Post/Author/DateTime	Post
R99 02-27-06, 12:38 PM	All an assassin does is kill someone their told to. all they are are more useful, spellcasting (leave "use magic device" out of this) rogues who actually stand a chance in a fight! What's so evil about that?!?!?! :banghead:
Nephlite 02-27-06, 12:50 PM	All an assassin does is kill someone their told to. all they are are more useful, spellcasting (leave "use magic device" out of this) rogues who actually stand a chance in a fight! What's so evil about that?!?!?! :banghead: Flavor reasons. The DM canalter the class so it isn't evil. Maybe the Assasin has a code that he won't target someone he deems innocent, but the RAW for flavor reasons has the Assasin evil. It won't mess to the game to make it non-good or any alignment. There is a good aligned only Prc called Slayer of Domiel: basically a good only assasin group. Again, flavor reasons.
Romanus_Mortus 02-27-06, 12:54 PM	Same reason Bard's can't be Lawful (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=594137&page=1&pp=30). Hoping your thread will get as big as that one? :D Oh, and also - Killing is evil in D&D. Even neutral characters would prefer not to be assassins. “Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master . People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them. D&D alignments are non-relativist and non-consequentialist. Killing shows a lack of respect for life. Doubly so when you do it for a living. So that's the reasoning. You're welcome to remove the restriction, but it's there with good cause.
simon_tage 02-27-06, 12:54 PM	I guess because current social mores say that killing people on commission is an evil thing. I would allow any non-good myself with the proper background.
GiantSlor 02-27-06, 01:02 PM	So are all executioners and hangmen evil? //just poking the fire....
DarkRhystar 02-27-06, 01:07 PM	All an assassin does is kill someone their told to. all they are are more useful, spellcasting (leave "use magic device" out of this) rogues who actually stand a chance in a fight! What's so evil about that?!?!?! :banghead: An assassin is someone whose occupation is murdering people for money (assassination). In a world of black and white morality such as D&D, it is evil. Even in real life, this is quite evil. Even the most heroic figure may be evil if he or she murders others for money and no amount of rationalizing will change this. Such is why the D&D assassin is evil... oh and this: Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. No one of good character would commit such a heinous, self-serving, and evil act.
Nephlite 02-27-06, 01:08 PM	I guess because current social mores say that killing people on commission is an evil thing. I would allow any non-good myself with the proper background. Please, soldiers killfor commission too and no one calls them evil...well at least, majority of current social mores don't.(some fringe groups do) Again, for flavor reasons: Heck the CIA and FBA have snipers to kill political enemy leaders (like Saddam): that doesn't make them evil.
Romanus_Mortus 02-27-06, 01:12 PM	So are all executioners and hangmen evil? //just poking the fire.... They could be neutral, assuming they had reasonable cause to believe their victims were deserving of death. In an evil nation, hangmen and executioners probably are evil, because they would be killing at the whim of their evil overlord (refer to my SRD quote, plz). As for using assassins - Neutral nations would hire evil assassins in certain circumstances (assassinating someone who is 'guilty' of a crime punishable by death (l/n nation), or someone who greivously upset the "balance" (n/n nation). Good nations probably don't use assassins at all. Not that your world has to be that way, but that's what seems to be in line with the RAW.
Arindor 02-27-06, 01:26 PM	Quote: "Please, soldiers killfor commission too and no one calls them evil...well at least, majority of current social mores don't.(some fringe groups do) Again, for flavor reasons: Heck the CIA and FBA have snipers to kill political enemy leaders (like Saddam): that doesn't make them evil." These people are paid to defend there country not paid to kill people. An unfortunate side effect of defending your country is that sometimes people die. The DnD Assassin PRC was designed with a certain stereo type in mind. That is a ruthless cold hearted killer who when he wanted to join the guild and told to bring his mothers head to them in a bag wouold ask "Paper or plastic?" Just a note you can be an Assassin (the job) without any levels in the PRC. This means you are a non-guild related assassin and could be any alignment your actions dictate. You don't get the class skills or feats but you are still a killer for hire. Come up with any backstory you want.
Dench 02-27-06, 01:34 PM	It gives special "flavor" to your PC. Think of this: "I'm a Rogue that works killing people for money" and "I'm an assassin, who do you want to be killed and how much are you willing to pay?" And there's his counterpart the Slayer of Domiel, that works by killing evil people because the church or even a messenger of his god has trained him into it, kill evil people. :D
Romanus_Mortus 02-27-06, 01:37 PM	:doh: It has *nothing* to do with flavor. It has everything to do with internal rule consistency vis-a-vis the alignment mechanic, which is part of the RAW. Assassins must be evil because they don't qualify for any other alignment. Do I need to quote the SRD at you again?
Raven Dark 02-27-06, 01:40 PM	If you are making a high level character from the get go, give him a few assassin levels, a good alignment, and then jsut say he has since repented for his crimes. You can't take more levels in assassin, but you keep the abilities you have already (unless your DM is really an@l). A friend of mine played a Ranger 5/Ex-Assassin 5/Fighter 2 this way. It was a ton of fun. :D
Romanus_Mortus 02-27-06, 01:43 PM	No, don't bother answering my last post. Lemme just make it crystal clear. I won't even type anything else of my own, the SRD will speak for itself. Behold!: ASSASSIN Hit Die: d6. Requirements To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria. Alignment: Any evil. Skills: Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks. Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
danielinthewolvesden 02-27-06, 01:48 PM	Because the rules say so. :rolleyes: We get this question once a week. We can get into the whole "Good vs Evil" grand debate and "well- soldiers kill and they get paid' silly arguments. (Assasins will kill anyone anytime if the price is rights. Soldiers kill "the enemy"- not their own folks or their own men). But it's pointless. In D&D, the word "Assassin" is defined as "those who kill only for money and without moral compunctions"- which is evil. Or as i said before: Because the rules say so.
DarknessEternal 02-27-06, 01:58 PM	Are we talking about the Assassin PrC or assassin as a career in general? Those are two similar, but quite different things. Even with that being the case. Killing people in cold blood for money is evil, at least by the D&D definition (and that's all that matters here). A better question might be "Why do assassins have to be villains?" because that's at least more interesting. The answer is they don't. If you were head murderer for a benevolent and generally good nation, you would certainly be considered a hero, even by other good peoples outside your nation. You're still evil though. Evil doesn't mean jerkass villain.
