When Fluff Met Crunch

[Pegasos989]

Agreed. I think that, except for militant deities (the quad of Heironeous, Kord, Hextor and Erythnul, or ones like Moradin or Gruumsh), the cloistered cleric variant better matches my mental image of the class.

And Pegasos: if you disagree with the idea that killing for profit alone makes you evil, how about the fact that the entry requirement for the Assassin PrC is that you kill someone just to become an Assassin. If "murder is an entrance requirement" isn't evil, what is?

No, I disagree that a member of assassin class can kill for profit alone. I disagree that the moment someone learns poison use, he forgets every moral code he has and every cause he fought for.

Besides, the entrance requirement has nothing to do with balance (it can be done at any level) so it is flavour, just put there to emphasize that they are evil, as there isn't otherwise explanation for that. It can be removed with no negative concequences whatsoever.

[Jades]

So why can't druids wear metal again? If it has to do with wearing inorganics, then druids shouldn't be able to wear stone armor, which they can. If it has to do with wearing treated substances, then they shouldn't be able to wear leather or leafweave armor, which they can.

It has to do with the process in which ores are gathered. Druids are the protectors of the land, and as such are a part of the cycle of life (allowing them to kill as long as they use every part of the animal). When it comes to causing such damage to the landscape as mining, Druids are going to shy away from it.

And when you begin mining and gathering ore, you drastically disrupt the environment. Animals are displaced, forests are destroyed so you can transport the ore, the ground becomes weaker and could collaps where you are mining.

All in all, mining is just far more disruptive and destructive to the environment than participating in the cycle of life.



My Fluff v. Crunch problem comes from the Good Old Phaerimm of the Forgotten Realms.

The Phaerimm made the empire of Nethril run with their Drain Life and Drain Magic abilities. Netherese wizards found their power useless against the Phaerimm. Now, looking at the Lost Empires of Faerun stats for them, Magic overcomes the Pherimm's DR, and they have neither a Drain Magic nor Drain Life ability.

The 2.0 Phaerimm were so much cooler, and they fit the storyline. A hatchling was the equivilant of a level 30 sorcerer, and now the eldest Phaerimm have a caster level of 23. :P The youngest don't cast spells.

[pestilenceawaits]

It has to do with the process in which ores are gathered. Druids are the protectors of the land, and as such are a part of the cycle of life (allowing them to kill as long as they use every part of the animal). When it comes to causing such damage to the landscape as mining, Druids are going to shy away from it.

And when you begin mining and gathering ore, you drastically disrupt the environment. Animals are displaced, forests are destroyed so you can transport the ore, the ground becomes weaker and could collaps where you are mining.

All in all, mining is just far more disruptive and destructive to the environment than participating in the cycle of life.

Then why can they use a scimitar. I agree with you but and I know the scimitar is probably just a hold over from previous editions but I think no worked metal should be all worked metal.

[Tormsskull]

And Pegasos: if you disagree with the idea that killing for profit alone makes you evil, how about the fact that the entry requirement for the Assassin PrC is that you kill someone just to become an Assassin. If "murder is an entrance requirement" isn't evil, what is?

This has been discussed and argued and debated numerous times, that's why I was ignoring Pegasos before. The conclusion I came to a long time ago is that this all goes back to viewing classes as a collection of skills rather than a concept.

See, the people who say the alignment restrictions are silly don't read "Assassin, Death Attack". They read "Guy that's kind of like a rogue, has ability to reduce enemy to 0 hp on successful attack". So they think, what makes this guy any more evil than a rogue who uses Sneak Attack to reduce an opponent to 0 hp?

An assassin, as presented in the DMG, is based around the idea of hitman, a contract killer. That is what makes them evil per D&D rules. A lot of players don't like this because it limits their ability to make the perfect combination of skills or give them the mechanics they want without the fluff.

I say too bad, which seems to be a very bad thing to say around here. I have no problem telling a player they cannot be a good assassin, others would say that I am restricting a player's choices, I'm enfringing on their fun, yadda yadda. My answer? Too bad.

