Does the existence of the Assassin Prestige Class preclude other types of assassins?

[MonkeySage]

I've been arguing with my friend for the past 30 minutes, trying to explain a prestige class; it's a sect of lawful good contract killers, who are specifically referred to as "assassins" in the descriptive text. They don't use a lot of stealth, and their attacks are pretty conspicuous, quite like the historical Hashashin.

He's been arguing that if they don't use stealth, they aren't assassins in a pathfinder context... I pointed out to him that the official descriptive text uses that word...


So yeah, in your opinion, does the existence of an Assassin prestige class mean there cannot be other types of assassins in the game?

[Guizonde]

you've got nerdy arguments. welcome to the boards!

joke aside, a rogue who frags a merchant is an assassin so long as there was premeditation. you're talking about an assassin prc that is lawful good? i remember in the pf player's guide an assassin prc that was lawful evil, but not lawful good. so, obviously, there are many different types of assassins: flashy ones, sneaky ones, good ones, bad ones, religiously motivated ones, wealth motivated ones, murder motivated ones, etc...

being an assassin means killing people in a calculated and premeditated manner. stealth just allows you to kill more without the heat capturing you. the eversor assassin of 40k is basically a cross between a blender and a pit-bull. litterally an imperial assassin for whom stealth is worthless, because terror inflicts more damage. you want truly stealthy? poison, bombs, explosive runes, summoning a balor. you want to send a message? lynching, evisceration, public executions... so long as some dude said "would it be cool to frag this guy? yes, it would. let's do it." that person becomes an assassin.

in morrowind, there's a book titled "the axe man", talking about an orcish assassin using a greataxe. unsubtle, right? he was the morag tong's best operative. in a guild full of people that are good at killing, he was the best using a two-handed double-bladed axe. you can be an assassin with a trout, the means does not matter. only the motive and planning does.

"i'll frag x people to send a message" makes you a terrorist or a mass murderer.
"i'll frag all large-chested blondes because i'm a sick deviant with a oedipus complex" makes you a serial killer.
"i'll frag the president of the banana republic because he's in my employer's way" makes you an assassin.
"i'll frag the baker because i'm paid to do so" makes you an assassin.
"i'll frag my husband for cheating on me" makes you an assassin. it's premeditation and having one target in mind that's important. (in the french legal system, at least).

[Grod_The_Giant]

So yeah, in your opinion, does the existence of an Assassin prestige class mean there cannot be other types of assassins in the game?

Not even the littlest of bits. "Classes" are not some immutable thing that shapes every aspect of your character and the setting. They're not something that you can see printed on your forehead. They're a convenient shorthand for a bunch of synergistic abilities. I can have levels of Barbarian and call myself a warrior, a champion, a hunter, whatever I want; similarly, I can be a Fighter, a Cavalier, even a Wizard and call myself a "barbarian" and be totally in the right to do so.

[SilverLeaf167]

"i'll frag my husband for cheating on me" makes you an assassin. it's premeditation and having one target in mind that's important. (in the french legal system, at least).

I second pretty much everything else you said, but I think this in particular is just a quirk of Latin languages (possibly among others, but they're the ones I know of). Generally that would just be called a "murderer". Killing without premeditation would be manslaughter, which actually sounds way harsher if you ask me.

The general (English-language) definition of "assassin" is pretty hazy, but some of the top hits on Google - not a perfect indicator, I know, but it includes multiple dictionaries - give a pretty good consensus: "Murder committed by a perpetrator without the personal provocation of the victim, who is usually a government official." "Assassination is a killing of a prominent person for political or ideological reasons." "There are various motivations for assassinations, including money, moral issues, political power, military purposes, and others." "Murder committed for hire, without provocation or cause of resentment given to the murderer by the person upon whom the crime is committed."

They all differ a bit, but all include the concept that the killing was impersonal and done with some gain in mind, monetary or otherwise.

As for the OP, it seems to be asking two different questions. Anyway: stealth isn't absolutely necessary, but generally an important part of assassins in pop culture, so they might have a point in mentioning the "Pathfinder context". You definitely can, however, be an assassin without having the Assassin prestige class.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This is the problem with having tons of classes and feeling the need to attach narrative tags to them.