Dench 02-27-06, 02:06 PM	Yeah, an evil Rogue works fine as an assassin, but pretending to be an assassin and to be a real assassin is question of flavor. And moral codes, too.
Rivelstraz 02-27-06, 02:27 PM	Rule-wise, a character could become an assassin and then slowly become LG. There's NO text about assassin losing its alignment. Flavour what?
The_Shaman 02-27-06, 02:46 PM	Actually, it might be possible to speak with the DM to allow you to become an assassin if you are not evil, but I personally would consider it convincing only if you are made to assassinate for an organization you belong to. For example, a LN scout in the army who is given a task to assassinate a general of an enemy country (which, barely, might cover the "kill only to become an assassin" bit, then another enemy of the regime (especially if he's an LN soldier in a country with LE leaders). However, that is straining it a little: perhaps your DM may roleplay something like that for you, but chances are he won't. Personally, I can believe assassins being non-good, particularly LN, which gives them more motivations to kill regularly despite not liking to; TN and CN are a bit more free-spirited so they probably wouldn't become assassins but it is possible under the right circumstances. The way I see it, you don't need to be evil to become an assassin, but it certainly helps - and chances are that if you become an assassin, you will eventually become evil. A friend of mine whom I'm currently playing with asked me the same question a few weeks ago - he is playing a CN rogue and was looking for a PrC (infamy class, in this case). I started tweaking the class, and eventually simply changed it into something else whatsoever - the outcome was a revised bounty hunter class (not that different, really - except that you usually need to bring them in alive, which is often harder).
Darth_Azalin 02-27-06, 02:51 PM	I believe it was once in a dragon magazine article about this very topic.. And If I remember what was said is this.. Assassins are paid to kill while the bounty hunter (thats what they said you should play instead) Does both missions (dead or alive) So I guess you would take the assassins class and just do a little tweaking and you would have a bounty hunter.. Now as a Bard... about not being able to be lawful.. They are mainly loners and such.. so I see that.. but what do you call those bards that are squad leaders (the ones that use rally and inspires) those would be LN at least..
Romanus_Mortus 02-27-06, 02:56 PM	Actually, it might be possible to speak with the DM to allow you to become an assassin if you are not evil, but I personally would consider it convincing only if you are made to assassinate for an organization you belong to. For example, a LN scout in the army who is given a task to assassinate a general of an enemy country (which, barely, might cover the "kill only to become an assassin" bit, then another enemy of the regime (especially if he's an LN soldier in a country with LE leaders). However, that is straining it a little: perhaps your DM may roleplay something like that for you, but chances are he won't. Personally, I can believe assassins being non-good, particularly LN, which gives them more motivations to kill regularly despite not liking to; TN and CN are a bit more free-spirited so they probably wouldn't become assassins but it is possible under the right circumstances. The way I see it, you don't need to be evil to become an assassin, but it certainly helps - and chances are that if you become an assassin, you will eventually become evil. A friend of mine whom I'm currently playing with asked me the same question a few weeks ago - he is playing a CN rogue and was looking for a PrC (infamy class, in this case). I started tweaking the class, and eventually simply changed it into something else whatsoever - the outcome was a revised bounty hunter class (not that different, really - except that you usually need to bring them in alive, which is often harder). All of those are possible houserule options. Under RAW, assassins HAVE to be evil because they ARE. Houserule as desired. Rinse. Repeat.
Romanus_Mortus 02-27-06, 02:58 PM	Now as a Bard... about not being able to be lawful.. They are mainly loners and such.. so I see that.. but what do you call those bards that are squad leaders (the ones that use rally and inspires) those would be LN at least.. This belongs in the other thread. Short answer: N/- bards can be squad leaders no problem. Working within a group doesn't make you lawful, but feeling a preference for group work does.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-27-06, 03:05 PM	Because they are members of an organization who can be best described as 'retarded monkeys'.
Kiklio 02-27-06, 03:14 PM	Nephlite and DarknessEternal have the right idea- modify it or live with it. Unless you party with a cleric whose favorite spell is holy word, and has a "must kill evil" policy, or you can't live with an [Evil] label on your character, then you can just roll with it. Or modify it- if you can have a paladin of tyranny, you can have an assassin of justice.
The_Shaman 02-27-06, 03:16 PM	Actually, it might be possible to speak with the DM to allow you to become an assassin if you are not evil, but I personally would consider it convincing only if you are made to assassinate for an organization you belong to. For example, a LN scout in the army who is given a task to assassinate a general of an enemy country (which, barely, might cover the "kill only to become an assassin" bit, then another enemy of the regime (especially if he's an LN soldier in a country with LE leaders). However, that is straining it a little: perhaps your DM may roleplay something like that for you, but chances are he won't. Personally, I can believe assassins being non-good, particularly LN, which gives them more motivations to kill regularly despite not liking to; TN and CN are a bit more free-spirited so they probably wouldn't become assassins but it is possible under the right circumstances. The way I see it, you don't need to be evil to become an assassin, but it certainly helps - and chances are that if you become an assassin, you will eventually become evil. A friend of mine whom I'm currently playing with asked me the same question a few weeks ago - he is playing a CN rogue and was looking for a PrC (infamy class, in this case). I started tweaking the class, and eventually simply changed it into something else whatsoever - the outcome was a revised bounty hunter class (not that different, really - except that you usually need to bring them in alive, which is often harder).
Nail 02-27-06, 03:24 PM	All an assassin does is kill someone their(sic) told to. Hee, hee! Yer funny. "I followed your orders, sir! Am I Lawful Good now, jus' like you promised?" :D
heretic888 02-27-06, 04:04 PM	I have already addressed this issue on the following thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=579059). Please refer to my comments there if you want to understand my perspective on the subject. Laterz.
