Post/Author/DateTime	Post
FateSpinnerXXIII 09-14-06, 01:08 AM	Ok, We are starting up a game and I will be 1st Rogue. My character was taken slave as child and is FORCED to be a bounty hunter / assassin. My character does not like kills infact he hates it and it tears him apart to do it. Now I kinda want to take Assassin PrC for him cuz it will fit what he does. Req. for Assassin is "Any Evil", "Killing somone for no other reason that to become an assassin". Now if my character is forced to learn this training by his slave master should I not have to meet the req. or should I? Also what Alignment would you say this is. He isnt evil, will give a helping hand to anyone who needs it as long as it doesnt conflict with his slave masters jobs. Dreads killing the people he must and does it only to protect his family. Id say its far from evil, but idk. Any opinons would be nice.
benstundze 09-14-06, 01:27 AM	im not saying anything about that except that the books aren’t law and you really won’t this class then its not probable that they can learn the skills other ways right just ask the dm to rename that requirement to something else
Salla 09-14-06, 02:12 AM	The simple answer, IMHO, is to simply be a rogue (perhaps with a bit of Ranger for easy access to Track). You can be an assassin (professional killer) without being an Assassin (member of a Prestige Class).
FateSpinnerXXIII 09-14-06, 08:48 AM	Agreed, but what im getting at is that the slave master is going to force me to learn how to become a PrC Assassin. Im just trying to figure out if this is reason enough to ignore the Reqs.
belthazzar1113 09-14-06, 02:29 PM	short of you becomeing evil and being warped out of normal human compassion then you arn't going to be a member of the assassin PRC. they are cold blooded killers, there why they can accept the training neccessary to be an assassin. so take a level or two of ranger with favored enemy humans, then take levels of rogue and play him as a stealthy killer. you don't have to be a member of the Assassin prestige class to be a professional assassin. one is a class the other is a job. You have the job but you don't have to have the class. if you want to recreate the assassin, grab a level of ninja, two levels of ranger, and then level as a rogue and if you feel the need take shape soulmeld or martial study to get a few magical tricks to use (assassins stance and a shadowhand manuver or two are good to have) then put on some black clothes and you won't be able to tell the difference between a real assaassin and you.
HaikenEdge 09-14-06, 02:39 PM	Agreed, but what im getting at is that the slave master is going to force me to learn how to become a PrC Assassin. Im just trying to figure out if this is reason enough to ignore the Reqs. Emphasis mine. There you present a false dilemma. Joining the PrC isn't the only choice; an alternative, to die, exists. If your beliefs are so strong, then you will die for them; otherwise, after a lifetime of killing, I don't think an additional kill or two will mean much to you. My understanding is that, after a while, professional killers are so jaded that they start to lose sight as to the value of human life. Furthermore, the prereq of the class is to kill somebody for no other reason than to join the group. If you're killing somebody because you don't want to die, I don't think it's enough to join the group. That is to say, I don't think a the group would accept the slave for training in the first place, since the kill made wasn't made to become an assassin, but only to not suffer punishment for disobeying the master.
Puca 09-14-06, 02:45 PM	It sounds to me like you want all the exact benefits of the PrC without meeting the one actually difficult prereq. My personal opinion on alignments and neutral assassins aside, it is your DM you have to convince to override the prereq; not anyone here.
Vestigial_Thumb 09-14-06, 03:06 PM	Ok, We are starting up a game and I will be 1st Rogue. My character was taken slave as child and is FORCED to be a bounty hunter / assassin. My character does not like kills infact he hates it and it tears him apart to do it. Now I kinda want to take Assassin PrC for him cuz it will fit what he does. Req. for Assassin is "Any Evil", "Killing somone for no other reason that to become an assassin". Now if my character is forced to learn this training by his slave master should I not have to meet the req. or should I? Also what Alignment would you say this is. He isnt evil, will give a helping hand to anyone who needs it as long as it doesnt conflict with his slave masters jobs. Dreads killing the people he must and does it only to protect his family. Id say its far from evil, but idk. Any opinons would be nice. I see where you're coming from. My suggestion, because you seem to want all of the class's abilities, is to get your DM to houserule it. This thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=685898) contains immensely good arguments (for the lifting of alignment restrictions) and is one of the most logical (read: least flammable) thread I've seen in a long time that discussed the alignment of Assassins. If your DM agrees after he reads it, celebrate and play the Assassin with pride.
archcomponent 09-14-06, 04:44 PM	The answer is simple - there is one assassin's guild, they are evil and they will know if you are being forced to join and not really evil yourself and refuse to teach you. You CANNOT meet the requirements of killing someone for no other reason but joining if you have saving your own life as the real reason that you do so.
FateSpinnerXXIII 09-14-06, 05:23 PM	I dont think you guys understand what im getting at. Not the assassins guild. I will have no part in that at all. My slave master will be training me. It has nothing to do with the guild. Guess ill talk to my dm.