Ask him if someone is physically capable of killing someone else in exchange for payment, without having the Assassin PrC, in the setting. If yes, then they're an assassin. If no, then WTF is even going on?

[MonkeySage]

The descriptive text calls them assassins, but the class is actually called Crimson Templar. They're lawful good warriors motivated by religion to destroy evil.

I actually kinda like the idea put forth by the text; it reminds me, again, of the Hashashin. They were religiously motivated killers who took out their targets in often very public and conspicuous ways.

[Guizonde]

I second pretty much everything else you said, but I think this in particular is just a quirk of Latin languages (possibly among others, but they're the ones I know of). Generally that would just be called a "murderer". Killing without premeditation would be manslaughter, which actually sounds way harsher if you ask me.

The general (English-language) definition of "assassin" is pretty hazy, but some of the top hits on Google - not a perfect indicator, I know, but it includes multiple dictionaries - give a pretty good consensus: "Murder committed by a perpetrator without the personal provocation of the victim, who is usually a government official." "Assassination is a killing of a prominent person for political or ideological reasons." "There are various motivations for assassinations, including money, moral issues, political power, military purposes, and others." "Murder committed for hire, without provocation or cause of resentment given to the murderer by the person upon whom the crime is committed."

They all differ a bit, but all include the concept that the killing was impersonal and done with some gain in mind, monetary or otherwise.

As for the OP, it seems to be asking two different questions. Anyway: stealth isn't absolutely necessary, but generally an important part of assassins in pop culture, so they might have a point in mentioning the "Pathfinder context". You definitely can, however, be an assassin without having the Assassin prestige class.

huh, didn't know that. thanks!

[goto124]

He's been arguing that if they don't use stealth, they aren't assassins in a pathfinder context... I pointed out to him that the official descriptive text uses that word...

I remember that argument!

[Lacuna Caster]

Not even the littlest of bits. "Classes" are not some immutable thing that shapes every aspect of your character and the setting. They're not something that you can see printed on your forehead. They're a convenient shorthand for a bunch of synergistic abilities. I can have levels of Barbarian and call myself a warrior, a champion, a hunter, whatever I want; similarly, I can be a Fighter, a Cavalier, even a Wizard and call myself a "barbarian" and be totally in the right to do so.

Ehh... I'm having trouble squaring the quasi-illiterate nomad bruiser archetype with the bookish magocrat glass-cannon archetype. I suppose there's always Akiro, but is he strictly a wizard, mechanically speaking?

If classes were purely a way to model the character's background in a way that conformed to a particular setting's social structure, that would be one thing. But they aren't just shorthand for that. There are objective inefficiencies in learning cross-class skills, XP penalties if you multiclass, and various freebie features that you can't precisely turn down and only synergise if you play a certain way. They continue to nudge your development along a particular prescribed path long after chargen.

[SilverLeaf167]

Ehh... I'm having trouble squaring the quasi-illiterate nomad bruiser archetype with the bookish magocrat glass-cannon archetype. I suppose there's always Akiro, but is he strictly a wizard, mechanically speaking?

If classes were purely a way to model the character's background in a way that conformed to a particular setting's social structure, that would be one thing. But they aren't just shorthand for that. There are objective inefficiencies in learning cross-class skills, XP penalties if you multiclass, and various freebie features that you can't precisely turn down and only synergise if you play a certain way. They continue to nudge your development along a particular prescribed path long after chargen.

I might be misunderstanding what you said, but I think you may have gotten Grod's point backwards. The point was precisely that classes are collections of mechanics that affect your build, but you don't need to let them define your character outside those mechanical aspects. Your background is precisely what they DON'T necessarily to model if you don't want them to.

...To a certain extent, at least. It obviously doesn't make much sense to call a ninja a paladin, outside very specific circumstances.

As for barbarian wizards, I assumed he meant the fact that the word "barbarian" doesn't strictly refer to a "quasi-illiterate nomad bruiser" but simply someone from a foreign culture seen as inferior, which a wizard could very well be. Using it like that does require some clarification in an RPG context though. OR he was just making a point, I don't know.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ehh... I'm having trouble squaring the quasi-illiterate nomad bruiser archetype with the bookish magocrat glass-cannon archetype. I suppose there's always Akiro, but is he strictly a wizard, mechanically speaking?