Dench 02-27-06, 04:38 PM	Check out also the SRD... it says in the requirements: Alignment: Any evil.. That's why an assassin has to be evil. :teach:
Talen Lee 02-27-06, 05:09 PM	All an assassin does is kill someone their told to. all they are are more useful, spellcasting (leave "use magic device" out of this) rogues who actually stand a chance in a fight! What's so evil about that?!?!?! :banghead:Nothing. On the other hand, killing people without any moral judgement for your own personal and monetary gain is evil. So when the class is built around doing that, you might consider that, perhaps, scandalously, being evil is part of the class.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-27-06, 05:17 PM	Check out also the SRD... it says in the requirements: Alignment: Any evil.. That's why an assassin has to be evil. :teach: COP OUT
Drakenstein 02-27-06, 05:41 PM	remeber dnd isnt black and white completly evil dosnt mean "hahaha i am Therak the Evil one let me eat your babies" evil means you dont care about many things and you are self centered and good dosnt mean "i am Seymos the just i will be your hero for the day (unless a paladin) it means that he is nice and kind remeber everything isnt black and white but shades of gray just as it should be theres my rant i hope you all enjoyed
JulesCARV 02-27-06, 06:23 PM	If it's a big issue, talk to your DM about it, explain why, in the specific context of your character, you DON'T think that your assassin must be evil (maybe instead of joining an assassin's guild, you could join a group of CG vigilantes, and the entry requirement could be to kill or incapacitate some kind of evil pimp or something). However, considering that the point of the "assassin" class is basically to kill people when they can't resist (i.e., sneak attacks from the shadows, methods which allow little room for negotiation, surrender, nonlethal subdual, etc), I think a good reason for why you're the exception to the evil rule is needed, not just "well, I have four ranks in disguise, and eight ranks in move silently and hide. Can I join a guild of good-aligned variant assassins now?" I think the same logic applies to good dead-raising necromancers, "extreme alignment" druids, and the like. If you want to so much, talk to your DM about it and explain your circumstances. A reasonable DM will make exceptions for a coherent and well-developed but rules-bending character concept. However, I do think it requires a bit more work from a player's side: saying, "I want to be a neutral good druid" should be fairly automatically allowed by a DM. Saying, "I want to be a chaotic good druid," though, should require a bit of explanation.
heretic888 02-27-06, 06:43 PM	However, considering that the point of the "assassin" class is basically to kill people when they can't resist (i.e., sneak attacks from the shadows, methods which allow little room for negotiation, surrender, nonlethal subdual, etc), I think a good reason for why you're the exception to the evil rule is needed.... The problem with this explanation is that: 1) That is, in fact, not the "point" of the Assassin prestige class. The purpose of the Assassin prestige class (at least in terms of background flavor) is to kill others primarily for monetary gain. The methodology through which this intention is carried out is secondary. 2) Those methods are not only not evil, they don't seem to have all that much to do with a character's alignment at all. Rogues, Ninja, and Spellthieves all get the sneak attack class feature; not a single one of them is required to be "evil" or even "nongood". In fact, there are explicit rules for good character using sneak attack and exalted Rogues in the Book of Exalted Deeds. 3) As has already been mentioned before, morality in D&D is largely non-consequentialist. How you do something is, for the most part, generally less important than why you do something. The only exceptions to this general rule are alignment-based spells and effects (such as channeling negative energy being considered an "evil" action). As such, this means that while D&D generally assumes a non-relativist and non-consequentialist morality, it still favors qualitative contextualism over dualistic absolutism. Hope that clears things up. Laterz.
Dench 02-27-06, 06:43 PM	COP OUT :looloo:
Minister_for_Moral_Truth 02-27-06, 06:48 PM	An assassin does not have to be evil, although most are. A member of the Assassin prestige class, and hence a member of the assassin's guild who has killed an innocent merley to prove his ability, does. There are plenty of groups of assassins who do not have to be evil, but his specialist one does have that requirment.
SilvercatMoonpaw 02-27-06, 08:23 PM	Do Assasins themselves have to be evil? Are we saying that they have to be extremely evil, "I really like killing people" evil, or just sort of evil, "Nothing personal, but some guy wants you dead" evil? I think that D&D good is way too lenient about killing, so if you said that the assasin had to be, say, LG and only use his abilities on evil people, that would fit D&D morality. But does that really make him a good person? You should also recognize that Death Attack says that you can choose to paralyze rather than kill, so a G assasin might just have a Disable ability. So you can have killing in the name of good, or no killing.
Talen Lee 02-27-06, 08:44 PM	You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Killing a person doesn't make you evil, and you don't need to be evil to kill a person. Killing a person for monetary gain, with no personal stake in the setting or consideration for their moral stance or provocation... is evil. It's pretty simple. You don't have to bite the heads off puppies. If you have a nice home life, a place in the 'burbs, a healthy family and whatnot, and then, when the time comes to make money, you happen to rub someone out, congratulations, you're evil.
heretic888 02-27-06, 08:47 PM	I think that D&D good is way too lenient about killing, so if you said that the assasin had to be, say, LG and only use his abilities on evil people, that would fit D&D morality. Actually.... no, it wouldn't. As has already been mentioned, D&D morality is (for the most part) non-consequentialist. Killing "evil" does not intrinsically make you "good". In fact, if you killed other beings (regardless of their alignment) solely out of some desire or thrill for violence, then that very much would be considered an "evil" act within the total context D&D morality. To reiterate, how you kill and who you kill is of secondary importance to why you kill in the first place. Do you kill to protect others (i.e., good-aligned)?? Do you kill because you are forced to (i.e., neutral-aligned)?? Or, do you just kill for cash or to get your jollies (i.e., evil-aligned)?? It's the same action, but three very different motivations. Laterz.