The reason the answer is too bad is because you have to look at scope. Telling a player that fluff doesn't matter is a real RP-killer. Rather than actually reading the text that surrounds spells, items, events they skip right to the mechanics. The whole point of the fluff is to further clarify or set the stage for the mechanics. When it says the assassin must be evil, and then explains that they get a death attack, the purpose is to give you an understanding what kind of character they are trying to portray.

So sure, you can ignore the fluff and look only to the mechanics and it makes sense to eliminate alignment restrictions, skill restrictions, feat restrictions. But that's because you're reading it out of context.

Edit:
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about:

Besides, the entrance requirement has nothing to do with balance (it can be done at any level) so it is flavour, just put there to emphasize that they are evil, as there isn't otherwise explanation for that. It can be removed with no negative concequences whatsoever.

Or in other words, the flavor has no direct impact on the mechanics, and thus can be ignored.

[Jades]

Then why can they use a scimitar. I agree with you but and I know the scimitar is probably just a hold over from previous editions but I think no worked metal should be all worked metal.

Yep, its a holdover that doesn't make much sense.



And as for assassins, the special requirement seems to imply that you are joining a guild of assassins. Only members of this guild can persue this selection of skills. Makes perfect senee for assassins to be evil, if their guild requires it.

[Fhaolan]

They've got nothing to do with Celtic druids. Shapeshifting was a common theme, sure - even the bull at the heart of the Cattle-Raid of Cooley was originally a man - but druids didn't go around changing into animals, as far as I read. (They did supposedly change men into trees, though.) They were priests and lore-keepers, augurs and advisors - the "next step up" from bards. The AD&D druid was much closer to the idea of a Celtic druid.

I'm thinking of Fionn mac Cumhail, who stole the wisdom of the druid Fintan by sticking his thumb in the druid's magic salmon... don't ask... He was pursued by Fintan all over the countryside, both shapeshifting into various animals during the pursuit. There's an almost identical story about Gwion drinking the wisdom potion of the druid Ceridwen, leading into the inevitable shapeshifting pursuit. These stories were the basis used by T.H. White for the Merlin versus Madam Mim shapeshifting duel, if I remember my far too long ago university literature courses correctly.

Then there's the druid Tuan mac Carill, who would shapeshift into different animals because he was bored. Though the version I read was more of a reincarnation scheme in order to live longer.

[Saph]

An assassin, as presented in the DMG, is based around the idea of hitman, a contract killer. That is what makes them evil per D&D rules. A lot of players don't like this because it limits their ability to make the perfect combination of skills or give them the mechanics they want without the fluff.

Yup. Plus one more thing - in my experience, the players who really want to be assassins like the idea of being an assassin BECAUSE it's associated with evil. They want to be the feared, psychotic killer in the night. But then they want to have all the perks of being good-aligned too. "Yeah, my character's a ruthless cold-blooded hitman - but everyone's going to trust him and treat him well, right?"

- Saph

[Tokiko Mima]

From a roleplaying standpoint, I would say that the difference between an assassins attacks and a fighter is that the fighter's goal is to remove his opponent from combat as quickly as possible. An assassins goal is to make sure his opponent breathes his last.

In D&D these goals are mechanically the same, but not so from a roleplay aspect. So that's why Assassins have a Roleplay restriction, but not a game mechanical one, in my opinion.

[Pegasos989]

This has been discussed and argued and debated numerous times, that's why I was ignoring Pegasos before. The conclusion I came to a long time ago is that this all goes back to viewing classes as a collection of skills rather than a concept.

See, the people who say the alignment restrictions are silly don't read "Assassin, Death Attack". They read "Guy that's kind of like a rogue, has ability to reduce enemy to 0 hp on successful attack". So they think, what makes this guy any more evil than a rogue who uses Sneak Attack to reduce an opponent to 0 hp?

An assassin, as presented in the DMG, is based around the idea of hitman, a contract killer. That is what makes them evil per D&D rules. A lot of players don't like this because it limits their ability to make the perfect combination of skills or give them the mechanics they want without the fluff.

I say too bad, which seems to be a very bad thing to say around here. I have no problem telling a player they cannot be a good assassin, others would say that I am restricting a player's choices, I'm enfringing on their fun, yadda yadda. My answer? Too bad.