I might be misunderstanding what you said, but I think you may have gotten Grod's point backwards. The point was precisely that classes are collections of mechanics that affect your build, but you don't need to let them define your character outside those mechanical aspects. Your background is precisely what they DON'T necessarily to model if you don't want them to.

...To a certain extent, at least. It obviously doesn't make much sense to call a ninja a paladin, outside very specific circumstances.

As for barbarian wizards, I assumed he meant the fact that the word "barbarian" doesn't strictly refer to a "quasi-illiterate nomad bruiser" but simply someone from a foreign culture seen as inferior, which a wizard could very well be. Using it like that does require some clarification in an RPG context though. OR he was just making a point, I don't know.

Pretty much this exactly. My "barbarian" Wizard would be a shamanistic type from a tribal society, with their spells passed down via oral tradition and knotted cords. Their familiar would be a totemic spirit, they'd be covered with body paint in mystical patterns, and while they woudn't be a bruiser they'd still be lean and tough, with (system depending) skills and spells that emphasize nature and brutal power. See? "Barbarian" Wizard.

[GungHo]

They're not Assassins but they are assassins. The Assassin is a class. An assassin has a job. An Assassin doesn't have to be an assassin to be an Assassin, but he makes for a pretty good assassin because they taught him how to be an assassin in Assassin school. Likewise, an assassin doesn't have to be an Assassin to be an assassin, but he may want to look into some things that the Assassin has to be a good assassin (like poisons) and the Assassin school may even be willing to teach him how to be an assassin and even let him take the oath to be an assassin just as an Assassin would. One of the Assassin schools that does this is the Red Mantis Assassins who also employ assassins to serve alongside Assassins.

[TheYell]

"Hey what are you doing!"

"You Adrian Bloodmarker?"

"Yeah what's it to you?"

"You contracted for the murder of Lucian Halflegs with some grifter you met playing cards?"

"Hey...what...but...are you the Guard?"

"No sir. We're the Assassin's Guild." "Trained and licensed." "We deliver quality services at affordable prices." "And we HATE to see people try to cut corners."

"Are...are you gonna kill me?"

"No. We're just gonna deface your house a bit with these axes. And Mr. Bloodmarker..."

"Yeah?"

"When you get it repaired, go to a Guild."

[Knaight]

Ask him if someone is physically capable of killing someone else in exchange for payment, without having the Assassin PrC, in the setting. If yes, then they're an assassin. If no, then WTF is even going on?

Payment isn't even necessary - murders against sufficiently important people are generally deemed assassinations. John Wilkes Booth wasn't paid to kill Lincoln, but he's still an assassin.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Payment isn't even necessary - murders against sufficiently important people are generally deemed assassinations. John Wilkes Booth wasn't paid to kill Lincoln, but he's still an assassin.

It's not an all inclusive criteria. Just a way to demonstrate that clearly you don't have to have a class in order to qualify as an assassin.

[gkathellar]

What does "assassin in a pathfinder context" even mean? There's Assassin, the PrC; there's assassin, the word for a targeted killer with a political or financial motive. What is this mysterious third context?

If the point is that your friend thinks the PrC name supersedes and excludes the common-English word with respects to use in game, well ... that's silly, and you can demonstrate such by saying "targeted killer with a political or financial motive" every time you would say assassin. Eventually he should get tired of listening to you spit out that mouthful.

They're not Assassins but they are assassins. The Assassin is a class. An assassin has a job. An Assassin doesn't have to be an assassin to be an Assassin, but he makes for a pretty good assassin because they taught him how to be an assassin in Assassin school. Likewise, an assassin doesn't have to be an Assassin to be an assassin, but he may want to look into some things that the Assassin has to be a good assassin (like poisons) and the Assassin school may even be willing to teach him how to be an assassin and even let him take the oath to be an assassin just as an Assassin would. One of the Assassin schools that does this is the Red Mantis Assassins who also employ assassins to serve alongside Assassins.