Vestigial_Thumb 09-14-06, 05:27 PM	I dont think you guys understand what im getting at. Not the assassins guild. I will have no part in that at all. My slave master will be training me. It has nothing to do with the guild. Guess ill talk to my dm. That's why I referred you to the thread. None of the Assassin's abilities are Evil, and it's not unbalancing to remove the roleplaying restrictions. Removing the roleplaying restrictions also makes you able to write your own flavor for the class that fits your character. It's a win/win situation, really.
Echo_that_Pains 09-14-06, 05:32 PM	Well, thought i would throw in my 2c. If you are not going to be doing the pre-requs, then i see no problem with you becomming an assassin. The only downside is that all (or nearly all) of the assassins abilities embody what you are so profoundly against. When you get death attack and poison use but will never use them, what is the purpose of becomming an assassin? It would be close to the same thing as taking levels of commoner instead (outside of BAB and saves).
Vestigial_Thumb 09-14-06, 05:40 PM	Well, thought i would throw in my 2c. If you are not going to be doing the pre-requs, then i see no problem with you becomming an assassin. The only downside is that all (or nearly all) of the assassins abilities embody what you are so profoundly against. When you get death attack and poison use but will never use them, what is the purpose of becomming an assassin? It would be close to the same thing as taking levels of commoner instead (outside of BAB and saves). Well, that's the beauty of it. Having the abilities means having a temptation to use them. Temptations aside, though, he can use poison to help neutralize opponents and the paralyzing option of Death Attack to freeze them. If I were a DM, I'd give full XP (like most DMs I hope) for avoiding a fight that skillfully. But he must also remember that there are (presumably) other people in the party, and they might feel a bit outclassed if the Assassin keeps getting them out of fights, and therefore getting rid of fun. It's a challenge.
FateSpinnerXXIII 09-14-06, 08:29 PM	Thank you Vestigial_Thumb, and also its not how he kills people that bothers him its killing them, but this is how he is trained to fight so I would use the abilitys just would not like it. OK I think I got what I was looking for. I was looking for backup so I dont ask my DM and if he says no be pis*** or somthing thinking he is just being a di**. Now that people agree with me on this, I will ask him. Thank you.
belthazzar1113 09-14-06, 11:01 PM	I dont think you guys understand what im getting at. Not the assassins guild. I will have no part in that at all. My slave master will be training me. It has nothing to do with the guild. Guess ill talk to my dm. if it has nothing to do with the guild, and has nothing to do with the assassins, then your not going to get that PrC are you? your DM can either design a new one based around the assassin class, or you can just be an assassin without the PrC. there is no person thats going to say to you "ok, that encounter should have leveled you, You must either take a level of assassin or i will kill you." people don't think like that, no one thinks like that. your skills grow and you learn new things, this NPC might be trying to teach you to be a killer but that doesn't change the fact you decide wether to take a level of a class or not. you must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. first off this and the text with the class tells us this is a guild class. like a guild wizard, the guild is where the training and abilities are taught, without the guild its not the class, they are a package deal. you decide what class your going to take when you level up. if your slave master is guiding your hand and forcing you to stick a knife in someone then 1) your not meeting the requirments and 2) you shouldn't get xp for being nothing more than a tool of your master, YOU didn't do anything, he set up a situation where you basically just stuck out your knife and someone ran into it. that doesn't get you xp. if you fall out of a third floor window and land on a 20th level mage and kill him you don't get xp for killing a CR 20 opponent. it was an act you had no controll over and thus you learn nothing from it and don't advance. if your master is setting all of this up and doing this too you then you shouldn't advance at all. even if you do advance you won't meet the requirments for the assassins unless you become evil and kill someone. otherwize pick a different class to level up in and accept it. you can ignore the requirements of the class if you want to. its not the end of the world. it might be shaking the rules up and it is certainly the first step into a path to a morally bankrupt game, but if your fine with going in that direction or that aspect of the game isn't importaint to the group then do whatever you want. i personally don't see why there is this drive that you absolutly must have to be a member of this prestige class. there is no way to tell what class someone belongs to, there is no charater sheet for the characters. they don't talk about what kind of stats you have or how many hp they have. they are who they are, being an assassin isn't just about being in the class its about being a hired killer. the class doesn't make you an assassin, being an assassin qualifies you most of the way for the class. you can be an assassin and not be in that PrC. so other than wanting to break the rules, where is this huge drive to be in the PrC coming from?