The reason the answer is too bad is because you have to look at scope. Telling a player that fluff doesn't matter is a real RP-killer. Rather than actually reading the text that surrounds spells, items, events they skip right to the mechanics. The whole point of the fluff is to further clarify or set the stage for the mechanics. When it says the assassin must be evil, and then explains that they get a death attack, the purpose is to give you an understanding what kind of character they are trying to portray.

So sure, you can ignore the fluff and look only to the mechanics and it makes sense to eliminate alignment restrictions, skill restrictions, feat restrictions. But that's because you're reading it out of context.

I have eliminated alignment restrictions in every game I have ever ran. And know what? It has made the games so much richer!

A perfect example: I am running a game now and in it there is a favored soul of heironeus. He is a very zealous type who believes in end justifying the means and seeks revenge. I see this as more like LE and the character could thus not be what he is. He could roleplay that as a fighter but he simply wouldn't have the same feel and as fitting mechanics for it. While I read his background I thought "This reminds me of why I removed the restrictions.".

So the reason why I always argue so long that alignment restrictions are stupid is that I have seen what kind of ideas the players come up when they don't need to worry about such. I much prefer player-designed ideas over book flavour text concepts.

[Bouldering Jove]

Then why can they use a scimitar. I agree with you but and I know the scimitar is probably just a hold over from previous editions but I think no worked metal should be all worked metal.

Yep, its a holdover that doesn't make much sense.

I could probably find some justification for worked metal weapons as a whole being acceptable (turning the tools of destroyers against them?) but scimitars alone is just indefensibly silly.

[Tormsskull]

I have eliminated alignment restrictions in every game I have ever ran. And know what? It has made the games so much richer!

And you are totally within your rights as a DM to do that. I just personally think that it is a bad idea. Some of the alignment restrictions seem silly, and they aren't really going to be met with much of a resistance. However, most classes or PrCs that have a Good or Evil alignment requirement are so married to the the alignment that to ignore it is stripping away the essence of the class.

Yup. Plus one more thing - in my experience, the players who really want to be assassins like the idea of being an assassin BECAUSE it's associated with evil. They want to be the feared, psychotic killer in the night. But then they want to have all the perks of being good-aligned too. "Yeah, my character's a ruthless cold-blooded hitman - but everyone's going to trust him and treat him well, right?"

- Saph

I suspect my experience is very similar to yours.

[Diggorian]

Interesting topic and points of view here.

The druid armor deal I always considered a matter of belief. They see artificial alloys as poop; easy to carry it in a sack, but disgusting to wear on your body. The ones I played rarely go into towns or buildings unless they must, and are all the time obviously disgusted. Although their involvement in the economy has never come up, I could create an alternative: if they pray to nature for certain items, they'll find natural equivalents of those items the next day, with the appropriate amount of their gold gone (melded back into the earth).

Fighters, wizards, rangers, and paladins all train in killing, but assassins train in murder. The fact that they'll murder a stranger just to gain entry into a guild pretty much says evil. I dont allow evil characters in my games, but if I permitted a former assassin as a PC they couldnt advance in that PrC anymore.

Monks are my problem. Tons of ascetic traditions around the world but Shaolin temple represents all monks?

[silvermesh]

An assassin, as presented in the DMG, is based around the idea of hitman, a contract killer. That is what makes them evil per D&D rules.

This is not what makes them evil, the word "assassin" is what makes them evil. the name of the class MEANS that this class is for murderers. the definition for assassin is as follows: "a murderer (especially one who kills a prominent political figure) who kills by treacherous surprise attack and often is hired to do the deed". often does not mean always. an assassin does not ever need to accept money for a mark in order to be evil. he just has to be a murderer, which is what assassination is. murder. killing an enemy in combat is not the same thing as murder. If you want an assassin class with no evil requirement, you would have to take out the evil aspects of the class. most prominently: death attack: where you premeditate your murder for three rounds while your victim doesn't even know you exist. Poison, maybe, but that's far more debateable. The difference between murder and the way other classes kill has everything to do with the "honorable" way to perform combat, which is very heavily related to the alignment system.
The entire discussion has been overargued a thousand times on a thousand forums.