This is why you don't give your PrCs generic names, kids. Not all Duelists are duelists, not all assassins are Assassins.

Pretty much this exactly. My "barbarian" Wizard would be a shamanistic type from a tribal society, with their spells passed down via oral tradition and knotted cords. Their familiar would be a totemic spirit, they'd be covered with body paint in mystical patterns, and while they woudn't be a bruiser they'd still be lean and tough, with (system depending) skills and spells that emphasize nature and brutal power. See? "Barbarian" Wizard.

Presumably they also talk like this: bar bar bar bar

[Geddy2112]

They're not Assassins but they are assassins. The Assassin is a class. An assassin has a job. An Assassin doesn't have to be an assassin to be an Assassin, but he makes for a pretty good assassin because they taught him how to be an assassin in Assassin school. Likewise, an assassin doesn't have to be an Assassin to be an assassin, but he may want to look into some things that the Assassin has to be a good assassin (like poisons) and the Assassin school may even be willing to teach him how to be an assassin and even let him take the oath to be an assassin just as an Assassin would. One of the Assassin schools that does this is the Red Mantis Assassins who also employ assassins to serve alongside Assassins.

This. There are Assassins, as in, the class, and assassins, people who assassinate.

joke aside, a rogue who frags a merchant is an assassin so long as there was premeditation.
"i'll frag my husband for cheating on me" makes you an assassin. it's premeditation and having one target in mind that's important. (in the french legal system, at least).

That's different than American law, where premeditation is the difference between first degree and second degree murder. Assassination is not a formal crime in American law, but it sounds like 1st degree murder and assassination are legally the same thing.

I second pretty much everything else you said, but I think this in particular is just a quirk of Latin languages (possibly among others, but they're the ones I know of). Generally that would just be called a "murderer". Killing without premeditation would be manslaughter, which actually sounds way harsher if you ask me.

At least in American law, manslaughter has nothing to do with premeditation and more with intent. Murder in the 2nd degree is not premeditated, but there is clear intent to kill. In voluntary manslaughter, there is intention to harm but not kill, and there is usually provocation on the actor that committed the manslaughter. In involuntary manslaughter, their is a lack of intention to cause harm and it is either through committing another crime or willful negligance/recklessness that causes the death of another.

The general (English-language) definition of "assassin" is pretty hazy, but some of the top hits on Google - not a perfect indicator, I know, but it includes multiple dictionaries - give a pretty good consensus: "Murder committed by a perpetrator without the personal provocation of the victim, who is usually a government official." "Assassination is a killing of a prominent person for political or ideological reasons." "There are various motivations for assassinations, including money, moral issues, political power, military purposes, and others." "Murder committed for hire, without provocation or cause of resentment given to the murderer by the person upon whom the crime is committed."

I would agree to this. Basically, you have to be famous/important and your killing be related to your fame or importance to be assassinated. A famous politician can be assassinated for their views, but a jilted lover killing them is probably not an assassination.

[Guizonde]

This. There are Assassins, as in, the class, and assassins, people who assassinate.


That's different than American law, where premeditation is the difference between first degree and second degree murder. Assassination is not a formal crime in American law, but it sounds like 1st degree murder and assassination are legally the same thing.


At least in American law, manslaughter has nothing to do with premeditation and more with intent. Murder in the 2nd degree is not premeditated, but there is clear intent to kill. In voluntary manslaughter, there is intention to harm but not kill, and there is usually provocation on the actor that committed the manslaughter. In involuntary manslaughter, their is a lack of intention to cause harm and it is either through committing another crime or willful negligance/recklessness that causes the death of another.