pukunui 09-15-06, 12:17 AM	you can ignore the requirements of the class if you want to. its not the end of the world. it might be shaking the rules up and it is certainly the first step into a path to a morally bankrupt game, but if your fine with going in that direction or that aspect of the game isn't importaint to the group then do whatever you want ... so other than wanting to break the rules, where is this huge drive to be in the PrC coming from?Dude, you seriously need to relax. The PrC rules are the least binding rules in the game! The ones in the DMG are quite clearly just meant to be examples and, as such, are not law. The DMG actually encourages DMs to customize the example PrCs. If this kid's DM agrees to make non-evil assassins, then that's perfectly within the RAW. There's nothing game-breaking or morally bankrupt about it. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive ... [my emphasis] de·fin·i·tive adjective 1: serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation 2: authoritative and apparently exhaustive 3a: serving to define or specify precisely 3b: serving as a perfect example 4: fully developed or differentiated [all my emphasis] QED. ----------------------------- I will admit, though, that the OP's character concept is a bit strange. I don't think he's articulating his reasoning all that well, though, so we're all talking at cross purposes here.
belthazzar1113 09-15-06, 12:57 AM	The PrC rules are the least binding rules in the game! The ones in the DMG are quite clearly just meant to be examples and, as such, are not law. apparently i must quote myself at you since you fail to read my words, or to see beyond the first few. you can ignore the requirements of the class if you want to. its not the end of the world. whoa, did i say that? yep i did. but since this was asking for opinions and advice i gave mine. i think its wrong to toss requirments out the window without looking at what they are there for. i think assassins should have to be evil and join a guild to get training. i think that without those requirments you might as well just be a rogue, wear black and call yourself an assassin. those are my opinions. i never claimed they were law, i never said they were the one true right way, and i never said they have to apply in every game. if your feeling accused and attacked, then the fault lies with you and your feelings of guilt, not in my words and opinions. If this kid's DM agrees to make non-evil assassins, then that's perfectly within the RAW by this logic everything is RAW and RAW has no meaning. as was so aptly pointed out to me earlyer.... "you can't argue the validity of a point based on circumstances that negate any weakness in your argument. (ie houserules)" the dm can do whatever he wants. RULE 0 rulings are not RAW, they are houserules, judgment calls. they are what makes each game unique. they are the beating heart and lifeblood of the dnd game. In my opinion i think having non evil assassins, or using the assassin class for non guild assassins is wrong. i think the class is ment to be a organization based class and that it should stay that way. this is my opinion and its also how its set up in the book. you can change that the same way every single thing in the game can be changed because the dm has final authority. But just because your particular DM changed it doesn't make it RAW. rules as written are just that, how the game appears in the books before any dm changes and houserules make it into the picture.
pukunui 09-15-06, 01:11 AM	Yes, the DM can do whatever he wants and the rules can all be adjusted via houserules. And in the case of PrCs, the DMG actually encourages you to do so. As I quoted in my previous post, the DMG itself indicates that the prestige classes are not meant to be taken as RAW and therefore uncustomizable. It goes on to say that the best PrCs are the ones the DM makes himself. I was mainly challenging your apparent holier-than-thou attitude, as evidenced by your belief that customizing prestige classes will lead to a "morally bankrupt" game. If the OP's DM were to make his own PrC that just happened to be based on the example assassin PrC detailed in the DMG but lacked the evil alignment prereqs, I fail to see how it would be such a bad thing. If you want to accept the PrCs in the DMG as RAW and unchangeable, that's fine. But my point is that they're not necessarily intended to be that way and there's no reason not to change them so that they fit into your campaign better. Hell, one of the examples is the Red Wizard, which really only fits into the Forgotten Realms campaign setting and would need serious revision to fit into any other setting. --------------------------- I'm all for the OP asking his DM if the prereqs for the assassin PrC can be customized, but I think that his reasoning is a bit ... weird.
FateSpinnerXXIII 09-15-06, 01:30 AM	Ok, clearly ive been taken to be an as* hole, sorry. I now know I did miss one or two post but still. I wasnt talking to everyone when I was replying just a few of u, sorry for not directly naming those people. I dont understand what you all are saying. What I was saying was, from what I came to understand some people were saying that I wanted to be the job more than the class and thats not what I was talking about. Maybe I read it wrong idk, but sorry if I made people think ima as*hole.
pukunui 09-15-06, 01:39 AM	For the record, I don't think you're an "as*hole". I think I understand what you're getting at - you just weren't as clear as you could have been, which has led to people misunderstanding what it is you want. As I've said, I think your character concept is a bit strange -- and it seems that people are taking issue with the whole "forcing your character to be an assassin" thing more than anything else.