[Pegasos989]

Fighters, wizards, rangers, and paladins all train in killing, but assassins train in murder. The fact that they'll murder a stranger just to gain entry into a guild pretty much says evil. I dont allow evil characters in my games, but if I permitted a former assassin as a PC they couldnt advance in that PrC anymore.

Concider this concept:

Paladin 5/rogue 1/Assassin x

Patrick the paladin was a kind of a bounty hunter. He believed that criminals should be caught but also that everyone should be given a fair trial before they were punished, so they should be taken alive to court.

Patrick hadn't been able to afford a peaceful weapon so one day when he accidentally killed a man he was trying to capture - and later found out that the man hadn't harmed anyone - he decided that he needed a way to take them down fast without any side getting hurt.

So, he asked another bounty hunter - one who was not known of great morals but was known for having bringed every single target back alive - how he did it and he revealed that he knew to which points to hit and knew how to brew substances that were completely safe for subjects but rendered them weak (str damage or such) enough to pose no threat.

So, Patrick wanted to find out more about this. He spent the next months visiting doctors, clerics, alchemists and the like to find out how to do that.

A few levels later, he knew how to hit unaware opponent so that it would go unconcious (death attack used for unconcious) or brew substances that weakened the subject enough that they were not dangerous.


Here, we have a concept for LG assassin.

[Tormsskull]

Here, we have a concept for LG assassin.

Except that Patrick the paladin never could have become an assassin unless he was evil. In choosing to ignore that requirement, you have significantly altered the entire class. Taking away the requirement of evil means we have to view things differently. If a LG character can be an assassin Death Attack will be seen totally different (i'd argue that WotC would not have given them this ability).

Its just different playstyles really. Its not that you are wrong, its just that you are approaching it from (IMO) an unconvential standpoint. You are looking at the assassin's mechanics rather than his fluff in order to justify the alignment. You see these abilities that look like they'd be perfect for the character concept you want, and you are ignoring the fluff (context) that these abilities represent.

[headwarpage]

What do you suggest doing if you have an idea for a character with a certain background, personality, and skill set, and the RAW don't provide you with a class to match?

It's one thing to say "I want to play an assassin, but be good." It's another thing entirely to say "I want to play a good character who specializes in taking out individual targets quickly and efficiently. What class should this character be? Hmm... assassin would be perfect, except for the alignment restriction."

In other words, if you're just doing away with the fluff so you can use the crunch for your own purposes, that's probably bad. But if you're creating all the fluff on your own and then looking for crunch to match it, you're probably justified in throwing out the existing fluff. It sounds like you're arguing that the first is bad, while others are arguing that the second is perfectly fine. It's entirely possible that everybody is right.

Just my opinion.

[Dark Knight Renee]

Non-Core, but one of the examples I hold up of the lack of understanding even the gamemakers have for the alignment system is the Wu Jen. Wu Jen cannot be Lawful, yet their fluff SCREAMS Lawful.
The OP's druid gripe is also a good one. Also, druidic alignment restrictions are stupid as well, if not quite as stupid as that of the Wu Jen. What do you mean I can't play a LE druid? What are all those idiotic druid villains that hype this arguably Lawful idea of Balance, who are often evil in following this idea?

My only problem with Assassin is that, if I remember PrC rules correctly, you lose those abilities if you no longer meet the prereqs - IE, you become, say, neutral. *shakes head in disgust*

[Deathcow]

The OP's druid gripe is also a good one. Also, druidic alignment restrictions are stupid as well, if not quite as stupid as that of the Wu Jen. What do you mean I can't play a LE druid? What are all those idiotic druid villains that hype this arguably Lawful idea of Balance, who are often evil in following this idea?

The idea of balance, in DnD, has always been seen as Neutral. Balance implies balance between good and evil and also between law and chaos. Actually, I think most of the balance-freak villains would be true neutral who got too carried away in destroying good (and therefore became neutral evil). And neutral evil is a perfectly acceptable Druid alignment.