I would agree to this. Basically, you have to be famous/important and your killing be related to your fame or importance to be assassinated. A famous politician can be assassinated for their views, but a jilted lover killing them is probably not an assassination.

i may have been unclear (long hours at the day job and 10 years since i went to law school), but basically, to be an assassin rather than a murderer, you need two clear things: premeditation to kill a specific person, and some form of gain. ie, grabbing a gun and shooting some nobody is just murder. now, going to the store, filing the paperwork, buying a gun, fragging your neighbor so you can annex his pool makes you an assassin, since it fills both requirements. the gain can be monetary (payment for eliminating a target), religious (blowing up a heretic preaching the wrong religion), influential (perforating the president to further a political agenda, killing a ceo to make a company's stocks drop), or out of personnal reasons (like a jilted lover poisoning an unfaithful partner out of revenge). that's the weird thing, but money is not an obligation, only a vaguely defined "gain". the weapon used doesn't matter, the methods used do not matter, the target does not matter, it's so oddly vaguely specific that john wilkes booth, belle gunness, whoever killed mlk jr, and john lennon's killer all qualify as assassins under french law. fame doesn't even enter the frame (but usually does thanks to newspapers) when considering if it's murder or assassination.

i'm pretty sure that indeed 1st degree and assassination are broadly the same thing with different names, involuntary manslaughter is iirc "coups et blessures ayant entraîné la mort involontairement", which roughly translates as "assault and battery leading to involuntary death" (yes, that's the wording in case of fatal car crashes. and people wonder why i want "legalese" to be considered as a secret language in pen and paper). otherwise, hot-blooded murder is just "meurtre sans préméditation".

Spoiler: honest, if edgy, rant

Show

between us, i'll blame the different families of historical law (in this case, roman derived law and germanic derived law). this is why i left law school. it's full of loopholes and exploits. the name "rules lawyer" is not incidental. it also made me profoundly distrust any judicial system where having a high charisma score can make or break a case (oj simpson, dominique strauss-kahn, among others, were caught red-handed and got off scott free thanks to money and their lawyers' influence)

[daniel_ream]

I can have levels of Barbarian and call myself a warrior, a champion, a hunter, whatever I want; similarly, I can be a Fighter, a Cavalier, even a Wizard and call myself a "barbarian" and be totally in the right to do so.

Tangential to the point, but I couldn't disagree with this more. Classes are not just bundles of mechanical crunch, divorced from the fiction; they are part of the setting and include critical fictional elements as well as the mechanics to support those fictional elements. It has been like this in every edition of D&D except for 3.X/PF, where I freely acknowledge that the multiclassing system has essentially done away with classes in favour of a form of weirdly quantized point-buy system.

[Kane0]

The difference is one's a job and the other's a mental sickness.

You can indeed be an assassin that isn't part of the Assassin class. Your using the word to describe activities and lifestyle, not gameplay abilities.
Words often get used for more than one thing at a time, especially in gaming. See also: 'level'.

[Esprit15]

Tangential to the point, but I couldn't disagree with this more. Classes are not just bundles of mechanical crunch, divorced from the fiction; they are part of the setting and include critical fictional elements as well as the mechanics to support those fictional elements. It has been like this in every edition of D&D except for 3.X/PF, where I freely acknowledge that the multiclassing system has essentially done away with classes in favour of a form of weirdly quantized point-buy system.

See, I think most of us disagree here. Classes, baring those that are tied to specific organizations possibly, should be largely mechanical and low in setting baggage. Not everyone who plays a wizard should be forced to go to Wizarding School, when they could be the previously mentioned shamanistic type. Not all barbarians need be savages, when they could simply be people who fight with strength and fury over skill and technique.

Example: I play a Bard in 5e whose skills are not from some bardic school of teaching, but just the natural extension that being raised among elves, one learns a little bit of everything instead of mastering one thing. The fluff of them felt like a mess of forcing general mechanics into a specific role in the world.

[daniel_ream]

I don't want to derail the thread here, beyond saying, again, that classes-as-fictional-archetypes is pretty much the defining characteristic of a class-based system. If your classes have no fictional component, you have a point-buy system.

Not everyone who plays a wizard should be forced to go to Wizarding School, when they could be the previously mentioned shamanistic type.

Just to make my point: the spell lists and casting mechanics for different spellcasting classes are absolutely part of the fiction. I defy you to find me a shaman in literature, film or other media that uses Vancian fire-and-forget spellcasting.

[georgie_leech]

I don't want to derail the thread here, beyond saying, again, that classes-as-fictional-archetypes is pretty much the defining characteristic of a class-based system. If your classes have no fictional component, you have a point-buy system.



Just to make my point: the spell lists and casting mechanics for different spellcasting classes are absolutely part of the fiction. I defy you to find me a shaman in literature, film or other media that uses Vancian fire-and-forget spellcasting.

A point buy system where each point invested makes it more expensive to get even unrelated abilities, abilities are largely grouped together in related sets with different baseline scaffolding like health, and the order of each related sets' abilities come in a specific order. If only we had a name for this sort of ability grouping.

[Misereor]

They're not Assassins but they are assassins. The Assassin is a class. An assassin has a job. An Assassin doesn't have to be an assassin to be an Assassin, but he makes for a pretty good assassin because they taught him how to be an assassin in Assassin school. Likewise, an assassin doesn't have to be an Assassin to be an assassin, but he may want to look into some things that the Assassin has to be a good assassin (like poisons) and the Assassin school may even be willing to teach him how to be an assassin and even let him take the oath to be an assassin just as an Assassin would. One of the Assassin schools that does this is the Red Mantis Assassins who also employ assassins to serve alongside Assassins.

We don't use Assassins, but I'm gonna create a PrC called the "Asinine" just to repeat this conversation with my players...

[daniel_ream]

A point buy system where each point invested makes it more expensive to get even unrelated abilities, abilities are largely grouped together in related sets with different baseline scaffolding like health, and the order of each related sets' abilities come in a specific order. If only we had a name for this sort of ability grouping.

GURPS? Because that's what you just described.

[Jormengand]

So yeah, in your opinion, does the existence of an Assassin prestige class mean there cannot be other types of assassins in the game?

I don't know. Does the Fighter class preclude the existence of barbarians, paladins, rangers, battle clerics, inquisitors, magi, and the like?

(Though I acknowledge this is partly a critical existence failure on the part of the fighter, the general point remains).

[georgie_leech]

GURPS? Because that's what you just described.

Spoiler: As my one-off comment apparently didn't get the point across

Show

Class-based systems. Where you need increasing amounts of xp to buy "Class Levels," and you need to take Level 1 and gain its assorted abilities and drawbacks before you can gain Level 2 of that class. In 3.5, for instance, in core getting the ability to track at a normal pace (Ranger 8's Swift Tracker) first requires you know how to cast spells (Ranger 4), and both abilities require you to first be good at either swinging two weapons at once or archery (Ranger 2). Because clearly one must first learn to shoot bows or swing two bits of metal and/or wood around before an animal will even consider becoming your companion.

[Esprit15]

I don't want to derail the thread here, beyond saying, again, that classes-as-fictional-archetypes is pretty much the defining characteristic of a class-based system. If your classes have no fictional component, you have a point-buy system.



Just to make my point: the spell lists and casting mechanics for different spellcasting classes are absolutely part of the fiction. I defy you to find me a shaman in literature, film or other media that uses Vancian fire-and-forget spellcasting.

I've yet to see it used anywhere in fiction. Most forego it entirely, treat their wizards like DnD does its sorcerers, or use something like mana.

[Knaight]

Tangential to the point, but I couldn't disagree with this more. Classes are not just bundles of mechanical crunch, divorced from the fiction; they are part of the setting and include critical fictional elements as well as the mechanics to support those fictional elements. It has been like this in every edition of D&D except for 3.X/PF, where I freely acknowledge that the multiclassing system has essentially done away with classes in favour of a form of weirdly quantized point-buy system.

It depends on the class and the class based system in question - classes like druids, paladins, and basically every class in Apocalypse World have a fairly specific archetype they fit. Classes like fighters and experts, not so much.

[Jay R]

So yeah, in your opinion, does the existence of an Assassin prestige class mean there cannot be other types of assassins in the game?

No more than the existence of a Fighter class means that there cannot be other types of fighters, or a Rogue class means that there cannot be other types of rogues.

D&D rules do not have authority over the English language. The words "assassin", "fighter", "rogue", and many others had meanings before that book was published, and those meaning still exist.

Don't confuse specific jargon with general language use. Both exist, both are proper, but neither precludes the other.