belthazzar1113 09-15-06, 01:42 AM	I was mainly challenging your apparent holier-than-thou attitude, as evidenced by your belief that customizing prestige classes will lead to a "morally bankrupt" game. If the OP's DM were to make his own PrC that just happened to be based on the example assassin PrC detailed in the DMG but lacked the evil alignment prereqs, I fail to see how it would be such a bad thing. i posted approx 20+ pages of material on this very topic in another thread about assassins and vestigal thumb posted a ton there too (arguing mostly against me and occassionally against my points) so you can go find that thread if youw ant to read about morality and assassins. the sohrt short short version. assassins killing people for money and power (the powers of the class for entry, and the definition of an assassin that one who kills via contract) is evil. ignoring this requirment shakes the foundations of what the alignments represent. if you can kill for money and thats not evil then what else might not be evil? what do you have to do to qualify? there are demons that kill only on order of their superious, so does that means not all demons are evil? does this work in the other direction? is good hard to be too? are we all neutral in the end? but neutral has to care about balance. what if i thought i was good but i didn't care about balance but now i am not actually good, what am i? it leads to a blurring and eventual decay of the alignment system and morality in the game. good guys don't act like good guys, bad guys act like raging homicidal psycos and everything is fine, paladins can kidnap children and sacrifice them for money and power just because its easy, evil and good don't matter anymore. its the first step along that path. its a slippery slope that i am opposed to. assassins are evil, says so right in the book and i happen to agree very strongly with it from a personal and ethical standpoint. if you don't care about any of what i just said then change whatever you want, I am not in that game so i don't care. I find it laughable, but you shouldn't care that i think your being silly. its your game you do what you want. If you want to accept the PrCs in the DMG as RAW and unchangeable, RAW does not equal unchangeable. change means you go away from RAW, but its not RAW to not change. see if you can follow that. i doubt it, but i will clarify if your confused. there's no reason not to change them so that they fit into your campaign better i will say it one more time and end the post with it just so you people see this. change whatever you want. its not the end of the world. i don't agree with these changes but thats my Opinion. if you are fine with ignoring alignment requirments and special requirments and whatever else youw ant to ignore then ignore it. you change the game however you want to change it. you want to give everyone 100 free hp to make fights last longer rock on. you want to say that everyone automatically dies if they ever touch a bunnyrabbit without wearing blue you go ahead. its your game you can do anything you want as long as your the DM. that doesn't make it RAW, that doesn't make it right, and i don't have to agree with it. since this is a forum for opinions and advice i have given mine and defended them when attacked. thats all.
pukunui 09-15-06, 01:51 AM	Never mind, Belthazzar. You've blown the whole thing out of proportion ... Plus there's not much point in me continuing to argue with you when it's clear you don't want your d&d to have the fuzzy greyness of real life and so you cling to the game's alignment system like a life raft ... That would just be me doing this: :banghead: Sigh ... it's just too tempting to fall into pointless arguments on these boards. I should stop talking now.
FateSpinnerXXIII 09-15-06, 01:55 AM	assassins killing people for money and power (the powers of the class for entry, and the definition of an assassin that one who kills via contract) is evil. ignoring this requirment shakes the foundations of what the alignments represent. if you can kill for money and thats not evil then what else might not be evil? what do you have to do to qualify? there are demons that kill only on order of their superious, so does that means not all demons are evil? does this work in the other direction? is good hard to be too? are we all neutral in the end? but neutral has to care about balance. what if i thought i was good but i didn't care about balance but now i am not actually good, what am i? it leads to a blurring and eventual decay of the alignment system and morality in the game. good guys don't act like good guys, bad guys act like raging homicidal psycos and everything is fine, paladins can kidnap children and sacrifice them for money and power just because its easy, evil and good don't matter anymore. its the first step along that path. its a slippery slope that i am opposed to. assassins are evil, says so right in the book and i happen to agree very strongly with it from a personal and ethical standpoint. if you don't care about any of what i just said then change whatever you want, I am not in that game so i don't care. I find it laughable, but you shouldn't care that i think your being silly. its your game you do what you want. I completely agree with you 100%. But its not like im saying.... I want this class but I dont want to be evil. (It is and it isnt, hear me out) My character was kidnapped as a child and his father was killed by the slavemaster. He enslaved my mother and I, and I devoted myself to him and his teaching if he would just free my mother. Any kills I do, I dont get money it goes to my mother. So im a personal slave bountyhunter for this guy, either my mother dies or I do it. There is no I dont want to so I kill this guy and my mother and I live happily ever after. Maybe one day but im not strong enough. Now upon reaching the skill req. for Assassin, he will note that I am now strong enough to take this training. I dont want to, but I am FORCED to. He trains me, not the assassin guild, which is why I am not apart of that. Normly I wouldnt mind being evil, hell I love being evil. My current character in this campaighn in evil as hell. 9 Ranger 4 Rogue NE. But im trying to change it up a bit and add a big twist to the character. And if my DM wants to create/change the Assassin class then we will like everyone has said "Its not law". Now I understand you two have posted on this before so im not expecting a post, but if you do read Im just trying to get my point across.
belthazzar1113 09-15-06, 09:10 AM	yes, i do understand. its an interesting backstory. the character is still evil. so whats the big deal?
bitnine 09-15-06, 12:26 PM	assassins killing people for money and power (the powers of the class for entry, and the definition of an assassin that one who kills via contract) is evil.An assassin must kill for money just as much as a rogue must sneak around and steal from people or a barbarian must be a savage from a primitive culture.