[Shazzbaa]

I'll bite. The druid armor restriction actually makes a good deal of sense to me, because it just about openly admits that it's fundamentally symbolic: "The armor of the druid is restricted by traditional oaths [...] Druids avoid carrying much worked metal with them because it interferes with the pure and primal nature that they attempt to embody." It relates to what seems to be the intended philosophical core of the class...
None of this is to say I think this hypothetical druid perspective is rational, but there's nothing stopping it from being internally consistent.

Wow, thanks for this post. That was awesome.
And I kind of agree. There doesn't have to be a "scientific" reason (of sorts) for why the druid can't wear metal armour -- it could just be that they don't want to...and I like what you've said about what the metal armour symbolises.

Besides, heck, most of the Animal Rights people that I'm friends with will still sit beside me while I eat my chicken sandwich without flipping out. They'll still partake of vegetarian options purchased from a meat-selling organisation. Some are more extreme than that, but not all; likewise, I'd think that not all druids have to be fanatics that won't touch metal and won't spend gold -- they just, as much as possible, try to embody a philosophy that keeps them close to nature.

And you know, the reasoning never had to be entirely rational. I can easily see the fighter berating the druid for his stupid not-sense-making vows.

It's one thing to say "I want to play an assassin, but be good." It's another thing entirely to say "I want to play a good character who specializes in taking out individual targets quickly and efficiently. What class should this character be? Hmm... assassin would be perfect, except for the alignment restriction."

In other words, if you're just doing away with the fluff so you can use the crunch for your own purposes, that's probably bad. But if you're creating all the fluff on your own and then looking for crunch to match it, you're probably justified in throwing out the existing fluff. It sounds like you're arguing that the first is bad, while others are arguing that the second is perfectly fine. It's entirely possible that everybody is right.

Good point.

However, I think the problem might be that it's generally best to have an across-the-board decision. If you let the one guy be an Assassin anyway just because he came up with the fluff on his own and found crunch to match, then you're going to have a hard time explaining to the second guy why you won't just let him be a Good Assassin, without sort of coming across as "I liked his character, but I don't like yours."

Besides, I don't see what's so very wrong about restricting a player from being anything. I mean, if you don't have a Samurai class, nothing prevents you from being an honorable fighter, as a rather used example. Not allowing everything isn't caging in your players -- people have played D&D and created deep and awesome characters for years without even knowing what prestige classes are. I find it a little unbelievable to say that by not allowing people to select the Assassin class, you're not letting them play the character they want to play. If they didn't know about the Assassin class, they still could have made the character they wanted.

I can understand why, in some instances, you'd want to make exceptions, but I still don't think NOT making exceptions is necessarily wrong to your players... and I can definitely understand an argument that these exceptions should be the exception, and not the rule.

[clarkvalentine]

In my games, I just always said that a druid can wear whatever armor the player thinks is in character - but he can't use Wild Shape if he's wearing too much inorganic material. Studded Leather is about as metallic as they could go.

[Person_Man]

While most uber-dork gaming purists like myself scoff at the internal contradictions within it, at its core D&D is designed to be read and played by really intelligent 14 year olds. So it has Knights and Ninjas and Wizards and Pirates, cause hey, they're cool! Like sports, its still fun for pretty much anyone who is into this sorta stuff. But the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant it is not.

For which, some of us are very, very grateful.

I agree wholeheartedly. I love football. I love Opera. But I have no desire to see Tiki Barber play Figaro.

There is plenty of high-fantasy out there with complex, intelligent, and consistant sytems of morality. D&D is not one of them. And most of the silly alignment inconsistancies (Druids, Paladins, Monks, Assassins, etc) can be explained by the fact that D&D is just like football or politics. You have to be smart enough to understand the game and dumb enough to think it's important.

Bonus XP to anyone who can cite that quote without looking it up on the internet.

[Gamebird]

What are all your favourite inconsistencies between flavour and mechanics?

Favorite? Not really, but here's my pet peeve of the week: How D&D creatures are all designed relative to humanoid PCs. Heck, all of D&D revolves around humanoid PCs.

Dragons don't wear armor. They don't use magic items.
Ithilids don't use weapons.
Monsters don't train in PC classes.
Neither do most NPCs, instead wasting their levels on nerfed crap classes.
Deer don't exist.
Neither do rabbits, squirrels, or mice.
Monsters exist whose sole purpose in life is to eat adventurer halflings. (I have yet to see one whose sole purpose is to eat, say, albino deer, which are probably more common than adventurer halflings.)
Monsters amass large sums of cash and easily convertible items, but don't use them.
Nothing reproduces in D&D except exotic monsters that lay eggs in PCs or somehow spawn out of humanoids.

[Shazzbaa]

Let's see... this is probably a personal pet-peeve. You see, I am someone who is *studying* comics and hasn't been able, for years, to get into Western comic books. Because every time I turn around, it seems like the aliens did it.
This guy is an alien, and his mind is another dimension. Superman has superpowers -- why? Because he's from spaaaaace. Oh, that's not really Rachel Grey, that's an alien velociraptor taking her form, and the other X-men must stop it/her/whatever.

So I may just be gun-shy of aliens, but it bothered me that the Tsochari, for some reason, have to be from space. It's not as though we need evil aliens in D&D -- we've got infinite planes to choose from! We've got the freaking Far Realms! It's completely unnecessary that IT CAME FROM SPACE! I dunno, I just wish the stuff from Lords of Madness wasn't all from space and the future and all that overdone sci-fi-style stuff.

So, as much as I love the stuff that the Tsochari can do, ... I hate the fluff, and would probably dump it in a second if I ever used them. And Mindflayers would not be from the future.

Though, I guess it's better than the usual "A wizard did it." I suppose I just prefer fantasy to stay mostly in the realms of fantasy, and stop straying into sci-fi territory.

[Diggorian]

Here, we have a concept for LG assassin.

That's not a LG assassin, thats a paladin that lost his levels for violating his code. To me, the problem comes in where Patrick asks the morally weak hunter.

"Poisons?", Patrick scoffed. "How dishonorable. Convenient and easy it may be, but such is not the path of a paladin."

Frustrated, he returns to his church and consults an older cleric for a solution. The priest introduced Patrick to an old adventuring friend, Lord Gerard the Justicar (Complete Warrior PrC), whom taught the paladin the techniques of effective combat with judicious restraint.

If you use Core only, Patrick could say ... Detect Evil on his targets to decide the level of aggresion he should use. Non-evils could be talked into surrendering or atleast giving their side of the story.

"I want to play a good character who specializes in taking out individual targets quickly and efficiently. What class should this character be? Hmm... assassin would be perfect, except for the alignment restriction."

A martial customized rogue (chainshirt, greatsword prof., Skill focus bluff) could do it.

The OP's druid gripe is also a good one. Also, druidic alignment restrictions are stupid as well, if not quite as stupid as that of the Wu Jen. What do you mean I can't play a LE druid? What are all those idiotic druid villains that hype this arguably Lawful idea of Balance, who are often evil in following this idea?

Dont know much about the Wu Jen myself.

Druids are alignment purists IMHO. LN ones can talk about the balance and do destructive things without being evil. NE druids are just Survival-of-the-Fittest types I think.

Assassins loosing their powers when not evil is just dumb. They arent paladins (no mystical source for their skills). Still, I wouldnt let'em advance.

[Gamebird]

Oh, and here's another one:

Creatures that are portrayed as too stupid to live, yet have an INT 2 or 3 times higher than animals. The first example that jumps to mind is ogres, but any INT 4 barbarian or fighter would fit - well within playable range and statistically just as common as INT 20 or so (or so I'm guessing - I haven't done the math).

[Scorpina]

As has been asked a thousand times over: Why is Deathwatch evil?

Also, why is the Sun Domain less to do with the Sun and more to do with fighting undead?

Why can ever cleric, regardless of their deity (or cause, if you're one of those silly non-FR types) weild some kind of power over the undead, for that matter?

...why do all Half-Fiends or Half-Celestials get the same template, regardless of the actual type of outsider they're descended from?

Why can't Bards be Lawful? Seriously, what the hell?

[headwarpage]

Good point.

However, I think the problem might be that it's generally best to have an across-the-board decision. If you let the one guy be an Assassin anyway just because he came up with the fluff on his own and found crunch to match, then you're going to have a hard time explaining to the second guy why you won't just let him be a Good Assassin, without sort of coming across as "I liked his character, but I don't like yours."

Besides, I don't see what's so very wrong about restricting a player from being anything. I mean, if you don't have a Samurai class, nothing prevents you from being an honorable fighter, as a rather used example. Not allowing everything isn't caging in your players -- people have played D&D and created deep and awesome characters for years without even knowing what prestige classes are. I find it a little unbelievable to say that by not allowing people to select the Assassin class, you're not letting them play the character they want to play. If they didn't know about the Assassin class, they still could have made the character they wanted.

I can understand why, in some instances, you'd want to make exceptions, but I still don't think NOT making exceptions is necessarily wrong to your players... and I can definitely understand an argument that these exceptions should be the exception, and not the rule.

Agreed. There is a slippery slope there. At the same time, if a player came to me with an absolutely spectacular character concept that was perfect for the Assassin class, I doubt I would feel right saying, "Nope, it's evil only. Play a Rogue."

You're entirely right that classes don't make good roleplay, though. Personally, I think we'd be better off with just a few classes, or maybe the generic variants from UA. Yes, if we never had a Samurai class, people would be going happily about playing their Fighters like samurais, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But once somebody at WotC creates a Samurai class, it's hard to justify saying, "No, just play your Fighter like a samurai." Giving that character the Samurai class instead of the Fighter class doesn't inhibit roleplaying in any way, either. In the long run, classes have no effect on roleplay, except in instances where the fluff is hopelessly intertwined with the crunch.

It's part of a larger issue with the way WotC made the classes. Some of them, like the Fighter and the Wizard, are almost pure crunch. The players make up all the fluff on their own to round out their characters. From that basic crunch, you can get a very wide variety of well-developed characters. Other classes, like the Druid or Paladin, have a whole lot of fluff built into the crunch of the class, which really limits what players can do on their own and tends to lead to a lot of archetypes and cliches. Creative players can work around this, but it takes a lot of extra work, and sometimes what you really want to do is throw out the WotC fluff and make up your own.

In most cases, especially with the splatbooks, it seems like the designers came up with the fluff they liked, then made up the crunch to match. The problem with this, as evidenced by this thread, is that players don't always view the fluff the same way the designers did, so the crunch doesn't make sense.

Luckily, WotC recognized this problem, and solved it by putting in the little disclaimer that says, "If you don't like it, change it." Well ok, then, problem solved. [/sarcasm]

[Fax Celestis]

I could probably find some justification for worked metal weapons as a whole being acceptable (turning the tools of destroyers against them?) but scimitars alone is just indefensibly silly.

The scimitar is a holdover from 2e's underloved Khopesh, which I would certainly like to see a return of.

As for Fluff v. Crunch issues, I have to say that the worst offender in my opinion is the Fighter. He's supposed to be a master of combat, and yet most people are better served taking a different class if they want to fight in the front lines.

[Dark]

Agreed. There is a slippery slope there. At the same time, if a player came to me with an absolutely spectacular character concept that was perfect for the Assassin class, I doubt I would feel right saying, "Nope, it's evil only. Play a Rogue."

"I've come up with a new PrC, just for you! It's called the Roguassin." (which just happens to be exactly like the Assassin except for one little detail...)

Assassins losing their powers when not evil is just dumb. They arent paladins (no mystical source for their skills). Still, I wouldnt let'em advance.

Hmm, I can explain it. An assassin who stops being Evil has become too squeamish to use such cruel and vicious techniques. No mysticism required :)

[Chris_Chandler]

*Sigh*

I remember why the druid is able to use the scimitar. You won't like it.
/Marvin

The druid's weapons are either tools of the hunt or of agriculture. The scimitar is a weapon of war that developed from grain threshing, and, as such, is dear to the heart of the druid.

Yes. Yes it is. Explain to me why they don't have the scythe or flail now...