But that's just it! these actions do not have to be evil when viewed by the person commiting the action. However, the rest of the world is going to see this as evil. I could be a perfectly good necromancer running around using my undead to save the day, but the townspeople are going to rush after me with torches and pitchforks. The Assassin doesn't necessarily need to be evil at heart- its just that everyone else is going to believe he's evil. The alignment prerequisite can be done away with, but people are still going to go "Oh my god! You just assassinated the baron!". His party members are going to mistrust him. No one's going to allow him to stand watch, and they'll be afraid to sleep when he is near. Eventually the party might learn to trust him, and to understand that he's good, but then they're going to be looked down upon for assossiating with an assassin.

An interesting point to be sure, but remember that in DnD the gods are very real beings who watch and listen. You're not going to burn in the nine hells because towns people think your evil. At best that just makes you a Chaotic Good rebel.

[Diggorian]

It would work, and since Great Cleave and Whirlwind attack don't stack it probably wouldn't be broken. Be an interesting style. A Barbarian style Ranger (I suspect you would ussually see a Ranger using this style taking 1 level of Barbarian. I personally wouldn't even consider it munchkin).

Alright, mission accomplished ... and without 20+ posts of debate :smallamused:

So we got TWF, Archery, and Two handed styles; do we want another ... ?

Some one said Tolkein had Aragorn as a sword-n-boarder ... I'm thinking sword and shield style: TWF, then Improved Shield bash, then what from core? Improved Bull rush? Improved disarm? Is this style too close to the TWF style?

[Ambrogino]

Excuse me? Did you just say: "Your opinion on this topic differs so much from mine, that it 'is considered' inpolite to speak of it"?

Change the word "Military" in Tormskull's statement "I consider all members of the military to be evil" (paraphrase from memory) to the word "Black race"/"Catholic church"/"Female Sex"/"Country of Australia"/ "Aviva group plc." Any such statement would be a group attack, some of them would be illegal in several countries to present in public (or at least to act upon), and no one would stand for it being said.


And then you go on in a next post saying that it is good to discuss a controversial topic, but only if the participants are not allowed to express their own opinions on the topic? (I wonder how you want to discuss it, then)

I don't think you should be allowed (for example) to present the opinion "All Blacks should be Hanged" in a discussion on race. No one can stop you holding it, but you shouldn't be allowed to shout it from the rooftops. It's perfectly acceptable to present your own opinions on race without making that statement though, and it's fine for someone to present "I don't understand why anyone could want all blacks to be hung" or for the person who hold the first opinion to say "this is my understanding of the situation" without making racist/sexist/whateverist statements.


It might be the culture barrier that causes this, but I find this a very controversial opinion. That's the problem with international fora, everyone has other values and comes from different society's were different things are considered controversial, polite or simple normal. This is the Giant's sandbox, so he has some rules to make sure it stays at least inside what he deems appropriate, but last time I checked, there was no rule against being opposed to killing.

There's a HELL of a big difference between being opposed to killing and calling every member of every armed service in the world evil.

[Tormsskull]

Any such statement would be a group attack, some of them would be illegal in several countries to present in public (or at least to act upon), and no one would stand for it being said.

Wow, you really cannot let this go, can you? If you are incessant about talking about this, even after I've asked you not to derail the thread, let's talk about it.

a.) This is an internet forum, I can say whatever I feel like saying that doesn't break the forum rules.

b.) When you say no one would stand for it, interestingly enough, I received more PMs saying they agreed with me than not. Make of that what you will.



I don't think you should be allowed (for example) to present the opinion "All Blacks should be Hanged" in a discussion on race.


"Hello apples, my name's oranges." Saying that MOST of a particular group, would qualify as an evil alignment in D&D has nothing at all in common with saying all of a particular race in real life should be hanged. I think perhaps you did not get the reaction you were hoping for and thus you are dragging this on.



There's a HELL of a big difference between being opposed to killing and calling every member of every armed service in the world evil.


There's also a HELL of a difference between the word "most" and the would "every". See, most = a large portion, every = all of them. Do you understand the difference?

Once again, you are free to have your opinion. If you think I should not be able to say something on these forums, report my post to one of the mods. If they feel it breaks one of the rules of posting, they will scrub it. If not, then you could crusade to have one of the rules of posting be "Not allowed to present an unpopular opinion." Good luck with that.