GrinningIdiot 09-15-06, 01:26 PM	I haven't read through all the replies yet so forgive me if I'm repeating others. Ask your DM if he'll alter the flavour of the PrC. If he agrees then go with it. As stated your character doesn't fit in with the class as written. His resistance to the training would only turn him into an incompetant assassin. If your DM doesn't go with the idea then there are some great builds that will do just what you want while avoiding the PrC. Have a peak at the optimisation boards if you need help.
FateSpinnerXXIII 09-15-06, 01:39 PM	Like it or not my character is going to use his abilitys to the fullest. Say you have a Fighter with Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Spec. in 1 weapon, and this weapon is magic. Now you hate fighting with this weapon because it goes againt your morals. So you want to pick up a diffrent weapon. But you suck with it. Now personaly I would just go with my orginal weapon because its what I know and its how I was trained to fight. This may be a bad example but it makes sence to me, sorry.
Dolomite 09-15-06, 03:22 PM	Like it or not my character is going to use his abilitys to the fullest. Say you have a Fighter with Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Spec. in 1 weapon, and this weapon is magic. Now you hate fighting with this weapon because it goes againt your morals. So you want to pick up a diffrent weapon. But you suck with it. Now personaly I would just go with my orginal weapon because its what I know and its how I was trained to fight. This may be a bad example but it makes sence to me, sorry. Umm nothing says that your character can't change and have a improved outlook on the respect of life and all that. You can take the PrC but you can try for a more balanced((Neutral)) view over time and the character can with his actions become something different. I don't know how it would affect your PrC but it would make sense from the character's point of view.
HaikenEdge 09-15-06, 03:43 PM	Like it or not my character is going to use his abilitys to the fullest. Say you have a Fighter with Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Spec. in 1 weapon, and this weapon is magic. Now you hate fighting with this weapon because it goes againt your morals. So you want to pick up a diffrent weapon. But you suck with it. Now personaly I would just go with my orginal weapon because its what I know and its how I was trained to fight. This may be a bad example but it makes sence to me, sorry. Hold up, lemme get this straight... Your character hates playing assassin and it tears him up. You mentioned that early in the thread, I believe. Now, here's a question: will he sneak around and use the assassin death attack against enemies vulnerable to it? If he does, then he is not repentant and is therefore EVIL. He doesn't really hate playing assassin, nor does it really tear him up, but he poses as an emo "woe-is-me" type persona for pity points while he uses the abilities to his benefit whenever it suits him. Therefore: EVIL. If he does not, then he is GOOD. He has repented for his sins, he lives with the pain of what he has done, and will not do it again. He won't sneak up on people because it hurts him whenever it does, and he can't stand it. However, he will not be using his ability to their fullest. Yet, he is GOOD. You example with the weapon is nonsensical. So what if you hate the magic weapon? Get another one of the same type that you don't hate. Nobody's saying to you "Use this weapon or die!"; even if they were, and your moral conviction was strong enough, you'd die rather than submit. What you're presenting is again a false dilemma. A fighter is proficient with all martial weapons; just because he doesn't have Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization (both weak feats by the way, only useful for Weapon Supremecy) doesn't automatically make him suck at it, just not as good. Now, if you're willing to bend your own morals just because of something as simple as "I'm better at it", I think your character is lacking in moral conviction and fiber. Now, if you're not part of the assassin PrC, but another one that grants the death attack ability, it wouldn't be a problem. Have you considered Black Flame Zealot, Dark Hunter or Deepwood Stalker?
Vestigial_Thumb 09-15-06, 06:10 PM	Your character hates playing assassin and it tears him up. You mentioned that early in the thread, I believe. Now, here's a question: will he sneak around and use the assassin death attack against enemies vulnerable to it? If he does, then he is not repentant and is therefore EVIL. He doesn't really hate playing assassin, nor does it really tear him up, but he poses as an emo "woe-is-me" type persona for pity points while he uses the abilities to his benefit whenever it suits him. Therefore: EVIL. Wait a minute... Death Attack isn't Evil. And people can play Good characters that commit certain Evil acts (not just any act when he feels like it). Like his Assassin. There's nothing really Evil about his character. If he does not, then he is GOOD. He has repented for his sins, he lives with the pain of what he has done, and will not do it again. He won't sneak up on people because it hurts him whenever it does, and he can't stand it. However, he will not be using his ability to their fullest. Yet, he is GOOD. Wait a minute... Sneaking up on people isn't Evil. Neither is killing them. and your moral conviction was strong enough, you'd die rather than submit. Not all people have a strong moral conviction. That doesn't mean they can't be Good, Evil, Chaotic or Lawful. I think your character is lacking in moral conviction and fiber. Morality isn't everything, either. Now, if you're not part of the assassin PrC, but another one that grants the death attack ability, it wouldn't be a problem. Have you considered Black Flame Zealot, Dark Hunter or Deepwood Stalker? But he wants those exact abilities, in that exact order, with those exact requirements. There's nothing mechanically unbalancing about removing the roleplaying requirements for this particular PrC. Furthermore, removing the guild from the picture gives him a chance to write his own flavor and customize his character to his own concept. Only lousy DMs let principles run above the fun of their own players.
pukunui 09-15-06, 08:25 PM	Only lousy DMs let principles run above the fun of their own players. Hear Hear! I second that notion. Principles are all well and good in the real world, but if they get in the way of having fun in a game, then that's just silly. The whole point of playing a roleplaying game is to "let your hair down" as it were and do something you might not ordinarily do in real life. If you like the black & white d&d alignment system because it fits with your own black & white real world morality, then that's fine, but don't go pushing it on others who just want to have a good time with a sort of fuzzy grey outlook on morality and alignment.
FateSpinnerXXIII 09-15-06, 09:12 PM	Yet again, thank you vestigal, and pukunui
belthazzar1113 09-15-06, 10:21 PM	actually my entire argument has been based on the fact that real world morality is grey and fuzzy where there is no real right answer most of the time. dnd gives us the simple black and white, good and evil options. you can have entire races of beings like demons that are "always evil" and are theirfor fair game to kill and destroy on sight without a second thought. while in the real world other than natzi's you really don't have anyone thats shoot on sight. the dnd alignment system free;s you from having to make alot of moral quandries because good is well defined, as is evil. you don't have to ask if something is morally right or wrong since its been preset for you and all you have to do is choose to be good or evil. that to me is more "letting your hair down" and getting to do things you wouldn't normally do.
pukunui 09-15-06, 10:27 PM	Yet again, thank you vestigal, and pukunui No worries, mate. I went back and re-read your posts, and your concept makes more sense to me now. From a mechanical standpoint, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to gain access to the example assassin PrC's abilities without meeting the example prerequisites. Just to be pedantic, though, no one can really force anyone to do anything. All the slavemaster forced your character to do was make a decision. In this particular case, the choices were refusing to cooperate, which would most likely entail the death of his mother (and possibly his own death as well), or go along with what the slavemaster tells him to do in the hope that both he and his mother will survive. It's obvious that he's chosen to do the latter, and he must obviously value his own life (and that of his mother) more than the lives of the strangers he's being told to kill. To this end, he must be a bit selfish (but according to the d&d alignment system, this is not evil, even if real world morality says that it is. I see your character as being somewhat Chaotic Neutral). All that aside, though, you have a sound character concept, and there's no harm in asking your DM to come up with an assassin PrC that doesn't involve any sort of "guild membership" and the like. Belthazzar - I guess the problem here is that I do prefer my game to be a bit more like real life. I don't pay much attention to the alignment system in my game. I've always found it to be rather annoying, to be honest. But if it makes you happy to adhere to it strictly, then that's fine too. To each his own, especially when we're talking about a game ...
theotherdraxen 09-15-06, 10:57 PM	Wait a minute... Sneaking up on people isn't Evil. Neither is killing them. Killing people in D&D is evil...unless you're justified. D&D is very good at giving people reasons to be justified in their killings. Entire class concepts are based around it (IMO, the Paladin). Anyway, just had to point that out.
belthazzar1113 09-15-06, 11:02 PM	Wait a minute... Death Attack isn't Evil. And people can play Good characters that commit certain Evil acts (not just any act when he feels like it). Like his Assassin. There's nothing really Evil about his character. the moral qualities of death attack have been debated before. some say its evil, some say its not. if you want to break it down ability by ability then go rehash the thread that was closed. its on the old boards. the simple fact is that assassins are evil. from this character background this character would have been beaten and pushed into being evil. so what if he hates himself? that doesn't change the fact he is evil. good characters don't commit evil acts on a regular basis. however this character will be commiting evil acts on a regular basis. just because he crys afterward doesn't make him less evil. If i sacrifice a village full of people to get several thousand dark craft gp and xp and then feel really bad about it that doesn't change the fact that i just commited an evil, bording on vile, act. By deciding to be an assassin, and qualifying for the class, you are deciding that you are trading in your morality for the power to make swift silent deadly attacks, and to be able to use poision most effectivly to kill your enemies. This isn't a class good characters take. The class requires evil, you have to choose to be this way. You can't be forced into it anymore than you can be forced to be a wizard or a swashbuckler. Wait a minute... Sneaking up on people isn't Evil. Neither is killing them. again, this is debatable and has been hashed out in the closed thread on the old boards. Sneaking around is shady (forgive my pun) but its more what you do while sneaking that determines your good or evil direction. If you sneak up on a demon and stab him in the back to send him to the abyss then its a good act since dnd defines slaying demons as good. If you sneak up on some helpless village girl and knock her out and then have your way with her then its evil despite the fact you used the non-leathal form of death attack and didn't even do any HP damage. Killing people for power, killing people for money, and killing people under the orders of someone you know is evil makes you evil. This is defined as evil in the dnd system. real world ethics aside, this is defined in this game as evil. This is what the assassin is based on and is by a very simple logical nudge, evil. If this particular player wants his character to be an assassin then let him be evil and be an assassin. He can be as emo about it as he wants, its still evil. Not all people have a strong moral conviction. That doesn't mean they can't be Good, Evil, Chaotic or Lawful. yes... actually it does. If you have no strong moral conviction, and have no real backbone then you are NN. lets take a look at the actual in game description... Neutral, “Undecided”: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. so yes, lacking strong moral convictions precludes you from having a good, evil, lawful or chaotic alignment. But he wants those exact abilities, in that exact order, with those exact requirements. tough S---. I want epic level spells every level progressing exponentally. In that exact way, starting at level one. Know what? i am not going to get it. Just because thats what he wants doesn't mean he gets it. I want to have a thrallherd's ability to have unlimited replenishing minions but i don't want to give up any caster level for it. too bad, i won't get it because thats not the way it works. DnD doesn't give you exactly what you want without taking something back. The assassin class gives you a certain set of powers and costs you moral choices. You have to choose to be evil and commit evil acts, in fact you have to commit one for no other reason than to just enter the class. Thats part of the price of the class. There's nothing mechanically unbalancing about removing the roleplaying requirements for this particular PrC no more so than ignoring any requirment you find pesky or annoying. You can be an archmage at level 1 if you want to ignore those silly requiments. You can be a frenzied berzerker at elvel 1 if you want to ignore those requirments. Mabey it really really fits your character concept. mabey you were left as a toddler in the wild and raised by wolveriens and had to hunt landsharks and ankegs since you were a babe and tazmanian devil and worlveriens taught you how to unleash your primal fury and totally lose controll. Sure it could be done with a barbarian, but you want to be a level 1 frenzied berzerker. I would say too bad, be a barbarian. In this case I would either say your evil and can be an assassin, or your good be a rogue. I don't see anything exceptional about this or anything even remotly unfair. I have players that want to be utterly invincible and slay everything they come across with the darkweave blade of chaos they "found" in their basement. I don't let them because it wouldn't be a fun game for anyone but that one player and even they would probly get bored quickly. I would say that the d&d alignment system is too black & white. I prefer my game to be a bit more like real life, and it sounds like the OP does too. In that sense, there's absolutely nothing wrong with what he wants to do. I have played in games that removed the alignment system. We used the mage system of nature and demeanor rather than the L/C+G/E axis. we removed all alignment classes and abilities from the game and used elemental affinities instead. It was an interesting game, but since thats not the game i was under the impression we were discussing i stick to whats printed in the books. Under the normal rules, if this character wants to be an assassin this character is evil. What he does, what he is, and what he will do are all evil. its a nice backstory, but it doesn't change how things are. If you want to change the game then there isn't a reason to be posting up here, you just do it and go. If your asking about it here it means your unsure and looking for other opinions and views. Which is what i give.
pukunui 09-15-06, 11:16 PM	Killing people in D&D is evil...unless you're justified. D&D is very good at giving people reasons to be justified in their killings. Entire class concepts are based around it (IMO, the Paladin). Anyway, just had to point that out. I mostly agree, but I think that even within the d&d alignment system it's possible to make the distinction between an evil act and an evil character. I would say that the OP's character is more selfish (and therefore CN) than evil. Yes, he is committing evil acts, but not because he wants to. What he wants is to keep his mother alive, and that's not an evil thing. He also wants to keep himself alive (and in and of itself, this is not evil either). However, because he's willing to kill others to keep himself alive then we get into a bit of a muddier situation. I still would be hesitant to say that the character himself is evil. That said, if he continues down the assassination path long enough, he would most likely become jaded and very quickly become evil thereafter. I see the OP's character as a potential Darth Vader type. The OP did want to know about alignments, but he also wanted to know about being an assassin without all the "guild" overtones. I'll reiterate that I don't have a problem with that at all. I'll also reiterate that ignoring certain aspects of the example prestige classes listed in the DMG is not the same as ignoring other, more basic rules of the game. I just can't seem to stress enough that the prestige classes listed in the DMG are just examples. They should be only as authoritative as the example starting packages given for each core class in the PHB. I will concur, though, that a strict interpretation of the d&d alignment system would require any assassin character (no matter the actual "build") should have to be "any evil". So I think what we need to establish is whether the campaign in which the OP will be playing will be adhering to the d&d alignment system or not.
Argo 09-15-06, 11:21 PM	Maybe I missed something, but I was under the impression that the OP was asking about the viability of removing the "Must kill someone solely to join the Assassins" requirement and not the "Evil" requirement. He's already said he's NE, so why is everybody arguing about that? As far as my own opinion on this subject is concerned, I think your backstory idea is really interesting, and I would definitely allow you to be an Assassin. However, I would probably make your master force you to join the Assassin's Guild. He's got your mother locked up, and if you don't join them he'll kill her. It would make for some really tense roleplaying situations, trying to Bluff your way into the Assassin's Guild. Those are some tough hombres... Oh, also, I think poison use and Death Attacks should be Good. Think about it. You just cause someone's nervous system to shut down and they instantly die (or with poison you put them to sleep and they don't wake up), versus hacking them apart bit by bit with a Greatsword.
pukunui 09-15-06, 11:31 PM	Maybe I missed something, but I was under the impression that the OP was asking about the viability of removing the "Must kill someone solely to join the Assassins" requirement and not the "Evil" requirement. He's already said he's NE, so why is everybody arguing about that? He did originally ask for opinions about what the alignment of his character should be ... somewhere along the line we all must have missed the bit where he agreed to make his character NE ... As far as my own opinion on this subject is concerned, I think your backstory idea is really interesting, and I would definitely allow you to be an Assassin. However, I would probably make your master force you to join the Assassin's Guild. He's got your mother locked up, and if you don't join them he'll kill her. It would make for some really tense roleplaying situations, trying to Bluff your way into the Assassin's Guild. Those are some tough hombres...I still don't see why people are so insistent on it being a "guild" thing. As far as the mechanics of the example assassin PrC go, the only thing that suggests "guild membership" is the "kill someone" prereq and that can easily be waived in a campaign where being an assassin doesn't mean being in a guild. Oh, also, I think poison use and Death Attacks should be Good. Think about it. You just cause someone's nervous system to shut down and they instantly die (or with poison you put them to sleep and they don't wake up), versus hacking them apart bit by bit with a Greatsword.I'm guessing you were just being facetious here, but I'd say that poison use (depending on the poison, of course - some can be horribly painful) and the death attack ability may be more humane, but using the d&d alignment system as the measuring stick, humane doesn't necessarily equal good in this instance.
belthazzar1113 09-15-06, 11:53 PM	I would say that the OP's character is more selfish (and therefore CN) than evil. Yes, he is committing evil acts, but not because he wants to. What he wants is to keep his mother alive, and that's not an evil thing. He also wants to keep himself alive (and in and of itself, this is not evil either). However, because he's willing to kill others to keep himself alive then we get into a bit of a muddier situation. I still would be hesitant to say that the character himself is evil. I agree with this. Which is why i have fallen back on "either your evil and can be an assassin, or your not evil and your a rogue. Its an either or situation. You might be able to make a case for either, but if your going to be an assassin then the case has been decided. Maybe I missed something, but I was under the impression that the OP was asking about the viability of removing the "Must kill someone solely to join the Assassins" requirement and not the "Evil" requirement. I consider these really one and the same. Its not enough to simply be evil, you have to activly commit an evil act to get into the assassins. The killing someone to join the assassins always reminded me of "making your bones" with the mob. You had to kill someone in front of the guys who were going to teach you to prove you could do it. ALot of people think the assassin requirment means you have to take a contract first and then become an assassin. I think its more along the lines of you have someone tied in a room and you have to look them in the eyes and stick a knife to them. This is basically killing whatever last dregs of decency and goodness you ahve in you. This is a symbolic act in which you are as much killing the part of yourself that feels remorse as you are killing a sentient being. As far as removing the guild aspect, in this case i don't think thats being done. It was stated that the "slave master" would be teaching the assassin techniques. I assume that to mean either he is an assassin himself or has access to a training manual or scroll of philosophy and martial study. Thats a pretty classic plot device and thus i don't see it as really removing the guild. You still have a master, you still have a trainer, and your still beholden to a higher up. Its a modification but its not a sweeping change. a two man guild is still a guild in my estimation.
pukunui 09-16-06, 12:18 AM	Fair enough, Belthazzar. I think you've persuaded me to your point of view now. I will admit that I must have read too much into your earlier postings about making the game morally bankrupt and such. I had read it as being the comments of a fundamentalist Christian who didn't like the idea of having fuzzy morality in his d&d game ... but now I understand that you were just talking about morality in terms of the d&d alignment system and how making assassins not evil messes with the system. I do agree with that, and I think it's fair to say that I'm now firmly in the "assassins should be evil" camp. Now, as far as the OP's situation is concerned -- I think his character could quite easily start out with a non-evil alignment, but after a while he's definitely going to get jaded and at the very least shift into a CN alignment. If he continues working for this guy (even with his primary motive still being to keep his mother alive), he'll have to end up with some kind of evil alignment. Like I said before, I see the OP's concept as being very Darth Vader-like. Keep in mind that he did say they were starting at level 1, and the earliest he can qualify for the assassin PrC (as written in the DMG) is level 5, so he's got some time for his alignment to shift. But like others have said, the assassin PrC may not be the best fit. I think you could make a strong case for there being a distinction between an "assassin" and a "professional killer". And concept-wise, it sounds to me like the OP's character would be more the latter, but the OP wants his character to be the former. So therein lies the dilemma.