heretic888 02-27-06, 08:48 PM	You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. Killing a person doesn't make you evil, and you don't need to be evil to kill a person. Killing a person for monetary gain, with no personal stake in the setting or consideration for their moral stance or provocation... is evil. It's pretty simple. You don't have to bite the heads off puppies. If you have a nice home life, a place in the 'burbs, a healthy family and whatnot, and then, when the time comes to make money, you happen to rub someone out, congratulations, you're evil. Exactly. ;)
JulesCARV 02-27-06, 08:50 PM	The problem with this explanation is that: 1) That is, in fact, not the "point" of the Assassin prestige class. The purpose of the Assassin prestige class (at least in terms of background flavor) is to kill others primarily for monetary gain. The methodology through which this intention is carried out is secondary. I was referring to the assassin class features (such as death attack, poison use, etc), not the motivations of assassin characters. 2) Those methods are not only not evil, they don't seem to have all that much to do with a character's alignment at all. Rogues, Ninja, and Spellthieves all get the sneak attack class feature; not a single one of them is required to be "evil" or even "nongood". In fact, there are explicit rules for good character using sneak attack and exalted Rogues in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Sure. As I said, if you want to play an exalted assassin, who joined the guild using some criterion other than "kill someone becuase we said so," talk to your DM. Why do you think that the BoED has specific guidelines for the use of sneak attacks and such? Does it also have specific guidelines for when it's okay to cast cure light wounds? My guess is that it's simply assumed to be okay. That's why, as I said, you can make a good cleric who takes the healing domain, or you can take a good assassin, but the good assassin probably requires a bit more explanation. This is probably the exact reason why the BoED addresses it. 3) As has already been mentioned before, morality in D&D is largely non-consequentialist. How you do something is, for the most part, generally less important than why you do something. The only exceptions to this general rule are alignment-based spells and effects (such as channeling negative energy being considered an "evil" action). As such, this means that while D&D generally assumes a non-relativist and non-consequentialist morality, it still favors qualitative contextualism over dualistic absolutism. Hope that clears things up. Laterz. Deontological morality cares about how people do things too, of course. In fact, I'd say that the attitude that why is more important than how is more reflective of consequentialist morality than deontology. That is one of the major arguments deontologists use against consequentialists -- that just because you're doing something for a good reason, using whatever methods you can for that reason, doesn't mean you're doing the right thing. (a doctor who tests promising new drugs without informed consent from patients likely has a very good "why," but a rather bad "how," and deontologist typically find such doctors more objectionable than consequentialists, not less so)
akiir 02-27-06, 09:05 PM	lets see here a good friend of mine played a fighter/rogue and was basically a neutral assasin. He was in jail for just that but that is besides the point. umm where was i going oh yeah he was playing his character like a assasin actaully i think he was going to take the prc. He decided not to becuase playing your own design and ideas of what a assasin should be is a whole lot more fun then being a actaully assasin. theres my 5 cents
King_Bulba 02-27-06, 11:11 PM	An assassin does not have to be evil, although most are. The Black Flame Zelot is a LG PrC that assassinates people. Not all assassins are evil. This PrC is a pretty good example. Most alignment to classes are BS imo but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Stupid thing like this is why you have rule 0.
Dragonteuthis 02-27-06, 11:45 PM	COP OUT Name caller! I'm tellin' yer mom!
Dragonteuthis 02-27-06, 11:51 PM	The Black Flame Zelot is a LG PrC that assassinates people. Weird. According to my Complete Divine, the Black Flame Zealot must be "Any nongood." But I've been told that it originally appeared in another sourcebook. Perhaps it was changed.
King_Bulba 02-28-06, 12:30 AM	Weird. According to my Complete Divine, the Black Flame Zealot must be "Any nongood." But I've been told that it originally appeared in another sourcebook. Perhaps it was changed. OK I was wrong about LG BUT my point is still valid. Assassins can be non evil and this PrC is an example.
DarknessEternal 02-28-06, 12:30 AM	'Course, Complete Divine also lists Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kukri) as a requirement, so who knows how accurate that whole class is since it clearly wasn't edited. But as heretic888 and Talen Lee have already pointed out. Killing people for money, and only for money, is evil in D&D. This is not up for debate. Too many people confuse "evil" with "villain". Those terms are not equal in D&D.
BlaineTog 02-28-06, 12:57 AM	Same reason Bard's can't be Lawful (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=594137&page=1&pp=30).Except the reason actually makes some degree of sense here, namely because the flavor of the class actually is harmed by lack of restrictions, and because it's a Prestige Class and is supposed to be more specific. Now, it's debatable about whether such a specific prestige class should be included in the core rule books, but that's another question entierly. Assasins of the DMG PrC must be evil because that PrC is attempting to create a very specific type of assasin character. One could certainly create an alternate assasin class that was not required to be evil, but the DMG assasin ain't it.
HaikenEdge 02-28-06, 01:25 AM	Whats wrong with evil? My favorite alignment is Neutral Evil; "Can't be held accountable to anybody except for myself", you know what I'm saying? Killing for cash is evil. Killing for your country and getting paid on the side? Depends on which one you focus more on. If you focus more on the paid, you're probably evil. If it's more "for the country", I could go with neutral, but definately not good.
Lina_Inverse 02-28-06, 07:23 AM	All an assassin does is kill someone their told to. all they are are more useful, spellcasting (leave "use magic device" out of this) rogues who actually stand a chance in a fight! What's so evil about that?!?!?! :banghead: Anyone who would kill someone theve never met for money DEFINES evil. How much more selfish can you get? I guess doing certain umentionable practices before killing them. The assasain isnt just a more combat capable rogue and some spellcasting. Its about being a hired killer out for only money. Hence it being a prestiege class, you can treat base classes as an ability package to cherry pick, the same cant be said for prestiege classes since everyone has a restricting piece of flavor. Why not ask why a dragon disiplie has to become a dragon at lvl10 :P
Dragonteuthis 02-28-06, 08:19 AM	Anyone who would kill someone theve never met for money DEFINES evil. Presumably, then, your PCs get to know the monsters you plan to kill? PC: "Ah, lovely tea and crumpets, Hobgoblin. But I'm afraid I'll have to kill you now. Hobgoblin: "Oh, just stab me, dear friend, and let's be bloody done with it." PC: "Certainly, old chap, but first...I don't suppose you'd be willing to share that recipe for spiced lemon pound cake?" Hobgoblin: "Oh dear. I knew I was supposed to be guarding something."
Rivelstraz 02-28-06, 08:27 AM	Presumably, then, your PCs get to know the monsters you plan to kill? PC: "Ah, lovely tea and crumpets, Hobgoblin. But I'm afraid I'll have to kill you now. Hobgoblin: "Oh, just stab me, dear friend, and let's be bloody done with it." PC: "Certainly, old chap, but first...I don't suppose you'd be willing to share that recipe for spiced lemon pound cake?" Hobgoblin: "Oh dear. I knew I was supposed to be guarding something." Not to mention how many times PCs have killed "inherent evil creatures" without even knowing their alignment. What if the Goblin X who was patrolling was, in fact, good, and planning to escape from his cruel tribe? Good characters killing good people. While an assassin has to be evil for FOUR rounds, then he can join the assassins and become LG. Brilliant rules we got here. Assassin alignment prereq should include CN and LN.
Balor von Balorvitch 02-28-06, 08:44 AM	Throw away the flavor of the assassin, what if i am a good character that wants to learn how to kill foes with one stroke and makes that his sole goal in life. I have never found a PrC that gives as good death attack as the assassin and no matter how hard you try at slaying outright if your good you will never be as good as your evil counter part.
R99 02-28-06, 08:57 AM	Granted, they kill people 4 money..... BUT... they might have a desire to kill evil people, you might take a moral stance against killing good characters
Stanwick 02-28-06, 09:52 AM	The RAW on this has been posted several times already but ill do it again anyhow.:twitch: "Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." :teach: Now from what i can tell, the "no other reason" is the most important part of this statement. This means that there can be no other circumstances involved in the killing. The victem cant be the bully of the neighborhood you want to get rid of to protect your mother. The victim cant be the head priest of an evil religion in the city. He cant even be some old enemy you have a grudge against. Basically at midday the guild takes you to the highest tower in the center of the city, blindfolds you, spins you around and has you point down. The person you point at is the person you kill if you want to join the guild. That is evil. :devil: All that said though its easy enough to houserule it out and make a neutral or even good based assassin guild. So just talk to your DM (as has been pointed out already). -Stanwick:pint:
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-28-06, 10:00 AM	That's the problem with the Assassin PrC. If the organization wasn't one apperently dedicated to doing everything in thier power to get thier members arrested and sumerrarily (sp?) executed, then the requirement wouldn't be evil. I submit that the Assassin Guild is comprised of the dumbest assassins as a way of keeping attention off real assassins.
GreyEagle 02-28-06, 10:31 AM	Assassins DONT have to be evil. use your imagination. Hunting: people walking through the woods shooting sentient animals for fun. Not evil. Soldiering: People fighting wars so that citizens dont have to and killing their countries enemies. Not evil. And also, just because you have no regard for the value of life doesnt make you evil. It just means that you dont care about anyone elses life. I hate how narrow the alignments are. Its like trying to squeeze a whale into a test tube. And about the rules being the"be all end all" no. The rules are guidelines for the dm and players to minimize squabbling. The Dungeon MASTER is the final say on the rules. The assassin could have a very good reason for wanting to kill for money. What if its the only thing hes ever known? What if he thinks that he is doing good deeds by ridding the world of corruption, one life at a time? Just use your imagination. :)
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 10:59 AM	This argument, even moreso than the bard one, is ridiculous. At least in the Bard argument there is room to wiggle, because its a question of why limit a class when there's no (or only vague) mechanical support. Under the RAW, an assassin is evil. Period. Not only because the requirements part of the PrC says so, but also because their actions practically define evil, given the RAW definition. I have quoted the SRD twice now, so I won't do it again. It is totally possible to have a nonevil Assassin in your world. You would be working under house rules. In RAW, assassins have to be evil. Because the class says so, and because their actions necessarily are 'evil', by definition. This is not hard to fathom, folks. Just suck it up, houserule a nonevil assassin, and get on with your game.
Nephlite 02-28-06, 12:08 PM	Throw away the flavor of the assassin, what if i am a good character that wants to learn how to kill foes with one stroke and makes that his sole goal in life. I have never found a PrC that gives as good death attack as the assassin and no matter how hard you try at slaying outright if your good you will never be as good as your evil counter part. What is wrong Slayer Of Domiel's death attack? Yes, it only works on evil, but itis decent. A Slayer of Domiel could kick a Assassin's butt: because the Assasin has to study for a few rounds, Slayer doesn't. Only trouble: must be Lawful good. So you are a very lawful assassin who only kills evil. (a good act)
Rivelstraz 02-28-06, 12:22 PM	This argument, even moreso than the bard one, is ridiculous. At least in the Bard argument there is room to wiggle, because its a question of why limit a class when there's no (or only vague) mechanical support. Under the RAW, an assassin is evil. Period. Not only because the requirements part of the PrC says so, but also because their actions practically define evil, given the RAW definition. I have quoted the SRD twice now, so I won't do it again. It is totally possible to have a nonevil Assassin in your world. You would be working under house rules. In RAW, assassins have to be evil. Because the class says so, and because their actions necessarily are 'evil', by definition. This is not hard to fathom, folks. Just suck it up, houserule a nonevil assassin, and get on with your game. Yet you can move into good alignments after you joined the assassin crew. That makes NO sense at all. Should we consider it to be a mistake by Wizards?
Dench 02-28-06, 12:42 PM	SRD ASSASSIN Hit Die: d6. Requirements To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria. Alignment: Any evil. Skills: Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks. Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. :teach: That's why assassins have to be evil. The SRD has spoken.
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 01:14 PM	Yet you can move into good alignments after you joined the assassin crew. That makes NO sense at all. Should we consider it to be a mistake by Wizards? Ehhhn, technically you can move into good alignments, but... If you continue to behave as an assassin (killing for sport/profit/the innocent/etc), then there is no way to achieve that result. So as long as you only used your assassin skills for good, then it's not a hole in the rules at all. If your DM lets you become an assassin and then declare "now I'm good", but continue to assassinate things left and right, then you either don't understand, or are intentionally ignoring the alignment system - which falls under my "houserule" statement.
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 01:17 PM	SRD ASSASSIN Hit Die: d6. Requirements To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria. Alignment: Any evil. Skills: Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks. Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. :teach: That's why assassins have to be evil. The SRD has spoken. Dude, I totally did that at the beginning of the thread. People tend to argue this sort of thing from the standpoint of "Its a limitation that I prefer to houserule anyway, so why even make it part of the game?" I have said my peace regarding the RAW. Everything else is a houserule.
Dench 02-28-06, 01:30 PM	Yeah, in fact I copied the thread from your thread. I put it just in case that somebody didn't see it. Guess many people doesn't know the Golden Rule of "if you don't like it, change it" :whatsthis
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 01:50 PM	Nah, I think most folks are well aware that they can change things. Their argument is that they shouldn't HAVE to. It's not enough for the game to say "do whatever you want with me", they want to have that freedom, and still be playing under the RAW. They are not always unreasonable in their desires, but this thread is one of those cases of *duh*.
Kresalak 02-28-06, 02:10 PM	SRD ASSASSIN Hit Die: d6. Requirements To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria. Alignment: Any evil. Skills: Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks. Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. :teach: That's why assassins have to be evil. The SRD has spoken. We're not asking "Do assassins have to be evil?"; we're asking "Why do assassins have to be evil?". You could rephrase this as "Why did WotC say that assassins have to be evil? What reasoning went into that decision?" So quoting the SRD will not help you here. And the second part you bolded is one of the stupidest requirements for a class I have ever seen. I'm sure I can find a dumber one, but I don't want to waste the effort.
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 02:35 PM	We're not asking "Do assassins have to be evil?"; we're asking "Why do assassins have to be evil?". You could rephrase this as "Why did WotC say that assassins have to be evil? What reasoning went into that decision?" So quoting the SRD will not help you here. And the second part you bolded is one of the stupidest requirements for a class I have ever seen. I'm sure I can find a dumber one, but I don't want to waste the effort. Go back and read page one of this thread. Carefully. Ok, done? Now, did you see where I quoted that the first time? Right under it I put the definition of Evil, also from the SRD. What assassins do is kill, generally for profit or sport. Killing, in D&D is evil, especially when done for money or sport. Yes, the implication is that Neutral Good characters are going to almost universally be weepy pacifist vegetarians - such is life. The RAW defines what assassins do as evil. That's why they have to be. The RAW also tells you to play however you see fit.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-28-06, 02:41 PM	Killing, in D&D is evil Killing in and of itself isn't evil. The game sort of straight out tells you that creatures like the Coatyl have a penchant for murder.
Dench 02-28-06, 02:51 PM	We're not asking "Do assassins have to be evil?"; we're asking "Why do assassins have to be evil?". You could rephrase this as "Why did WotC say that assassins have to be evil? What reasoning went into that decision?" So quoting the SRD will not help you here. And the second part you bolded is one of the stupidest requirements for a class I have ever seen. I'm sure I can find a dumber one, but I don't want to waste the effort. So what? :rolleyes: change the rules if you want to, Assassins have to be evil because the SRD says so, but if you don't like it, take the Golden Rule and do what you must. I think many people know this, so what's the point in this discussion? :waits:
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 03:03 PM	Killing in and of itself isn't evil. The game sort of straight out tells you that creatures like the Coatyl have a penchant for murder. I draw my conclusion because the verb "kill" in one form or another is used 3 times in the description of "evil". Couatl are probably more discriminating about who they kill - the rules make a point about "innocence" as well (assumedly a moral innocence, not legal innocence, since the word is being used in the Good/Evil section, not the Law/Chaos section). This is why adventurers, even good ones, can get away with murder, so to speak. If they are killing those who are not "innocents", and do so with a degree of reflection, respect, and restraint, then they are still good. I suspect the Couatl would tear to shreds a creature known to be actively evil, but would likely parley with good or neutral characters, giving them fair warning, etc etc. IIRC the description of the creature also mentions that they are known to become defenders of weaker creatures or some such thing. A pechant for killing in a creature defined as "lawful good" is an interesting RP opportunity, but not necessarily cause to bring the whole alignment system crashing down. After all, gold dragons and celestials can be pretty "murderous" too. D&D does make allowances for murder being different from just killing (just in the moral sense, as in justice). It's a fine line, but one that can be drawn with a fair degree of consistency, I think. This is why I suggest that it is possible for an evil character to become an assassin, and then become good later without losing powers. As long as the character uses the assassin skills in a 'good' way, they can become/remain good. But as the class is written, they are pretty clearly evil by RAW standards. Whether you like the "off someone to join our club" requirement is a different issue.
BlaineTog 02-28-06, 03:13 PM	I draw my conclusion because the verb "kill" in one form or another is used 3 times in the description of "evil".And the letter "e" is used 19 times. Guilt by Association is a logical fallacy, you know. This is why I suggest that it is possible for an evil character to become an assassin, and then become good later without losing powers. As long as the character uses the assassin skills in a 'good' way, they can become/remain good.Well, technically, if you fail to meet the requirements of a class, you lose all abilities from said class until you meet them again.
Rivelstraz 02-28-06, 04:17 PM	Ehhhn, technically you can move into good alignments, but... If you continue to behave as an assassin (killing for sport/profit/the innocent/etc), then there is no way to achieve that result. So as long as you only used your assassin skills for good, then it's not a hole in the rules at all. If your DM lets you become an assassin and then declare "now I'm good", but continue to assassinate things left and right, then you either don't understand, or are intentionally ignoring the alignment system - which falls under my "houserule" statement. There's no rule about being an assassin and not acting like one. If you're a wizard, you're not forced to cast spells, you can melee all day long if you don't mind being "useless". However, for some reason, you may be a wizard forced to melee, like an assassin was evil when he turned one, but now, he doesn't kill for profit/etc., yet he's still gaining levels in the class.
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 04:22 PM	There's no rule about being an assassin and not acting like one. If you're a wizard, you're not forced to cast spells, you can melee all day long if you don't mind being "useless". However, for some reason, you may be a wizard forced to melee, like an assassin was evil when he turned one, but now, he doesn't kill for profit/etc., yet he's still gaining levels in the class. I never once contradicted any of that. I said if you keep behaving as an assassin (doing evil stuff like killing for profit), you have no chance of turning good. If you change your ways, and use your powers for good, then it could theoretically happen. However, if you had taken assassin as your most recent class - and went through the next level not using assassin powers or behaving like an assassin (even a good one) - then likely only a DM with no concern for RP would let you take your next level in assassin. You need to use abilites to make them better. If you're a level 1 wizard and you spend the entire game fighting in melee combat, then there's more or less no chance on God's green earth that I'd let you take your next level in wizard. You, my friend, just roleplayed your way into multiclassing. So too with the assassin. And do note that I think it is possible for an evil assassin to turn to good and then continue to gain levels in assassin - but it would be very difficult and involve assassinating mainly evil outsiders and other "guilt-free" kills.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-28-06, 04:24 PM	The sad part is that its not even that good a class. The only real thing it has going is the Death Attack thing, which is really just annoying to the other players. 'wait guys, instead of an awesome an cinematic fight to the death, lets just stand here quietly for a few seconds and then I'll waste him with my crossbow.' Its seriously not worth the feats, much less the trouble begging off the silly alignment requirement or taking the random violence that most DMs have come with the evil alignment. That's why I just made the Darkstar Assassin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=530855)
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 04:35 PM	I'm with vaal on the crappiness of the class. I am 99% certain it was developed as a way to give mean DM's the opportunity to ambush players. That, in truth, I think is the big reason for the alignment restriction. The assassin was really meant as an NPC class for giving players a hard time. But it wouldn't have been *fair* or *logical* to make an assassin monster, or a closed class that "wasn't for PCs", so they did the next best thing and made it a one-trick pony PrC with a prohibitive alignment requirement.
Rivelstraz 02-28-06, 04:41 PM	So well, then we got a little problem. The assassin PrC is not 'assassin', rather 'assassin of X' where 'X' is the name of an organization, since its description is putting all assassins into the same bag, like saying that all warriors belong to an army or all wizards belong to same school of magic. Agree till here? Now, what I meant, is that you don't have to behave as the 'assassin of X' to gain levels in the 'assassin' PrC. I believe there's a wrong wording in its entire description. In fact, to be an assassin, you don't even have to get a single level of this class, just do your knife-job with your own tools (magic, knives, axes, whatever) We got a class with a, I'd say, misleading name (since 'assassin' is a quite wide term), with a clear prerequisite, a linked aligntment prequisite, a class description not especially linked to the class name (again, assassin is too wide to put all assassins on the same bag) and the lack of a paragraph starting with 'ex-assassin', like the paladin or the monk have, or kinda like the barbarian and bard have about their alignment. Alignment: Any evil. The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.. Kill who though? Can you kill an evil tyrant for the sole purpose of joining the assassins? In this case, I doubt it's an evil event. You're making justice and filling the prerequisite to join the assassins. However, you still require an evil alignment only for joining, then you can slowly move to other alignments. I think the class is too wide and the requeriments are too vague. Let's try to find an equivalent. This is an example that have crossed my mind, I'm sure there are hundreds of better examples, but well, this is the first one that came to my mind. I put the skill prerequisites as a joke, it's not very important for my example. PrC class: The Banker. The 'profession' skill wouldn't be enough to handle the 'banker', who will also work as agent for the bank and offer the bank services in a domestical way. Skills: Bluff 5 ranks, Diplomacy 8 ranks, Knowledge (maths) 5 ranks. Alignment: Any lawful. Special: The character must save someone's money for no other reason than to join the bankers. --- Let's see. In order to save someone's money, you don't have to be lawful. And you can be banker without being lawful. Like you can kill someone 'evil' to become an assassin, and you don't have to be evil to be an assassin. My PrC, in the same fashion of the 'assassin', puts all the bankers on the same bag. You could advance in this class being neutral good (or evil or anything). You're STILL a banker, yet you're not fitting the PrC initial prerequeriments. I think Wizards should correct the class, and removing the alignment prerequisite would be enough. Or rephrase the class description and making the assassin an assassin guild exclusive. EDIT: And I agree, the class is not even good. A standard rogue with some warrior levels could probably be a better assassin. But the spells are fun and add some flavour to the character.
Dench 02-28-06, 04:48 PM	Face it, WotC will not make an errata of the assassin saying "The alignment requirement is no more"... As was said before, SRD estrictly stablishes the required alignment of the assassin, and if the DM doesn't like that, he can change it, what's the big deal? :rolleyes:
Rivelstraz 02-28-06, 04:53 PM	Well, who knows, seeing how shapeshifted got changed that way, dropping assassin's alignment prerequisite is one line away :) There are plenty of PrC with non-sense prerequisites, so why not try for the best and see what other people think about it? It's like the Arachnomancer (Underdark). I'd say is my favoriute PrC (flavour-wise and all that), and its an arcane caster, and that's also seen in the description. Then we get a prerequisite saying "Base Fortitude +4". Great, because sorcerers and wizards don't have that till level 12 and putting a random ranger, cleric, warrior level there doesn't make any sense at all. But that's off-topic. Save the assassin!
heretic888 02-28-06, 04:58 PM	I was referring to the assassin class features (such as death attack, poison use, etc), not the motivations of assassin characters. With very few exceptions, class features are not good or evil. Take one of your examples: Poison Use.... The Ninja class in Complete Adventurer gains this ability at 3rd level, yet it has no alignment restrictions whatsoever. The Ninja Spy prestige class in Oriental Adventures gains this ability at 1st level, yet it can be taken by any nongood character (in other words, you don't have to be evil to play that class). Furthermore, it is fallacious reasoning to assume that because the Assassin prestige class is evil that, by necessity, the Assassin's class features must also be evil. Why do you think that the BoED has specific guidelines for the use of sneak attacks and such? Does it also have specific guidelines for when it's okay to cast cure light wounds? My guess is that it's simply assumed to be okay. That's why, as I said, you can make a good cleric who takes the healing domain, or you can take a good assassin, but the good assassin probably requires a bit more explanation. This is probably the exact reason why the BoED addresses it. I would suggest you go out and read the Book of Exalted Deeds yourself before commenting on its contents. The guidelines about sneak attack are found within the guidelines about combat as a whole. Sneak attack is simply described as another tool for combat, no less "good" than any of the more conventional tools or methods. As for healing, the very definition of "good" in D&D is that which preserves or upholds life. For the most part, healing does this unless you are directly aiding an individual that is going out of his or her way to debase or destroy life. Once again, it's all about the context. Deontological morality cares about how people do things too, of course. In fact, I'd say that the attitude that why is more important than how is more reflective of consequentialist morality than deontology. I am actually unfamiliar with these particular philosophies, but I'll take your word for it. ;) That is one of the major arguments deontologists use against consequentialists -- that just because you're doing something for a good reason, using whatever methods you can for that reason, doesn't mean you're doing the right thing. (a doctor who tests promising new drugs without informed consent from patients likely has a very good "why," but a rather bad "how," and deontologist typically find such doctors more objectionable than consequentialists, not less so) In the context of D&D morality, I would argue that the system assumes (for the most part) a qualitative contextualism. Only looking to intentions and motivations would be as lopsided as only looking to results and consequences. It is the total context of an action that is important here, not its individual components. That being said, however, alignment is basically about a person's psychological and ethical values. Ergo, intent takes something of a precedence here over methodology. Laterz.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-28-06, 05:02 PM	if the DM doesn't like that, he can change it, what's the big deal? :rolleyes: Rule 0 doesn't excuse shoddy, design.
heretic888 02-28-06, 05:05 PM	But as heretic888 and Talen Lee have already pointed out. Killing people for money, and only for money, is evil in D&D. This is not up for debate. Too many people confuse "evil" with "villain". Those terms are not equal in D&D. Yup. This is especially evident in the Rokugan campaign setting for Oriental Adventures, in which more than one evil-aligned character is actually a hero of the Empire. They were lawful evil, mind you, but still....
Rivelstraz 02-28-06, 05:16 PM	So a bounty hunter kind of character is evil? I'd say it's a LN. Mind he's killing evilish people for money.
heretic888 02-28-06, 05:21 PM	And also, just because you have no regard for the value of life doesnt make you evil. It just means that you dont care about anyone elses life. According to the Player's Handbook, that is the very definition of evil. The assassin could have a very good reason for wanting to kill for money. Killing for money, by D&D definitions, is an evil reason. What if its the only thing hes ever known? What if he thinks that he is doing good deeds by ridding the world of corruption, one life at a time? Just use your imagination. :) Apparently, in this context, "using your imagination" really means "stop thinking". :rolleyes: Laterz.
heretic888 02-28-06, 05:36 PM	Alignment: Any evil. The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.. Kill who though? Can you kill an evil tyrant for the sole purpose of joining the assassins? In this case, I doubt it's an evil event. You're making justice and filling the prerequisite to join the assassins. Uhhh..... no. For the umpteenth time, killing an "evil" person does not make you "good". Or even "neutral". It just means you killed someone. In fact, the alignment of the person you kill has no bearing on your alignment whatsoever. After all, evil-aligned characters kill other evil-aligned characters all the time. It doesn't change the fact that they're "evil". Rather, it is the total context of the action that took place that determines its alignment. Which, in this case is: Simply killing another sentient being (even an "evil tryant") for no other reason than to join a secret club of like-minded killers is in no way, shape, or form anything other than an "evil" action. It is the very definition of "evil" in D&D!! Laterz.
Kragar's Shadow 02-28-06, 05:57 PM	When I look at the Assassin PrC, I see a class designed under very different reasoning than most PrCs are designed currently. I see a class designed for a specific guild of assassins. This guild conducts evil activities and will only induct people who will carry out their orders. As such they are looking for evil people. The special requirement is that when being initiated into this inner circle of the best assassins, they require you to kill someone specifically for that purpose. They would direct you to a specific person to kill is logical because they want to see if you follow orders. Killing a random person or someone other than directed means you aren't trustworthy, and when you run a guild that does things that are illegal and most people find immoral means you want to stay hidden, hence the disguise and hide requirements. This PrC was also designed when the idea behind was PrCs was they were a DM tool, not just another character option. They were meant to flavour the world and allow a DM to inject some mystery and, I don't know, prestige. It was an example of what you could create, and would only be given to the players if it seemed they were looking for that sort of direction. PrCs started out in the DM guide and not the PHB for a reason. That the general idea behind PrCs changed is a shame. That this class wasn't edited to fit in with current PrC design theory is unfortunate. Wow, I got wordy.
Rivelstraz 02-28-06, 06:00 PM	Uhhh..... no. For the umpteenth time, killing an "evil" person does not make you "good". Or even "neutral". It just means you killed someone. In fact, the alignment of the person you kill has no bearing on your alignment whatsoever. After all, evil-aligned characters kill other evil-aligned characters all the time. It doesn't change the fact that they're "evil". Rather, it is the total context of the action that took place that determines its alignment. Which, in this case is: Simply killing another sentient being (even an "evil tryant") for no other reason than to join a secret club of like-minded killers is in no way, shape, or form anything other than an "evil" action. It is the very definition of "evil" in D&D!! Laterz. By your logic, Paladins are LE, not LG. Killing an evil person is very different from killing a good one. A Paladin has no problems vanquishing the evil, but he wouldn't even consider touching a good one (unless he's doing some nasty stuff, but then, or he's charmed or he's not good anymore) Now, about the tyrant thing, the description of the 'special' prerequeriment is too wide. EDIT: Are butchers evil? It's their job to be the executor of the law. They are killing for money!
heretic888 02-28-06, 06:08 PM	By your logic, Paladins are LE, not LG. Killing an evil person is very different from killing a good one. A Paladin has no problems vanquishing the evil, but he wouldn't even consider touching a good one (unless he's doing some nasty stuff, but then, or he's charmed or he's not good anymore) Not at all. By my logic, you have to take the total context of the event into account when evaluating alignment. As I have argued more than once, D&D assumes a contextualist morality in its system. In your example, if a Paladin is killing evil beings for no other reason than the pleasure or excitement he gets out of killing evil beings (as opposed to protecting others) and, furthermore, is doing so in a way that inflicts more pain and suffering than is necessary to stop them.... Then, yes, he is being pretty "evil" and should suffer the appropriate consequences. Deal with it. Laterz.
Romanus_Mortus 02-28-06, 06:16 PM	When I look at the Assassin PrC, I see a class designed under very different reasoning than most PrCs are designed currently. I see a class designed for a specific guild of assassins. This guild conducts evil activities and will only induct people who will carry out their orders. As such they are looking for evil people. The special requirement is that when being initiated into this inner circle of the best assassins, they require you to kill someone specifically for that purpose. They would direct you to a specific person to kill is logical because they want to see if you follow orders. Killing a random person or someone other than directed means you aren't trustworthy, and when you run a guild that does things that are illegal and most people find immoral means you want to stay hidden, hence the disguise and hide requirements. This PrC was also designed when the idea behind was PrCs was they were a DM tool, not just another character option. They were meant to flavour the world and allow a DM to inject some mystery and, I don't know, prestige. It was an example of what you could create, and would only be given to the players if it seemed they were looking for that sort of direction. PrCs started out in the DM guide and not the PHB for a reason. That the general idea behind PrCs changed is a shame. That this class wasn't edited to fit in with current PrC design theory is unfortunate. Wow, I got wordy. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Man, where were you when I started a whole thread devoted to the "PrCs weren't meant for players" thread a week or two ago. I could have used the support :D
DarknessEternal 02-28-06, 06:53 PM	The sad part is that its not even that good a class. ... Its seriously not worth the feats, much less How can it be worth less than what it already doesn't cost?