[Stephen_E]

Alright, mission accomplished ... and without 20+ posts of debate :smallamused:

So we got TWF, Archery, and Two handed styles; do we want another ... ?

Some one said Tolkein had Aragorn as a sword-n-boarder ... I'm thinking sword and shield style: TWF, then Improved Shield bash, then what from core? Improved Bull rush? Improved disarm? Is this style too close to the TWF style?

To be honest I really can't see the Ranger as a Sword-n-board unless you restrict it to buckler.

What is resonable is a mounted combat. The plains Ranger. A light armoured, light-med horse, mounted combat. Mongol style -
Mounted Combat (naturally)
Ride-by-Attack
and either Mounted Archery or Shot on the Run.
I think Shot on the Run is better because iwhile both fit the style, Mounted Combat is easy to pickup, but Shot-on-the-Run requires lots of prereqs which would be hard for the Ranger to get.

Stephen

[Matthew]

Alright, mission accomplished ... and without 20+ posts of debate :smallamused:

So we got TWF, Archery, and Two handed styles; do we want another ... ?

Some one said Tolkein had Aragorn as a sword-n-boarder ... I'm thinking sword and shield style: TWF, then Improved Shield bash, then what from core? Improved Bull rush? Improved disarm? Is this style too close to the TWF style?

I'm a bit confused about what you are attempting to do and why in this thread?

And, yeah, Aragorn had a Rohan Round Shield from Edoras onwards, Legolas too.

[Stephen_E]

Change the word "Military" in Tormskull's statement "I consider all members of the military to be evil" (paraphrase from memory) to the word "Black race"/"Catholic church"/"Female Sex"/"Country of Australia"/ "Aviva group plc." Any such statement would be a group attack, some of them would be illegal in several countries to present in public (or at least to act upon), and no one would stand for it being said. .

There is a difference about attacking a group that people are born in to, and one they choose to enter. Blanket condemnations of those who voluntarily put themselves in a group are legitimate (ussually dumb IMO, but legitimate).



I don't think you should be allowed (for example) to present the opinion "All Blacks should be Hanged" in a discussion on race. No one can stop you holding it, but you shouldn't be allowed to shout it from the rooftops. It's perfectly acceptable to present your own opinions on race without making that statement though, and it's fine for someone to present "I don't understand why anyone could want all blacks to be hung" or for the person who hold the first opinion to say "this is my understanding of the situation" without making racist/sexist/whateverist statements..

Actually I'd find the opinion "All Blacks should be Hanged" very useful in a discussion on race. You find out why they think that, and from this you can learn a lot about their beleifs very quickly. If they are your stock extreme bigot you can then use debate with them to show moderate bigots the problem with that sort of approach.


There's a HELL of a big difference between being opposed to killing and calling every member of every armed service in the world evil.

Actually if you think killing humans is flat out evil, then it is quite resonable to call all those who choose to be soldiers evil if you approach the real world like a DnD alignment check. In fact it is somewhat hypocritical not to call them evil. They choose to enter a profession where they can be sent of to kill at someone elses order (note: I stress choose. Consripts are clearly a different category again). IF all killing of humans is evil then damn right that's evil. The simple truth is that there is a small but definite minority that do hold the view all killing is evil. If you don't like that, tough. In the Real World there is no RAW to refer to that shows his view is categorically wrong (you can show his view is incredibly simplistic, but that's another story).

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

I'm a bit confused about what you are attempting to do and why in this thread?

And, yeah, Aragorn had a Rohan Round Shield from Edoras onwards, Legolas too.

IIRC the view is that the two combat styles for the Ranger don't give enough variety to cover the fluff of the Ranger. The Ranger's Archetype is Aragorn of LOTR's, which is why they were originally required to be "Good". That has broadened somewhat is following editions.

Stephen

[Matthew]

Okay, but why this thread? Ranger fixes are often discussed.

For my money, Ranger Bonus Feats seem like the most reliable method.

[Gamebird]

Okay, I was going to say something defending the right to say something like "all soldiers are evil", but I see that Tormskull and Stephen E have said everything I wanted to say.

Carry on. :smallcool: