Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AlphaSquirell 08-16-06, 11:47 PM	I have a Ninja PC. He wants to be an Assassin. The party's alignment is NG. LG Monk, NG Cleric, CG Ninja, CG Scout, CG/NG (don't remember) Warmage, CN Favored Soul. (FS is a CG character with a CE deity, working on Storm Lord, and I think I'm going to get him to "convert" to a more "good" diety, and try to mix-match his Storm Lord powers for altered powers for his new diety, changing and dropping stats in order to boost him a little) He (ninja) doesn't want to be a guy who kills for personal gain. He doesn't want to be an evil psychopath (or any other type of evil, or psychopath, for that matter) He just wants to be a specialist at ending other's lives. (someone who could get paid to kill for a living, but instead adventures with his buddies and enjoys sneaking up on and assassinating evil doers) In other words, he wants to be a good guy who assassinates bad guys. What's the best way to go about providing this PrC for him?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-16-06, 11:56 PM	The only thing 'evil' about the Assassin PrC is the group it belongs to and the task they require for entry. There is nothing mechanically evil about the class. Therefore, you should provide a similar neutral or good guild that teaches the same skills and has the requirement of doing some task to earn thier trust.
Dark Stryke 08-16-06, 11:59 PM	You could show him Ghost-Faced Killer from Complete Adventurer. I think they don't have to be evil. Or you could just ignore the (in my opinion) silly alignment rule for assassin. Also, I'm pretty sure favored souls have to either A) be the exact same alignment as their diety or B) Be only 1 step away from their diety's alignment (so a favored soul of a CE god could only be CE, NE, CN). Of course, if you know this and you're already bending the rules this way, why are you so nervous about allowing a good assassin?
Rerecros 08-17-06, 12:06 AM	The assassin prestige class is pretty good. Poison use, concise spell list. The "evil" and "kill somebody for no reason" prerequisites can be ignored if your DM lets you. Those assume the same assassin's guild is in every city, in every campaign world. People kill for good reasons all the time in D&D, there's nothing odd about a good assassins guild. Though any class can be an assassin, but it helps if you have ranks in dex and cha skills.
zer0wolf 08-17-06, 12:13 AM	As much as I love the assassin and have had similiar thoughts, I wouldn't change the requisites for it. Changing the requisites for it would be changing well, what an assassin really is. The Book of Exalted Deeds actually provides a prestige class that is very similiar to the assassin, but is designed for good characters. I would use that.
Someone 08-17-06, 12:16 AM	I don't see how he thinks ninja is "un-assassin like". He doesn't really need to pick up a PrC. Now, if he wants sneak attack dice, he could just multiclass rogue.
zer0wolf 08-17-06, 12:19 AM	That is a good point that Someone brought up. A character doesn't have to have the Assassin prestige class to well, act as one. That is part of the whole roleplaying aspect of D&D ;)
Quaoar 08-17-06, 12:21 AM	What's the best way to go about providing this PrC for him? Well, every ability that Assassins receive is available to at least one other class that doesn't have an alignment requirement. So there's really no reason that you can't just change the entry requirements of the existing class. That said, if you have access to Book of Exalted Deeds there's a prestige class in there, Slayer of Domiel I think, that also fills the role of a "good" assassin.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 01:21 AM	I have a Ninja PC. He wants to be an Assassin. The party's alignment is NG. LG Monk, NG Cleric, CG Ninja, CG Scout, CG/NG (don't remember) Warmage, CN Favored Soul. (FS is a CG character with a CE deity, working on Storm Lord, and I think I'm going to get him to "convert" to a more "good" diety, and try to mix-match his Storm Lord powers for altered powers for his new diety, changing and dropping stats in order to boost him a little) He (ninja) doesn't want to be a guy who kills for personal gain. He doesn't want to be an evil psychopath (or any other type of evil, or psychopath, for that matter) He just wants to be a specialist at ending other's lives. (someone who could get paid to kill for a living, but instead adventures with his buddies and enjoys sneaking up on and assassinating evil doers) In other words, he wants to be a good guy who assassinates bad guys. What's the best way to go about providing this PrC for him? First off you are trying to work around a requirement that is supposed to make the game more balanced. As a DM I would never allow. As a Professor of Moral Philosophy, i am intrigued but concerned. First you must determine what it means to be good. I think if you look in your players handbook, you will see that specializing in ending other people's lives puts you well outside the confines of the good alignments.
tsuyoshikentsu 08-17-06, 01:26 AM	think if you look in your players handbook, you will see that specializing in ending other people's lives puts you well outside the confines of the good alignments.Which makes pretty much every adventurer ever irredemably evil. Since Assassin is one of the weaker PrCs anyway, and the alignment restriction really is silly, I'd let him do it.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 01:44 AM	Which makes pretty much every adventurer ever irredemably evil. Since Assassin is one of the weaker PrCs anyway, and the alignment restriction really is silly, I'd let him do it. You honestly think the alignment restriction for someone who specializes in killing people with poison is silly?
Sildatorak 08-17-06, 02:09 AM	In other words, he wants to be a good guy who assassinates bad guys. What's the best way to go about providing this PrC for him? The ninja is perfectly capable of being an assassin without being an Assassin. It already has poison use, sudden strike, stealthy class skills, and ghost step. With a spellstoring weapon holding a spell that renders the victim helpless coated with a helplessness inducing poison, the ninja often will be able incapacitate his victim in the surprise round and coup de grace in the first real round.
claypigeons 08-17-06, 03:47 AM	First off you are trying to work around a requirement that is supposed to make the game more balanced. As a DM I would never allow. As a Professor of Moral Philosophy, i am intrigued but concerned. Forcing someone to be evil due to a class requirement is not a balance issue. First you must determine what it means to be good. I think if you look in your players handbook, you will see that specializing in ending other people's lives puts you well outside the confines of the good alignments. Being 'good' in DnD means not killing for the sake of killing. Killing to stop someone else from killing is perfectly fine. And, by your reasoning, every PC should end up evil. Every PC ends up spending most of their money on items that will help them kill things faster, just so they can get better and better killing instruments. Take a look at BoED. Take a look at the feats. Many of them help you kill stuff (evil stuff, but killing is killing, from most moral standpoints. Just not the one for DnD).
Rerecros 08-17-06, 04:11 AM	You honestly think the alignment restriction for someone who specializes in killing people with poison is silly? Yes, I definitely do. How exactly is specializing in killing people by sticking sharp pieces of metal into them any better?
Tormsskull 08-17-06, 07:59 AM	I wouldn't allow the player to be an assassin. If anything, create a new PrC that has many of the same abilities if that is what the player is after and what you're willing to offer. The idea of a "good" assassin is odd to me. An assassin specializes in infiltrating, killing a target from stealth, and then sneaking away. Many assassins are labled as hitmen. They accept contracts from certain government branches or possibly from anyone who has the $$$. The fact that they are willing to kill people and profit from it, IMO, makes them evil. You could always make an anti-assassin prestige class, give it a cool name, and explain that the founders of the class trained an elite cadre of stealth specialists to counter assassinations on their leaders. Sort of like bodyguards that work from the shadows. Remove their death attack, give them an ability that grants fortifacation to themself or another target that scales the more levels they have in the prestige class.
coldfire_x 08-17-06, 08:42 AM	just make him evil for a while [there's no rule that say assisan become good are no longer assisan]
skogenlives 08-17-06, 08:51 AM	The only problem I would see in using the Slayer of Domiel option from BoED is that, even compared to the assassin, the Slayer is incredibly weak. It's death ability relies on hit points, not a Fortitude save, and thus it is almost impossible (at least, in my experience) to boost it in a way that would even occasionally be worth doing. ~Skogen~
Cifer 08-17-06, 08:52 AM	As others have already said: Why change anything in the class but the flavour and the alignment? There is a class that murders bad creatures with a warhammer and a lot of plate armour and usually spends 90% of its wealth (never forget the tithe!) that it doesn't need for living on equipment that will make it better at killing stuff or surviving the attacks of stuff it wants to kill. It's called paladin and needs to be lawful good. So because a class doesn't wade around in full plate and uses a poisoned dagger rather than a warhammer it becomes evil? Or is it because it doesn't smite but rather death-attack? I can't find anything different except the methods. Many assassins are labled as hitmen. They accept contracts from certain government branches or possibly from anyone who has the $$$. The fact that they are willing to kill people and profit from it, IMO, makes them evil. Yes, you are right. Many assassins are labled as hitmen and the fact they want to profit from killing people is evil. Now let's take the remaining few, that just prefer killing evil stuff by poison instead of by sword - are they evil too? If not we just found the character the OP's player wishes to play.
Tormsskull 08-17-06, 09:03 AM	Yes, you are right. Many assassins are labled as hitmen and the fact they want to profit from killing people is evil. Now let's take the remaining few, that just prefer killing evil stuff by poison instead of by sword - are they evil too? If not we just found the character the OP's player wishes to play. Yeah, it just seems like a stretch to me I guess. I could justify almost any combination of classes/alignments/abilities I want and form new classes that caputre the things I want into one nice little package. The questions is, should I do this? You see so many people that want to be able to use tradtionally "evil" powers/abilities but not be able themself that it gets old really fast. Before, you see a guy walking around with skeletons you know he is an evil necromancer of some kind, and heroes go out to do battle with him. Now a days you'd destroy his skeletons and he'd say "What are you doing! Those were my family members. I am a cleric of Splatbookolia, we are good clerics that communicate with the souls of our family and are then granted permission to infuse their remains with holy energy in order to defeat evil!" Like I said, some flexibility is ok, when you stretch it real far it can break the atmosphere of the game.
Pegasos989 08-17-06, 09:30 AM	The need of assasins and poison use being evil is stupid. Wizards of the coast unofficially announced their mistake with BoED and making some odd stuff distilled from holy water (These are exactly like poison but good people can use them) and slayer of domiel (This is assasin that good person can join in)... Seriously: Paladin uses all ways he can to defend the weak but follows some rules and tradition in it. Assasin CAN use all the ways he can to defend the weak. Why does that make assasins evil? Sure, the exact part that you need to kill someone to join is evil (and stupid requirement. If I DM, it is my right to choose what are entry requirements to guilds) but nothing in assasin's set of skills is... It is not even divine magic so no need to worship nerull or anything. If a cruel and evil warlord is rising and paladin is called, he needs to kill dozens and put many more in danger before neutralizing (often killing) the warlord. If an assasin is called, he can just take care of the warlord without affecting anyone else, by sneaking and using poison. Does this really make assasin evil? My recommendations: Change requirement to allow good characters into class.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 11:15 AM	The need of assasins and poison use being evil is stupid. Wizards of the coast unofficially announced their mistake with BoED and making some odd stuff distilled from holy water (These are exactly like poison but good people can use them) and slayer of domiel (This is assasin that good person can join in)... Seriously: Paladin uses all ways he can to defend the weak but follows some rules and tradition in it. Assasin CAN use all the ways he can to defend the weak. Why does that make assasins evil? Sure, the exact part that you need to kill someone to join is evil (and stupid requirement. If I DM, it is my right to choose what are entry requirements to guilds) but nothing in assasin's set of skills is... It is not even divine magic so no need to worship nerull or anything. If a cruel and evil warlord is rising and paladin is called, he needs to kill dozens and put many more in danger before neutralizing (often killing) the warlord. If an assasin is called, he can just take care of the warlord without affecting anyone else, by sneaking and using poison. Does this really make assasin evil? My recommendations: Change requirement to allow good characters into class. Because an assasin is a murderer. Now there are some instances, when an assasin's techniques would be allowed in order for good to defeat evil. But good characters should not routinely engage in stealth murders.
Arganis 08-17-06, 11:22 AM	Because an assasin is a murderer. Now there are some instances, when an assasin's techniques would be allowed in order for good to defeat evil. But good characters should not routinely engage in stealth murders. Smells like an alignment thread to me! :D Stabbing someone in the back or poisoning them may not be honorable but it is certainly not evil. Identifying and eliminating the source(s) of evil in an organization without creating a stir could be considered quite good. After all, you do not endanger the lives of your other good allies and you do not risk killing good or neutral minions who have, through coercion or desperation, found themselves acting in the evil enemy's favor.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 11:27 AM	Smells like an alignment thread to me! :D Stabbing someone in the back or poisoning them may not be honorable but it is certainly not evil. Identifying and eliminating the source(s) of evil in an organization without creating a stir could be considered quite good. After all, you do not endanger the lives of your other good allies and you do not risk killing good or neutral minions who have, through coercion or desperation, found themselves acting in the evil enemy's favor. Targeted assassination is something that most societies today from upon. But thats not really my point. I do agree that assassination in some circumstances can be good. But the prestige class as it is presented is clearly evil. That is the concept. When take a prestige class you take the concept as well (Just like if you pick a paladin for youe character class). Too often people take prestige classes for the front loaded abilities and completely ignore the story elements of the character.
Arganis 08-17-06, 11:48 AM	Targeted assassination is something that most societies today from upon. This is true, but only within the last few decades. Now we bomb the infrastructure and occupy the country instead of assassinating the leader. Too often people take prestige classes for the front loaded abilities and completely ignore the story elements of the character. True, but beside the point. That is the concept. When take a prestige class you take the concept as well (Just like if you pick a paladin for youe character class). Wouldn't it be nice if this were always true. But the prestige class as it is presented is clearly evil. True. Here is the fix. This has been stated before. Alignment: Any Evil Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 11:52 AM	First off you are trying to work around a requirement that is supposed to make the game more balanced. I refuse to believe that a Professor of any kind of Philosophy would take such a logical face plant. I you simply refuse to tweek the assassin class by removing the 'evil' flavor text, then please accept an Assassin Class with built in Neutral flavor text: Darkstar Assassin (http://worldofere.com/prestige/darkstar_assassin.htm)
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 11:56 AM	But good characters should not routinely engage in stealth murders. Only brutal home invasions and grave robbery. And don't forget to desecrate the corpse by stripping it of all its gear for resale!
LCD2YOU 08-17-06, 11:59 AM	Yeah, killing with poison that gently makes them groggy, puts them to sleep and gently stops their heart vs killing with a blunt object that smashes bone and causes a great deal of pain. Seems to me that the weapon is the evil thing here. It comes down to what one feels is moral or not. Like the "targetted assasinations are frowned upon now in societies". Could it be that the leaders of those said societies are aware that each has a cadre of thugs that would kill the others in a heart beat? After all, 99.9% of all targeted assasinations are against the leadership of a country. As Arganis so correctly points out, now we smash infrastructure, cause undo amount of suffering to the civilian populous and call it civilized. In the end, what is the difference between a Thermonuclear Warhead and rocks? Rocks take longer.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 12:00 PM	I refuse to believe that a Professor of any kind of Philosophy would take such a logical face plant. I you simply refuse to tweek the assassin class by removing the 'evil' flavor text, then please accept an Assassin Class with built in Neutral flavor text: Darkstar Assassin (http://worldofere.com/prestige/darkstar_assassin.htm) Yes, but the essence of a prestige class is the flavor text.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 12:07 PM	Yes, but the essence of a prestige class is the flavor text. No, its really not. The purpose of the prestige class is to fill niches base classes can't and to build into a campaign world. If the flavor WotC puts into them doesn't work for you, it is your duty in your position as DM to remove or change it.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 12:09 PM	Yeah, killing with poison that gently makes them groggy, puts them to sleep and gently stops their heart vs killing with a blunt object that smashes bone and causes a great deal of pain. Seems to me that the weapon is the evil thing here. It comes down to what one feels is moral or not. Like the "targetted assasinations are frowned upon now in societies". Could it be that the leaders of those said societies are aware that each has a cadre of thugs that would kill the others in a heart beat? After all, 99.9% of all targeted assasinations are against the leadership of a country. As Arganis so correctly points out, now we smash infrastructure, cause undo amount of suffering to the civilian populous and call it civilized. In the end, what is the difference between a Thermonuclear Warhead and rocks? Rocks take longer. Your point about assassination is a good one, as I said before there are circumstances where assassination increases the good. My biggest concern, really is about the abuse of prestige classes. Taking the abilities but not the 'character'. The rest of your reasoning confuses me. 1)Your are equating rocks with nukes? Do you know how many rocks it would take to inflict the damage of one nuke? Maybe the intent behind the rocks and the nukes is similar, but when you use rocks you can still direct your intentions at specific targets. When you use nukes you know you are going to kill innocent people. 2)"it comes down to what one feels is moral or not"(LCD) So there are no moral absolutes in the world at all. Whatever we each individually feel is moral is? By your logic the 911 terrorists cannot be pointed to as evil because they surely 'felt' what they were doing was 'moral'. Yes there is clearly a certain amount of subjectivity well it comes to morality (and assassination is a good example), but there things in this world that either increase or decrease the 'good'.
Arganis 08-17-06, 12:10 PM	If the flavor WotC puts into them doesn't work for you, it is your duty in your position as DM to remove or change it. Quoted. For. Truth. At least, with the caviat that the GM is not required to allow anything. As long as you can posit the existance of a good assassin organization, the base mechanics of the assassin class are perfect for it.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 12:12 PM	No, its really not. The purpose of the prestige class is to fill niches base classes can't and to build into a campaign world. If the flavor WotC puts into them doesn't work for you, it is your duty in your position as DM to remove or change it. Yes you can change the flavor text. But you must also add your own to replace it. Prestige classes are supposed to define who your character is. What is more important the concept or the class abilities (which are supposed to reflect the concept).
Arganis 08-17-06, 12:15 PM	Yes you can change the flavor text. But you must also add your own to replace it. Prestige classes are supposed to define who your character is. What is more important the concept or the class abilities (which are supposed to reflect the concept). Perhaps this is where the problem is. You see, Prestige Classes were not intended to be specialized avenues of advancement that reflected the individuality of a given character--that's just what they've become due to gross negligence on behalf of GMs everywhere. They were originally conceived to parallel campaign-world organizations that could teach a character certain skills and offer the benefits of membership in exchange for their services. You are also naming the assassin mechanics as "evil" simply because of their artificial association with "evil" flavor. This is not second edition anymore. Poison is not patently evil. Just because it is called "Sneak Attack" does not imply that it is cowardly. The function of the ability is to grant more damage in exchange for a better-targeted strike. I suspect if you read the chapter on Prestige Classes in your 3.0 DMG, you'll find that it is quite clear that the GM is practically expected to alter the provided PrCs or create new ones using them as guidelines.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 12:20 PM	What is more important the concept or the class abilities (which are supposed to reflect the concept). Class abilities. Hands down. Why? Because with a good 'concept', you have just the concept. With good class abilities (like those found in the Assassin, which has a sucky concept), you can have lots of gooc concepts and far less rules slavery.
shadowfox628 08-17-06, 12:24 PM	Well, the only thing evil about the assassin is that they generally kill for money, no questions asked. However, for a case like this, I'd drop the evil requirements, and put in a situational clause: if he uses his abilities to willingly kill for fun, just for money (evil tyrants, for example, don't count), or for any evil reason, he'll lose some/all of the Assassin abilities, or cannot take any more levels in Assassin. That leaves room for manuverability, and gives him what he wants. If he's being forced by a spell to kill someone, he's fine, but may go on trial, or something.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 12:25 PM	Class abilities. Hands down. Why? Because with a good 'concept', you have just the concept. With good class abilities (like those found in the Assassin, which has a sucky concept), you can have lots of gooc concepts and far less rules slavery. But the abilities by themselves mean nothing. Without concept you are just a collection of abilities, nothing more. Just how long have you been playing D&D?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 12:27 PM	But the abilities by themselves mean nothing. Without concept you are just a collection of abilities, nothing more. This is why you use your own creativity and apply those abilities to your own concept. Just how long have you been playing D&D? Long enough to know better than believe the stuff you're peddling.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 12:33 PM	This is why you use your own creativity and apply those abilities to your own concept. Long enough to know better than believe the stuff you're peddling. I sense hostility in you. Look, when everyone uses 'their own creativity' to build their 'own concept[s]' then the game turns into a comic book filled with super heroes. If you like that kind of thing, fine. I do not. I do not object to that. What I object to, is the tendancy for prestige classes to become resources to maximize your characters damage output. I have been in many games where this has happened. The characters 'classes' do not in any way reflect the character he is playing. He is just trying to stack a bunch of modifiers and special abilities.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 12:37 PM	1)Your are equating rocks with nukes? Do you know how many rocks it would take to inflict the damage of one nuke? A lot. But it takes a few to inflict the same amount of pain. So there are no moral absolutes in the world at all. Whatever we each individually feel is moral is? By your logic the 911 terrorists cannot be pointed to as evil because they surely 'felt' what they were doing was 'moral'. Yes there is clearly a certain amount of subjectivity well it comes to morality (and assassination is a good example), but there things in this world that either increase or decrease the 'good'. This is where you fail. In relativism, there is not premise for good an evil. Sure, you can label the terrirists evil, but only according to your own morals. Others may label them differently, and you can't prove yourself right or them wrong. The best you can do is bring up a cogent argument for them being evil, and that might not even be enough. Don't argue against relativism if you don't completely understand it. Just how long have you been playing D&D? Sounds like an ad hominem coming.
Tormsskull 08-17-06, 12:39 PM	I sense hostility in you. Look, when everyone uses 'their own creativity' to build their 'own concept[s]' then the game turns into a comic book filled with super heroes. If you like that kind of thing, fine. I do not. I do not object to that. What I object to, is the tendancy for prestige classes to become resources to maximize your characters damage output. I have been in many games where this has happened. The characters 'classes' do not in any way reflect the character he is playing. He is just trying to stack a bunch of modifiers and special abilities. Vaal has a lot of good points, but this is one of the topics I disagree with him on. IIRC Vaal started off on 3.0, so he doesn't have the exposure of the earlier editions that I often argue from. I agree with a lot of what you are saying Gamandria. Divorcing the concept from the abilities seems to be much more common now a days than it was in the past. The bolded section is exactly what many players do now a days. I think of it is a negative thing, but a lot of posters on this board believe that is one of the main facets of the game.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 12:43 PM	I sense hostility in you. It doesn't take a force user to know I get mad at dumb ideas. Look, when everyone uses 'their own creativity' to build their 'own concept[s]' then the game turns into a comic book filled with super heroes. This doesn't make and sense. A good assassin doesn't get into the PrC or get any more power than an evil one. In fact, the opposite is true with WotC; if you go along with thier stupid concepts, they will give you more power. Observe the Book of Exalted Deeds. What I object to, is the tendancy for prestige classes to become resources to maximize your characters damage output. Its a good thing this thread or the notion of removing the assassin alignment restrictions have nothing to do with that then! The characters 'classes' do not in any way reflect the character he is playing. He is just trying to stack a bunch of modifiers and special abilities. Just because the class names don't match the concept doesn't mean there's not concept. I've played Lawful 'bard' militant orators and Lawful 'barbarian' zen warriors. Out of WotC's concept? Yes. Out of the alignment restriction? Oh hell yes. Balanced? You bet your sweet arse.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 12:47 PM	Sounds like an ad hominem coming. I should have responded 'Ten thousand years, therefore I am inherently superior to you due to having been palying longer!'
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 12:47 PM	Vaal has a lot of good points, but this is one of the topics I disagree with him on. IIRC Vaal started off on 3.0, so he doesn't have the exposure of the earlier editions that I often argue from. Arguing from 3.5 is most valid when it comes to both mechanics and flavor. I agree with a lot of what you are saying Gamandria. Divorcing the concept from the abilities seems to be much more common now a days than it was in the past. That's because it's less of a stigma to be a powergamer. Powergamers are no lesser than diehard roleplayers. Powergamers are also not munchkins, in case you try to bring that up. Powergaming can also be a quite enjoyable gaming style. You trying to stigmatizing it is not so different from people trying to stigmatize homosexuality (don't bring this up again, it'll derail the thread.). The bolded section is exactly what many players do now a days. I think of it is a negative thing, but a lot of posters on this board believe that is one of the main facets of the game. Yup. Survivability is a factor nowadays. The character must come second. Build the build and the person will immediately follow (builds aren't always just abilities stacked for maximum potential). It's in everyone's nature to want to be the best at what they do. If farmer's son were to start a new life adventuring, there would be no frickin' chance he'd continue his study of farming.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 12:49 PM	[QUOTE=Gamandria]1)Your are equating rocks with nukes? Do you know how many rocks it would take to inflict the damage of one nuke?[QUOTE] A lot. But it takes a few to inflict the same amount of pain. This is where you fail. In relativism, there is not premise for good an evil. Sure, you can label the terrirists evil, but only according to your own morals. Others may label them differently, and you can't prove yourself right or them wrong. The best you can do is bring up a cogent argument for them being evil, and that might not even be enough. Don't argue against relativism if you don't completely understand it. Sounds like an ad hominem coming. You are assuming relativism is the reality. On what do you base this. You must prove the case for relativism first. I am not trying to make an argument within the framework of relativism. True we can never be 100% certain about anything. But we can be 99% certain and use our common sense for the other 1%. Do you accept that killing innocent people is an act of evil? If not why? Were those not innocent people that were killed in the 911 attacks? I will concede that they terrorists may have had gripes which had some foundation in reality, but that does not remove the fact that they deliberately killed thousands of innocent people. We can play this 'post modern' game all day. But in the end postmodernism loses. I understand relativism very well. I do believe you can establish moral absolutes if you define the good.
Pegasos989 08-17-06, 12:52 PM	You people often seem to think PrCs as concepts. There is a big diffrence between you and me. I think that, for the sake of roleplaying, they should only be a set of abilities. I believe that always and in all situations, flavour text should be ignored. Yes, I said that. Why? When you have a concept of character dedicating his life to fight against demons, you should choose abilities best reflecting character concept. Thus, take knight of the Chalice PrC. I think it is completely wrong point of view to think "Now that I have joined organisation, I get access to this" instead "Now that I have this set of skills, knight of chalice could accept me as a member..." Also, I think that if a character concept is that he uses stealth, skill and a little magic to protect the weak, he should be able to use assasin PrC as a set of skills, ignoring all flavour text that would limit his concept. Other chance is to multiclass as rogue/sorcerer/spellsword... I think that if flavour text limits character concept, it should be ignored. Most people disagree with this though. EDIT: Actually, I take back the "flavour text should always be ignored" and change it to "Flavour text that in any way limit player creativity, roleplaying or character concept should always be ignored." And yes, I do include paladin in those.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 12:53 PM	A philosophy professor also wouldn't be making such naked appeals to emotion by invoking (against the board rules against discussing RL people and politics) 9/11.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 12:56 PM	You are assuming relativism is the reality. On what do you base this. You must prove the case for relativism first. That would be where I fail. I don't want to derail the thread (in fact I'm being lazy). So my statements hold true assuming relativism is the truth. What bothers me about absolutism and universalism is that they're based on inductive knowledge (though universalism to a lesser extent). It doesn't seem logical to me.
Tormsskull 08-17-06, 12:57 PM	Arguing from 3.5 is most valid when it comes to both mechanics and flavor. Well, if you read Vaal's sig he is a 3.0 player and DM. Does that mean his argument is less valid? I don't think so. I'm just saying that where some of the older gamers may be distressed at some issues they considered key of the editions, newer gamers will not recognize those issues and may not understand why we are miffed. That's because it's less of a stigma to be a powergamer. Powergamers are no lesser than diehard roleplayers. Powergamers are also not munchkins, in case you try to bring that up. Powergaming can also be a quite enjoyable gaming style. You trying to stigmatizing it is not so different from people trying to stigmatize homosexuality (don't bring this up again, it'll derail the thread.). I agree. We used to dress up in black robes and hunt down powergamers and then draw and quarter them. The bolded section distresses me because it shows you're anticipating an attack. Either my words offend you or my reputation proceeds me. Yup. Survivability is a factor nowadays. The character must come second. Build the build and the person will immediately follow (builds aren't always just abilities stacked for maximum potential). It's in everyone's nature to want to be the best at what they do. If farmer's son were to start a new life adventuring, there would be no frickin' chance he'd continue his study of farming. I'd say surviving had always been a primary focus of the old school game. You had to be smart to survive, it was just that there was less computing, formulating, and frankly, options which you had to choose from in order to survive. There was not such thing as a "build" back in the day, and I still refuse to allow them in my games. As far as the farmer's son, you're assuming this adventurer wants to be the most mechanically powerful he can be and thus using his limited number of resources on a skill that revolves around farming would weaken him overall. I have toyed with the idea of giving every level 1 character a free 4 ranks in a Profession for RP purposes. I think it would be a nice way to put mechanics to RP.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 12:58 PM	I think that if flavour text limits character concept, it should be ignored. Most people disagree with this though. Replace 'most' with 'weird' and you'll be right.
Arganis 08-17-06, 01:05 PM	You people often seem to think PrCs as concepts. There is a big diffrence between you and me. I think that, for the sake of roleplaying, they should only be a set of abilities. I always liked you Peg. This I think is the crux of the "Good Assassin" issue. WoTC's written flavor for the provided PrC classes should not be in any way linked to the abilities they provide. However, and this is new to me, apparently we are not really talking about Good Assassins here. He is just trying to stack a bunch of modifiers and special abilities. Gam, if your player really is just trying to level-dip for some abilities, then you should address this problem directly, rather than trying to argue that WoTC's published PrC flavors must be accepted in whole. You are assuming relativism is the reality. Actually, the burden of proof is on Objectivism. Unless reality can be proven objective, it can only be discussed relatively. In the end, what is the difference between a Thermonuclear Warhead and rocks? Heh. Two rocks with sufficiently accurate guidance systems targeting two separate people in Japanese military bases in Nagasaki and Hiroshima will kill two people. Two nuclear warheads with sufficiently accurate guidance systems targeting those same two people will kill 200,000 innocent civilians even though the war was already won. I wonder why no one called us Terrorists for that one...
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 01:06 PM	Well, if you read Vaal's sig he is a 3.0 player and DM. Does that mean his argument is less valid? I don't think so. They'd only be a bit less valid 3.5 RAW discussions, which this isn't (not anymore, at least). I agree. We used to dress up in black robes and hunt down powergamers and then draw and quarter them. The bolded section distresses me because it shows you're anticipating an attack. Either my words offend you or my reputation proceeds me. I always anticipate attacks, and I always cover every base I remember to cover. You could probably see it in how I built up my post with those short sentences. Call it paranoia, tempered with a messed up mind. :) I'd say surviving had always been a primary focus of the old school game. You had to be smart to survive, it was just that there was less computing, formulating, and frankly, options which you had to choose from in order to survive. There was not such thing as a "build" back in the day, and I still refuse to allow them in my games. Builds are fairly smart (they require some thinking behind them). They also allow lousy tacticians (there's a lot of them) to not die within a few encounters. As far as the farmer's son, you're assuming this adventurer wants to be the most mechanically powerful he can be and thus using his limited number of resources on a skill that revolves around farming would weaken him overall. I have toyed with the idea of giving every level 1 character a free 4 ranks in a Profession for RP purposes. I think it would be a nice way to put mechanics to RP. That's a pretty good houserule. I'm not against emphasizing roleplaying, but if the roleplaying hampers the character's other abilities, then I have to step in and ask the player to tune his character up a bit.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 01:09 PM	Heh. Two rocks with sufficiently accurate guidance systems targeting two separate people in Japanese military bases in Nagasaki and Hiroshima will kill two people. Two nuclear warheads with sufficiently accurate guidance systems targeting those same two people will kill 200,000 innocent civilians even though the war was already won. I wonder why no one called us Terrorists for that one... Actually, it was LCD2YOU who said that. I'll just ignore that name in the quote frame until you change it, at which point I'll acknowledge it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 01:09 PM	Well, if you read Vaal's sig he is a 3.0 player and DM. Does that mean his argument is less valid? Yes. I don't hate arcane magic or Alchemy, therefore, I am Satan's cabana boy. :P I'm just saying that where some of the older gamers may be distressed at some issues they considered key of the editions, newer gamers will not recognize those issues and may not understand why we are miffed. Or, like me, find it HI-larious. I agree. We used to dress up in black robes and hunt down powergamers and then draw and quarter them. I still do. Thing is, I can tell a powergamer from a regular gamer and the fact is, it has nothing to do with enslaving yourself to WotC's flavor text. Doing what WotC tells you is not the definition of roleplaying. There was not such thing as a "build" back in the day, and I still refuse to allow them in my games. While I appreciate the sentiment and agree... you can't actually do that. If someone has a build in mind, you don't even have to know about it. To address the farmer's son; yes, farming wouldn't make much sense, but hobbies like crafts and perform, possibly swim and climb, or interests such as professions should still be considered. I always found it pretty dumb that most adventurers don't have hobbies besides murdering green skinned sapients for coin, but that's more of a factor of the skill point system being really stingy to most types of characters. I discovered that if you give bonus skill points, even if they aren't allocated for hobbies/interests, players will use them for it anyway.
Grand Theft Otto 08-17-06, 01:16 PM	First off you are trying to work around a requirement that is supposed to make the game more balanced. Its a fluff requirement. They arent there for balance. The PRC's that require you to be an elf, green eyed, or a eunuch dont factor in to class balance. Supposedly neither does the incredibly stupid paladin's code, the alignment requirements for barbarians, monks and bards, and the druids non-metal weapon restrictions. As a DM I would never allow. As a Professor of Moral Philosophy, i am intrigued but concerned. First you must determine what it means to be good. I think if you look in your players handbook, you will see that specializing in ending other people's lives puts you well outside the confines of the good alignments. I'm more concerned that you have a degree in moral philosophy and are teaching if this concerns you. Based on your replies, I'd guess something more along the lines of college freshman who just cracked his first book. Honestly, an assassin is no different than any of the other classes in the game that end people's lives on an incredibly routine basis. Or is melting people's eyeballs with a fireball somehow pain free?
Arganis 08-17-06, 01:17 PM	Actually, it was LCD2YOU who said that. I'll just ignore that name in the quote frame until you change it, at which point I'll acknowledge it. Doh, and here I was thinking I had the support of a stranger with a cool name. Owell, your name is still cool! Doing what WotC tells you is not the definition of roleplaying. I'm just going to keep quoting the parts where Vaal is terribly right until people can see that there is wisdom in his slightly skewed view on the underlying issues behind the ... what was that fallacy's name again? :D
Gamandria 08-17-06, 01:28 PM	That would be where I fail. I don't want to derail the thread (in fact I'm being lazy). So my statements hold true assuming relativism is the truth. What bothers me about absolutism and universalism is that they're based on inductive knowledge (though universalism to a lesser extent). It doesn't seem logical to me. Absolutes can be based on induction or deduction. Plato did it all the time. My problem with relativism (as it pertains to morality and ethics) is that it seems to be a product of laziness. "oh, there are other cultures out there and they have different ideas about truth. All cultures and ideas must be equally valid. There is no absolute truth." I am not suggesting that people open up their bibles to determine what is good evil. Through reason and common sense we can try to find what is good and evil. We may be wrong at times, but that does not mean there are no absolutes out there on the matter.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 01:33 PM	I'm more concerned that you have a degree in moral philosophy and are teaching if this concerns you. Based on your replies, I'd guess something more along the lines of college freshman who just cracked his first book. Honestly, an assassin is no different than any of the other classes in the game that end people's lives on an incredibly routine basis. Or is melting people's eyeballs with a fireball somehow pain free? Thank my various dark gods, someone else responded to this. I was starting to think I had halucinated it, since it was so surreal. I've got two years of philosophy under my belt (got bored, took Psychology after) and... man @_@ I'm just going to keep quoting the parts where Vaal is terribly right until people can see that there is wisdom in his slightly skewed view on the underlying issues behind the ... what was that fallacy's name again? :D Appeal to authority, I believe is what you're talking about with the ''doing what WotC tells you. Also, I'm amused that you said 'terribly right'.
DarkLiChNeaZur 08-17-06, 01:43 PM	well the concept of Ending others lives in hope of profit is not by any means morrally justified or "good" BUT if he decides to kill for the greater good than, by all means thats ok.since you are chaotic good and the definition of chaotic alignments being acheiving your goals by any way possible, that includes ending ones life in the name of good. but hey the crusades where in the name of good and the crusaders where some of the meanest people in the middle ages by any cultures present day standards. what im trying to say is there is a FINE line between killing for the greater good and having the illusion that the deaths you cause are for good. i played an elven ranger/assasin who later took on a paladin multiclass, his god was Correlon Larethian, but once or twice i did cross the line, yes... it is possible to be a good assasin BUT in my standards an assasin who kills for profit but only evils would at best be TN or NG, now an assasin who kills for the betterment of the world and not for money or pleasure could be CG but not LG, LG is acheiving good without the detrement of others if possible, CG is achieving good at ANY means possible so go ahead and be a CG assasin good luck and just remember your virtues
Arganis 08-17-06, 01:45 PM	Appeal to authority, I believe is what you're talking about with the ''doing what WotC tells you. Also, I'm amused that you said 'terribly right'. This is not really an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Gam's argument may use WoTC as an "authority", but the issue is not their credibility, it's the complete misinterpretation of the their intentions. WoTC simply does not expect PrCs to be used verbatim. I was referring to the Stormwind Fallacy, actually. You see, you make the argument that mechanics should come first, but your reasoning behind that is that concept is either inherent or immediately follows. At least, that's the way I understand you--sometimes it's hard since you tend to be laconic. It's a bit skewed compared to the usual black-and-white views that get bandied about, and therefore distasteful to both camps. My favorite is Horribly Beautiful. EDIT: Apparently it is an appeal to authority fallacy, as a quick wikipedia examination on my part reveals that one of the requisites of a valid appeal to authority is that the "the authority must be interpreted correctly"
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 01:54 PM	well the concept of Ending others lives in hope of profit is not by any means morrally justified or "good" That's exactly what adventurers do though. Step 1: Find someone who wants something that can be obtained via larceny and murder. Step 2: Commit said larceny and murder, usually against those who have a different world view, or are of a different race. Step 3: Profit.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-17-06, 01:57 PM	I want to add my vote to concept is primary and mechanics are secondary. Yes, you can have a great concept and the mechanics to back it up. Great. But you do not need mechanics to play a concept. I could play a wizard assassin wothout the death attack ability, I would still be an assassin.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 01:57 PM	That's exactly what adventurers do though. Step 1: Find someone who wants something that can be obtained via larceny and murder. Step 2: Commit said larceny and murder, usually against those who have a different world view, or are of a different race. Step 3: Profit. If they are commiting larceny amd murder soley for profit, then that is evil. If they are doing to it to remove a greater evil than that may be good.
Tzor 08-17-06, 02:10 PM	I always get a kick out of assassin arguments because they almost always attempt to rationalize poison is evil. There is two ways you can attempt to argue this and both are funny because neither of them will work. The first is the attempt to argue based on rules history. To argue this puts one at an odd irony. The first edition AD&D monk was absolutely prohibited from using ... flaming oil. Poison is listed as a "?" meaning it was up to the DM. Can a person throw a bottle of greek fire at a person and not be evil? The second is an attempt to argue based on real history. But at the same time one can also point that the Church considered the crossbow so evil that it allowed it's use only against non-Christians. Would you consider every crossbow wielder as evil? Thus we encounter the first problem. The notion that poison is evil is the emperor without clothes. We can all pretend he has clothes but he is still going to get frostbite should the temperature drop. The real reason why poison was considered evil was that it was an indirect method of killing. A drop in an unattended goblet, a smear on a handle or sharp surface someone might get cut on. It is a case of no risk killing. But often we impose this idea on a man to man meele with dagger wielding opponents. And thus the emperor has no clothes. The second problem is traditional. The Assassin Prc is framed by the 1st edition assassin tables and those tables included a fee for assassination. The question of a paid assassin is a tricky one, technically all warriors are getting paid for their profession, but not on a per person basis. Actually if you want an example of a non contract paid assassin type employee one only has to look at the famous "licence to kill" James Bond. There is the perfect example of a non evil assassin. And he doesn't even use poison.
LCD2YOU 08-17-06, 02:14 PM	Your point about assassination is a good one, as I said before there are circumstances where assassination increases the good. My biggest concern, really is about the abuse of prestige classes. Taking the abilities but not the 'character'.Then call the Character something else. The simple point is they do the same thing and use the same abilities so why not call them what they are, an Assassin but they kill to remove evil beings and prevent them from doing more harm.The rest of your reasoning confuses me. 1)Your are equating rocks with nukes? Do you know how many rocks it would take to inflict the damage of one nuke? Maybe the intent behind the rocks and the nukes is similar, but when you use rocks you can still direct your intentions at specific targets. When you use nukes you know you are going to kill innocent people.Yes, I am equating the use of rocks to kill people with nukes. To kill as many people with one nuke and even to cause a lot of destruction requires a lot of time and rocks. Radiation? There are naturally occuring radioactive rocks in the world. As for killing innocent people, taking out a country's infrastructure so they can't feed themselves is just as deadly and inflicts more suffering. As Sherman said, "War is hell". To be clear, my main point is you can kill alot of people, innocent or otherwise with both nukes and rocks. Also, a Nuke need not be used only for war or intimidation. I can think of 2 uses for nukes for peaceful, even life saving scenarios. Rocks as you point out are far more granular and give one time to comfirm their target.2)"it comes down to what one feels is moral or not"(LCD) So there are no moral absolutes in the world at all. Whatever we each individually feel is moral is?It would seem that way. When people from every corner of the world can say, "Oh let them die, they're not us", that is a moral judgement.By your logic the 911 terrorists cannot be pointed to as evil because they surely 'felt' what they were doing was 'moral'.I'm sure they felt that way. In my eyes, as I am sure as is yours they are evil. To many in parts of the world their actions are justified in the name of their God. It is no different to me than those who kill doctors and their staffs who perform surgeries they don't approve of in the US. I think those people, the one who blow up and shoot up the doctors and their practices, are evil as well.Yes there is clearly a certain amount of subjectivity well it comes to morality (and assassination is a good example), but there things in this world that either increase or decrease the 'good'.Here's the thing. If you feel that inccreasing your God's temporal power here on Earth, taking back lands that you may feel your God gave to your "people", claiming manifest destiny for destruction of the ways of life many have had, saying that you're letting 49 die so you can save 51 people, relaxing pollution standards to "create/save jobs" while the future generations will be the ones who'll be paying the bills in health and money to clean it up, yeah, there certainly is a lot of moral subjectivity. The question for everyone could be something like this: Want a polluting plant that could contaminate ground water and pollute the air to "make/save/increase" jobs but don't want to live down wind or in the same water shed? Then you are subjective. If it is ok for you but not ok for someone else, you are subjective. If it is ok to put someone else through harsh conditions but not you, that's subjective.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 02:15 PM	Doh, and here I was thinking I had the support of a stranger with a cool name. Owell, your name is still cool! Well, I support the removal of the Assassin's alignment restrictions. If you agree with me, that could count as me supporting you.
Tormsskull 08-17-06, 02:17 PM	Or, like me, find it HI-larious. Meh. I still do. Thing is, I can tell a powergamer from a regular gamer and the fact is, it has nothing to do with enslaving yourself to WotC's flavor text. Doing what WotC tells you is not the definition of roleplaying. I am not a big fan of WotC. Sure I like them in the they publish my favorite game sort of way, but I think they have done a lot of bad for the game which slightly outweighs the good. I like things that are what they are. Not things that try to pretend to be one thing but are truly another. Assassins are iconiclly and traditionally evil people. To excel at being an assassin you have to study, specialize, and become intimately familiar with the workings of the body and how to end life. IMC, prestige classes represent an advanced learning or understanding. Therefore, to be an assassin you'd have to study especially and expertly at killing. I don't believe you could be a good person and do that. While I appreciate the sentiment and agree... you can't actually do that. If someone has a build in mind, you don't even have to know about it. This is true. I can't read a player's mind and force them not to have a build. In one of the online game I ran I had a player submit a build to me. I told that player that I don't accept builds. The main reason behind that is players that submit their builds seem to think they are entitled to have all of the things that their build requires. If a player submitted a build to me that included them becoming a PrC with an organizational requirement, and I accepted the build, I would in a sense be telling that player that I will make the PrC available to them and allow them to take levels in it. I require players to do all of that in-game. If you want to be an assassin for example, you'll need to track down the group/inquire about them. In no way shape or form do I agree that such assassins will be willing to give you a chance, they might simply mark you for death because you are inquiring about them. To address the farmer's son; yes, farming wouldn't make much sense, but hobbies like crafts and perform, possibly swim and climb, or interests such as professions should still be considered. I always found it pretty dumb that most adventurers don't have hobbies besides murdering green skinned sapients for coin, but that's more of a factor of the skill point system being really stingy to most types of characters. I discovered that if you give bonus skill points, even if they aren't allocated for hobbies/interests, players will use them for it anyway. I made up a bunch of 3.5 Kits for PCs to pick from. Each kit granted a bonus to certain skills and gave the characters a profession and/or craft skill for free. I think they worked out pretty nicely and I might ressurect them for future campaigns.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 02:28 PM	To excel at being an assassin you have to study, specialize, and become intimately familiar with the workings of the body and how to end life. Like doctors! :)
Tormsskull 08-17-06, 02:30 PM	Like doctors! :) Trade the word "end" with the word "save" and I'd agree. That one little word makes all the difference between "good" and "evil".
Arganis 08-17-06, 02:38 PM	I want to add my vote to concept is primary and mechanics are secondary...I could play a wizard assassin wothout the death attack ability, I would still be an assassin. But could you play a wizard assassin if there were no mechanics to resolve attacking and casting spells? Call it a straw man argument. I dare you.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 02:43 PM	Trade the word "end" with the word "save" and I'd agree. That one little word makes all the difference between "good" and "evil". Killing isn't evil in D&D. And I'm not so sure about whether it is in RL, either. I think if doctors know how to save lives, they know how to end them. Learning how to end a life isn't evil. Hell, learning isn't evil at all!
Gamandria 08-17-06, 02:48 PM	Killing isn't evil in D&D. And I'm not so sure about whether it is in RL, either. I think if doctors know how to save lives, they know how to end them. Learning how to end a life isn't evil. Hell, learning isn't evil at all! If you are learning how, so that you can do it to make profit, its probably evil. Killing can be evil in D&D. Depends on who you kill and why. While there are conditions when killing is acceptable it is never good in real life, and mostly evil.
Tormsskull 08-17-06, 02:50 PM	Killing isn't evil in D&D. And I'm not so sure about whether it is in RL, either. I think if doctors know how to save lives, they know how to end them. Learning how to end a life isn't evil. Hell, learning isn't evil at all! And then sprang forth the vampire paladin.
Arganis 08-17-06, 02:51 PM	And then sprang forth the vampire paladin. Succubus Paladin!
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 02:54 PM	If you are learning how, so that you can do it to make profit, its probably evil. I'm going to learn assassination and killology so I can kill people for a living. When I'm done learning, I'll change my mind and use those abilities for the good of my nation (which, sadly, does not condone killing). Will I be committing an evil act?
Gamandria 08-17-06, 03:05 PM	I'm going to learn assassination and killology so I can kill people for a living. When I'm done learning, I'll change my mind and use those abilities for the good of my nation (which, sadly, does not condone killing). Will I be committing an evil act? I think now you are getting into the question of intent. Are you intentions truly for the good of your nation or is that simply the most socially acceptable way you can live your sadistic fantasies. Do you enjoy the killing? Why does the state need you to help it kill people? In some circumstances the nation does condone killing (but not assassination). You intitial step of learning 'killology' with the intent to make profit, was evil. Do you plan on changing your mind ahead of time? Sounds like you are not only evil, but very calculating as well. Even societies that do allow assassination are very careful about it because of its impact on the assassin. They tend to become more comfotable with killing each time they do it. Remember they can often see the humanity in their target before they kill them. BY learning to overcome the natural mechanism which normally prevents people for killing each other in this way, they take a step toward becoming more evil. I would say that if you perform 50 or so assassinations for the government. You will be a changed man. You will have become evil because you will feel little or no remorse when killing other people.
Tormsskull 08-17-06, 03:05 PM	I'm going to learn assassination and killology so I can kill people for a living. When I'm done learning, I'll change my mind and use those abilities for the good of my nation (which, sadly, does not condone killing). Will I be committing an evil act? I want to give you advice on your next character background: Thumbie was born in Youngtown, a newly created town where many young and inexperienced people lived. He of course was a genius and learned how to do things way ahead of his peers. When he was only four he was abducted by an assassin who for some reason decided not to kill him. Through the years Thumbie watched the assassin while he practiced his art. By the time he was seven, Thumbie had learned all of the assassin's skills, and escaped from his captor. When he turned nine he stumbled upon a cult of necromancers, and forced them to teach him their craft. After a long research process he learned all about necromancers and negative energy. Upon leaving the necromancer's hidden temple he was abducted by a demon who stole him away to the Abyss, where he survived by his skill and picked up a lot of demonic energy and powers. At age twelve he escaped from the Abyss and made his way back to Youngtown. There he discovered an orphanage of all evil babies. He slaughtered them all with his necromantic power, assassinating the caretakers because they were protecting those evil babies. At age fifteen he saw a woman grab her child just before a wagon would have ridden the child down. Understanding what the true meaning of life was, he embraced goodness and decided to offer his skills of assassination and necromancy to the forces of good. Sounds like an epic storyline to me.
Cifer 08-17-06, 03:05 PM	You see so many people that want to be able to use tradtionally "evil" powers/abilities but not be able themself that it gets old really fast. I know. I knew it at the time the tenth person came to me with a chaotic good drow ranger. But an assassin is basically a more sneak-kill- and combat-focused rogue - essentially like just about every protagonist of movies like Die Hard and games like Splinter Cell. None of the mechanical parts of the class are screaming Eeevil! to me like e.g. the dread Necro, whose signature ability is powered by negative energy and who regularly uses spells with the [evil] descriptor - I could play one of those as morally grey, but certainly wouldn't claim to be in any way working with good methods. BY learning to overcome the natural mechanism which normally prevents people for killing each other in this way, they take a step toward becoming more evil. I would say that if you perform 50 or so assassinations for the government. You will be a changed man. You will have become evil because you will feel little or no remorse when killing other people. Actually, that's something I would debate. I'd say you would become more lawful - you adhere to your code and are not troubled by feelings, for what you describe seems to me like the mind of Mechanus.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 03:21 PM	Sorry, this is what killology means. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology) I think now you are getting into the question of intent. Are you intentions truly for the good of your nation or is that simply the most socially acceptable way you can live your sadistic fantasies. I'm doing it for the good of my nation, which is a lawful act. If I enjoy it at the same time, but it's not the reason I'm doing it, then by RAW, it's still not evil. It's just lawful. Do you enjoy the killing? Yes, but that's beside the point. Why does the state need you to help it kill people? Irrelevant, but let's say they're bad people. You intitial step of learning 'killology' with the intent to make profit, was evil. Oh no it wasn't. By learning it I did not hurt anyone. I was gaining knowledge. Having knowledge of how to kill people isn't evil, even if you intend to use it. Using it for evil purposes is, according to D&D morality. Do you plan on changing your mind ahead of time? Sounds like you are not only evil, but very calculating as well. Let's say it wasn't my original intent. But I usually use myself as an example of the redeeming qualities evil can have. Even societies that do allow assassination are very careful about it because of its impact on the assassin. They tend to become more comfotable with killing each time they do it. Remember they can often see the humanity in their target before they kill them. BY learning to overcome the natural mechanism which normally prevents people for killing each other in this way, they take a step toward becoming more evil. That's how you become more fit for survival. You can't recognize an enemy as if he were the same species as you. I know it's evil in D&D, but you can't deny its practicality. I would say that if you perform 50 or so assassinations for the government. You will be a changed man. You will have become evil because you will feel little or no remorse when killing other people. Maybe, but some may be able to retain their sense of morality. Some people tell themselves the people they kill are evil. That's how they live with themselves. When not in the field, they can be very happy family men with decent moral values. <snip> As sarcastic as you were being, and as implausible that scenario is, it's certainly possible that this might happen. The only reason I said this was to make a point. That said... *yoink* :shifty:
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 03:40 PM	Assassins are iconiclly and traditionally evil people. Not really. Only in the recent past. In olden times, an assassin was an essential political tool. Still, the actual abilities of the Assassin aren't evil, so there's no reason a Good person shouldn't be able to mechanically access this class.
Pegasos989 08-17-06, 04:08 PM	Robin hobb has some awesome books written about CN or possibly even CG assasin. He was a bastard child of a king, who could naturally never admit it his. However, the kings had a powerful bloodline, allowing them limited magical capabilities. Thus, it would have been a waste to kill the child. So, the son was given to a herbalist and wizard, a long time friend of the kinf and the person who was taking care of king's poor health. This mentor taught the son a lot about herbs, both deadly and healing (we have a poison use here), how to use his inner magic (we have assasin spells here) and about man's anatomy (we have death-attack here). Later it turns out that the old man used to be assasin working for the kingdom and tried to train the boy as someone to take his place. The young man was astounished that he was actually assumed to kill people... At this point, we have a person, who has assasin's skills and abilities but is certainly not evil. Were I want to play someone like this, what should I do? I could always make rogue/sorcerer/spellsword and use my feats for poison use, etc. but this would make it a weaker character. And yes, it does matter. Nobody should be forced to be mechanically weaker cause he has roleplaying concept he likes! So yeah, I think that this demonstrates why I think that good people can achieve assasin PrC. But well, the story goes on. He learned why he was sent out to kill: As a last resort. He had very bad moral dilemmas as he knew the people he had to kill were not always even anything near evil. However, he knew that if he did not kill that cheerfull and friendly diplomat, a war would break out, kill thousands, make hundreds starve, have women raped, all those horrors of war. Choices: -Kill a good person -Don't kill him and let thousands of others die I am not saying that even in that situation killing a good person would be a good act - I think quite the opposite. However, if those would be the only choices (Sure, you can say "there is always choices" but sometimes it is not true. Really. Or atleast, there is sometimes not any good choices.), it would not make him evil to kill that person. Killing as an act in itself might be evil but if that saves thousands, does that still make the person really evil?
E. Ravenwood 08-17-06, 04:11 PM	What difference would it make if the ninja went CE to multiclass as an Assassin. CE doesn't mean your some kind of crazy nut-job hell bent on slaying everything that comes your way, just that crazy nut-job bent on slaying everything that comes in their way tend to be CE. Since when did you have to be good aligned to take out evil doers? Besides, I highly doubt the Monk and Cleric in the party would feel good about somebody sneaking up on people and cutting their throats, that's just not the way they do battle, and that should be reflected in their Alignment. If it doesn't and they don't, then either they're playing their alignments wrong, or they wouldn't care if they had a CE Ninja/Assassin in the party anyway. It's not like you have a true LG Paladin in the party that's going to smite him. Who says the CE Ninja/Assassin can't be in the Party?
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-17-06, 04:11 PM	But could you play a wizard assassin if there were no mechanics to resolve attacking and casting spells? Call it a straw man argument. I dare you. No I couldn't, luckily wizard is a core class and has those mechanics to support, would be hard to play a fantasy game without them. The point I was trying to make was that most concepts can be played without the need to have a mechanic specifically designed for them. Yes, they could be played better with said mechanics but not having the mechanics in place does not make them unplayable.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 04:38 PM	Not really. Only in the recent past. In olden times, an assassin was an essential political tool. Still, the actual abilities of the Assassin aren't evil, so there's no reason a Good person shouldn't be able to mechanically access this class. actually I read that the word assassin refered to a group of Muslim Martyrs in the middle ages who would take hashish and go on suicide missions: Hashashin=assassin.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 04:44 PM	Sorry, this is what killology means. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology) I'm doing it for the good of my nation, which is a lawful act. If I enjoy it at the same time, but it's not the reason I'm doing it, then by RAW, it's still not evil. It's just lawful. Yes, but that's beside the point. Irrelevant, but let's say they're bad people. Oh no it wasn't. By learning it I did not hurt anyone. I was gaining knowledge. Having knowledge of how to kill people isn't evil, even if you intend to use it. Using it for evil purposes is, according to D&D morality. Let's say it wasn't my original intent. But I usually use myself as an example of the redeeming qualities evil can have. That's how you become more fit for survival. You can't recognize an enemy as if he were the same species as you. I know it's evil in D&D, but you can't deny its practicality. Maybe, but some may be able to retain their sense of morality. Some people tell themselves the people they kill are evil. That's how they live with themselves. When not in the field, they can be very happy family men with decent moral values. As sarcastic as you were being, and as implausible that scenario is, it's certainly possible that this might happen. The only reason I said this was to make a point. That said... *yoink* :shifty: Your moral reasoning is cloudy at best. You do not need to act to have evil intent. If you enjoy killing I would say that, while you may be performing a good service, you are also indulging an evil need to take pleasure in other's deaths. The ability to compartmentalize does not make someone good. If a person kills on the weekends and then goes home and takes care of their family(i.e. BTK Killer), they are still evil. We may sympathize with them, because they live and act as we do, but their actions are still working against the good. If you are doing something for the good of the nation and you enjoy it, I would say those both become the reasons you do what you do. If you enjoy something then it is a motivating factor that cannot be dismissed. Even if something is practical it can still be evil. You are basically saying that if something seems evil, but is easier, its not evil.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 04:49 PM	Your moral reasoning is cloudy at best. You do not need to act to have evil intent. In the game, however, you must act for it to 'count' as evil.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 04:52 PM	In the game, however, you must act for it to 'count' as evil. fair enough. I thought the poster I was responding to was talking about a real world scenario.
Pegasos989 08-17-06, 04:54 PM	If acts are what matters... Is trying to kill evil or only succeeding in it? These are propably meaningless questions but that happens when I continue browsing alignment threads after midninght... :D
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 05:00 PM	Your moral reasoning is cloudy at best. It's times like this that I just take the easy way out and blame my Antisocial Personality Disorder. You do not need to act to have evil intent. In D&D you do. If you enjoy killing I would say that, while you may be performing a good service, you are also indulging an evil need to take pleasure in other's deaths. But what if you're indifferent to those people's deaths. Being good doesn't require you to care about people you don't know. You have to protect them, but you don't have to care about them. Anyways, the service I'm providing is lawful. If a person kills on the weekends and then goes home and takes care of their family(i.e. BTK Killer), they are still evil. We may sympathize with them, because they live and act as we do, but their actions are still working against the good. What good? What good are they working against? One evil act every now and then can't outweigh allt he good acts the man commits. If you are doing something for the good of the nation and you enjoy it, I would say those both become the reasons you do what you do. If you enjoy something then it is a motivating factor that cannot be dismissed. Maybe so, but people should be judged by their actions, not their thoughts. Wanting to save people from a burning building means nothing if you don't act on it. If you're an assassin and you enjoy your job, you're evil? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. Even if something is practical it can still be evil. You are basically saying that if something seems evil, but is easier, its not evil. Not really. I never said that practicality=less evil. I'm a practical man. I'm ready to do what's necessary to my own survival. Call me selfish, but I'm not risking my life to save someone else.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 05:01 PM	fair enough. I thought the poster I was responding to was talking about a real world scenario. Yes and no. I was taking a real life scenario and applying D&D morality to it. I'm really sorry about not making that clear.
Conskite 08-17-06, 05:04 PM	I am with Vestigial on this. Gam's ideas about good and evil are so outdated its crazy. All that matters is what works and keeps me alive. If Vestigial is outsmarting others to stay ahead then he has nothing to feel bad about. We live in a new era pops. Lawful good isn't lawful stupid.
Navigator 08-17-06, 05:17 PM	So... killing someone is not an "evil" action, nor is it a "good" action. Is it neutral? "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. "Evil" implies hurting, opressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. 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. Therefore, assassinating people is most certainly evil. You can probably argue that you can be a neutral assassin, but you'd have to be assuming that the people you're killing have a legitimate reason to be killed, and thats a stretch. I just don't see how you can have a profound respect for life and kill sentient beings for a living. However, I also see the point in the argument that this would technically make 90% of adventurers evil or neutral at best, since, ultimately, the job of the adventurer is to kill stuff and take said stuff's things. It's really a DM call. In any campaign, it's very important to know how your DM distinguishes good from evil. In some games, "good" is performing an act of genocide to rescue the princess. In some games, that same thing would be irrevocably evil. Performing an evil deed for the greater good can be considered good OR evil. It ALL depends on the DM and his interpretation of good vs. evil. It's like this. Your best friend's girlfriend cheats on him. What's the "good" thing to do? I garauntee if you can answer that question, you'll find someone that disagrees with you. It doesn't mean that one or the other is "good" or "evil", it's just who they are and what they stand for. I think a good compromise for the alignment requirement would be "Any nongood", considering the RAW, as well as common sense. I mean... would you honestly say that an assassin can be a nicer person than a Hexblade?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 05:23 PM	This still ignores the incontrovertable fact that adventurers are the single most deadly creatures on the Prime and generally kill as thier primary function. When's the last time you've heard "Lets see if we can parley with the goblins to get them to stop raiding and turn to a more agrarian (sp?) society, thus improving not on thier lives and the villager's lives, but the productivity of the kingdom!" Nope? How about: "Goblin raiders!? Lets track them to thier camp and kill every single one of those little green bastards and take any loot we find!"
Sildatorak 08-17-06, 05:28 PM	When's the last time you've heard "Lets see if we can parley with the goblins to get them to stop raiding and turn to a more agrarian (sp?) society, thus improving not on thier lives and the villager's lives, but the productivity of the kingdom!" Nope? How about: "Goblin raiders!? Lets track them to thier camp and kill every single one of those little green bastards and take any loot we find!" Actually had a Cleric of Kord that tried to do something like that with orcs (long term plan of basing their livelihoods on forestry and converting them from Gruumsh to Kord). All he had to do was kill their leader to take his place...it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 05:39 PM	Conskite, I feel sorry for you. With non-human races like goblins its easy because their culture is evil, so killing them is not a problem. But in my games, the core races in the PHB get special attention in this matter. If, to make the example simple, a lawful good palidin rides out to defeat an evil necromancer and kills his minions, he still must justify those kills. If they were henchmen who 'got in the way' and the paladin just slaughtered them, I would say he was not being lawful good (he should at least show some restraint).
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 05:45 PM	With non-human races like goblins its easy because their culture is evil, so killing them is not a problem. Genocide is fine as long as they don't share your beliefs! No, really.
Gamandria 08-17-06, 05:49 PM	Genocide is fine as long as they don't share your beliefs! No, really. I would not say that for the real world, but in D&D yes because some races actually are evil. Its not just having different beliefs but embracing good or evil (in the game).
Quaoar 08-17-06, 05:53 PM	When's the last time you've heard "Lets see if we can parley with the goblins to get them to stop raiding and turn to a more agrarian (sp?) society, thus improving not on thier lives and the villager's lives, but the productivity of the kingdom!" Actually I was playing a Lawful Good cleric who did exactly that once. Well, I decided that mining was more appropriate for their natural inclinations. By the time I was done they all worshipped Lathander. Never did get them to stop eating rats though... That said, I still don't see any reason, in D&D at least, why an assassin should have an alignment restriction. How is an assassin fundamentally different from a ninja? Both use stealth, both use poison.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 05:55 PM	But its still murder. Which people say is evil when an assassin does it. Can't an assassin specialize in murdering 'acceptable' races then?
allenchan 08-17-06, 06:01 PM	I cant believe this thread is going. Everything that needed to be said was said in the first 8 posts.
Navigator 08-17-06, 06:22 PM	That said, I still don't see any reason, in D&D at least, why an assassin should have an alignment restriction. How is an assassin fundamentally different from a ninja? Both use stealth, both use poison. Then why would the OP's PC want to be an Assassin if he's already a Ninja, and Ninja == Assassin? Anyway, I think we're missing the big picture. We've talked about what evil isn't, but what is evil? If we've already gotten to the point where you can say that regularly killing people for monetary compensation is a good, honest living, without any qualms, then holy hell, what's evil? Randomly killing and torturing people for no good reason until you're stopped is really the only thing i can think of that's worse than this thread's version of "good", and we still have neutral as a buffer zone. Just because you can justify an action doesn't mean that it's good. Cleric: "So uh... he's dead." Assassin: "Yep! I killed him. Pretty cool huh?" Cleric: "Why?" Assassin: "Well, Mr. Goodguy over in town said he was a mean person, so I put this stuff on my dagger and stabbed him! Yeah!" Cleric: "Oh? I was under the impression that Mr. Goodguy wasn't very nice himself. You DO know that he regularly has people killed right?" Assassin: "Well duh! I'm an Assassin." Cleric: "Okay well, that's great. Anyway, what do you want to do with his orphaned child down the hall? It's a shame growing up without a father." Assassin: "Oh! We better get him a home right away!" Cleric: "You're totally nuts, by the way."
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 06:42 PM	Nav, please take a good, long look at the Assassin PrC. Please show me where its class features indicate that you get a big sack with a dollar sign on it whenever you use death attack.
Krulla 08-17-06, 06:43 PM	Conskite, I feel sorry for you. Thumb probably feels the same way towards you. Anyways, why don't people make a PrC. One that is exactly the same as the Assassin, grants the same abilities and everything. But with one important difference: No alignment or roleplaying restriction. :eek:
Wtf,k? 08-17-06, 06:46 PM	I have a Ninja PC. He wants to be an person very skilled in killing people without being detected, like a Ninja. He (ninja) doesn't want to be a guy who kills for personal gain, or an Assassin. He doesn't want to be an evil psychopath (or any other type of evil, or psychopath, for that matter.) He just wants to be a specialist at ending other's lives, like a Ninja: someone who could get paid to kill for a living, but instead adventures with his buddies and enjoys sneaking up on and assassinating evil doers, the way any Ninja or even Rogue in a party might enjoy. In other words, he wants to be a good guy who kills bad guys before they can see him, like a Ninja. What's the best way to go about leaving him as a Ninja? You answered your own question, OP. But since you haven't posted again, I'm inclined to think that this topic is just a ruse to start a big argy-bargy over the evilness of the Assassin prestige class. You don't need to take levels in Assassin to be an assassin.
E. Ravenwood 08-17-06, 06:47 PM	I cant believe this thread is going. Everything that needed to be said was said in the first 8 posts. Amen, brother.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 06:50 PM	Thumb probably feels the same way towards you. Anyways, why don't people make a PrC. One that is exactly the same as the Assassin, grants the same abilities and everything. But with one important difference: No alignment or roleplaying restriction. :eek: Eh, I made the Darkstar Assassin because Death attack is annoying, not for alignment concerns.
highbulp 08-17-06, 06:57 PM	Well, every ability that Assassins receive is available to at least one other class that doesn't have an alignment requirement. So there's really no reason that you can't just change the entry requirements of the existing class. Out of curiosity, which class without an alignment restrictions has a Death Attack? I'd be interested in that for one of my characters.
Gneral Kass 08-17-06, 07:21 PM	Many assassins are labled as hitmen. They accept contracts from certain government branches or possibly from anyone who has the $$$. The fact that they are willing to kill people and profit from it, IMO, makes them evil. And real life soldiers are, of course, all evil. Or... could it be that the mind set of a person killing for good is honestly trying to protect those he cares for in a proactive way. Kill those who are honestly trying to kill others. Perhaps we could look at D&D related heroes? In "The Silent Blade" Driizt, Cattie Brie, Bruenor, Regis, and Wulfgar are walking out of Icewind Dale. They find Giant tracks nearby caravan tracks. That night the party heads out to find said giants and kill them. They know the giants are evil. They know the giants intend to waylay said caravan and probably many more leaving NO survivors. The party kills the gaints and get back to their journey after the deed is done. Were they evil for doing so? Did thier alignments suddenly change because they chose to be proactive in their approach in fighting the evil the giants would surely bring about? Or, as we claim our soldiers to be, were they good in bringing the fight to the giants and stopping them before they could commit any more atrocities than they surely had already?
Oakspar77777 08-17-06, 07:41 PM	The problem here is threefold: 1) The term "assassin" has two (or even three) different connotations, and many people wanting to play one find themselves dissapointed when the PrC is based on another. 2) The PrC, as written, has elements that have been predetermined as evil. 3) The nature of PrCs in general. First, when one mentions assassins, there are several different connotations that may come to mind. A) Someone who kills for money. (This is the definition that the PrC is based off of. Clearly, killing for money is evil. It denotes no knowledge of the alignment or actions of the target.) B) Someone who kills with stealth. (This is the definition most of the "Good Assassin" advocates are thinking of.) C) Someone who kills unexspectedly. (This would probably be better labeled a Sniper, but is still often thought of as an assassin. A suicide, or other guerialla bomber, would also fall into this idea.) So, the cure here is to figure out what the player is thinking of when he says "I want to be an assassin." If it is killing for hire, it is evil. The others are not necessarly evil (though they certianly could be). Second, there are certian elements of the Assassin class that are, at the core, evil. Top on the list is Poison Use. Look at the only other place that ability shows up in the core rules: Blackguard. Furthermore, look at the person banned from ever using poison: Palladin. While I am sure that you could make a hundred arguements for why poison use SHOULD not be evil, those arguements are pointless, because it is considered so in the rules. That other spalts allow it more liberally is only to show the edginess of the classes it is being given to. So, this speaks for a fix being something deeper and more foundational that just a flavor shift. Third, PrCs in general exist, not a VA argued, to fill mechanical gaps. Actually, there is a large camp of anti-PrC players out there (though I am not among them) who argue that PrCs are not needed since any PC idea can be built without them from the core classes alone. The real reason PrCs exist is to (A) Flesh out campaign worlds with orginizations, classes, and orders that are distinct. In other words, they are DM tools (which is why they are in the DMG, not PHB, and also why "world specific" PrCs, like the Red Wizard are included). (B) Offer "rewards" to players, or variations. This would be things like the Archmage or Cavalier, that offer a variations on a class as a way for a character to feel "elite" or tied to an organization built into the world. (C) Fill mechanical gaps. Yes, I know, I just said that VA was wrong to assert that this was the reason for PrCs. That is becaus it is not a primary reason for them. While splats are quick to create one with minor mechanical changes for every flavor reason, those are meant to be (A) class PrCs. The ones built for mechanical reasons are for class combinations that are not viable through multiclassing. The Cleric-Mage Mystic Theurge or the Fighter-Mage. So, assuming that the character does not want to kill for money, and thus be evil, then the Assassin PrC is completely unsuitable. Instead, what should happen is that the character should descide what abilities he wants to have to create the character that he wants. Once these abilities are descided on, he should talk to his DM and descide how to impliment them for that character (a new PrC, a few feats, ability substitutions, etc). That way, the character is not burdened with a host of undesired abilities at the cost of the character flavor.
Navigator 08-17-06, 07:48 PM	Nav, please take a good, long look at the Assassin PrC. Please show me where its class features indicate that you get a big sack with a dollar sign on it whenever you use death attack. It's not that necessarily that you get paid for it, it's what you do. Assassins assassinate. Can we all agree on that? Assassinate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assassinate): 1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. 2. To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character. Again, I will quote the Player's Handbook... "Evil" implies hurting, opressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. According the arguments on this thread, assassinating people is something that a "good" person would do. However, it is clearly stated by the core rules that "evil" people do it. This goes beyond the assertion that adventurers are more or less professional killers. Assassins have come to terms with the fact and have no qualms about killing people, good, neutral, or evil. We aren't even talking about adventurers believing they are performing a good deed, we're talking about an assassin that knows full well exactly what they're doing. Seriously, where is the line drawn? You can be someone trained and able to kill people at the drop of a hat because thats what you like to do, but still be a good person? Please, someone tell me what an evil person does... unless we've reduced alignment to two words on the character sheet that's only good for qualifying for stuff, because if you can be a good person with all that under your belt, anyone can be considered "good" provided enough arguments. Ultimately, it comes down to a house rule. I'm just surprised that so many think that killing people is a happy dandy thing to do.
skogenlives 08-17-06, 08:12 PM	As has been mentioned before (several times, if I remember correctly), this thread hasn't had much new ideas on it, and has turned into yet another alignment thread. Thus, I have two responses: 1) To the OP: You don't have to take the Assassin Prestige class to perform assassinations, or to kill others by stealth, or what-have-you. If you are really intent on the some sort of assassination mechanic besided good ol' sneak attack, the Assassin PrC could work. As it stands, you would need to houserule the entry requirements so that they sit well with your party (even if they would condone the Death Attack ability, or poison use, the requirement to kill someone for the sole purpose to enter this class would not sit well with any Good-aligned character. 2) To the alignment posters: The alignment system is, at best, a very murky classification system. When it is not used in its simplest, black-and-white form, such as "Goblins are evil. Therefore, it is forgivible to kill them with little or no justification." However, this view is not remotely close to anything even close to reality. When a game is being run without this simple way of viewing things, lots of arguements can occur. Honestly, the only way that I can see any sort of solution to any alignment problem or question is to resolve it with the GM of that group. Every group uses alignment differently, and even if the players have completely different opinions on what alignment is or isn't, the GM has the final call, as it is their world. I have my own opinions on alignment, but I do not believe that I will be able to convince others that I am right; on the other hand, I do not believe that anyone could convince me that I am wrong in my views because the alignment system is extremely subjective, and no one can really be right or wrong in most arguements about it. ...sorry about being so long-winded...if you don't want to read through my whole post, I shall summarize: As the alignment system is open to intrepretation and subjective, any discussion concerning it will not be able to adequately prove the validity of one view or another. ~Skogen~
Gneral Kass 08-17-06, 08:13 PM	Please, someone tell me what an evil person does... An evil person kills for gain. Be it monatary, physical power, the feeling of dominating your will on an unsuspecting victim, or simply to climb another rung up the perverbial ladder. Evil kills selfishly with no regard for its actions other than the possible gains that one may gain from performing the act. When goods kills, it hurts itself spiritually if not mentally. Good does not wish to kill but will not hesitate to do what is neccessary to protect those who cannot, or will not, protect themselves. Good kills for the betterment of its fellows or to the detriment of those who would bring harm to those undeserving of such treatment. Evil kills for selfish reasons. Good kills out of neccessity. Thus is the difference between a villain who will do whatever is neccassary to achieve his ultimate goals while a party of good members will do what is neccessary to stop the villain; up to, and including, killing it if neccessary to protect those who have yet to become the villain's victims and to avenge those who have already tread that unfortunate road. Ultimately, it comes down to a house rule. I'm just surprised that so many think that killing people is a happy dandy thing to do. Anything is "good" from a person's point of view. But evil needs a will to be labled such. If a landside destroys a village there is no evil in the act. However, if a person is to cause the avalanche to reach the result of destroying the village then the act is considered evil. Whether your point of view tells you what you're doing is good or evil doesn't matter, it is the will that drives your acts that truly judges a character's alignment.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 08:28 PM	According the arguments on this thread, assassinating people is something that a "good" person would do. However, it is clearly stated by the core rules that "evil" people do it. So you prefer all your murders to be stand up fights. That's the point? This goes beyond the assertion that adventurers are more or less professional killers. Assassins have come to terms with the fact and have no qualms about killing people, good, neutral, or evil. Nothing says the Assassin can't have his own rules as to who he does and doesn't kill. We aren't even talking about adventurers believing they are performing a good deed, we're talking about an assassin that knows full well exactly what they're doing. No, seriously, you think adventurers are all killing all these people out of the goodness of thier hearts? Seriously, where is the line drawn? You can be someone trained and able to kill people at the drop of a hat because thats what you like to do, but still be a good person? Paladins. DnD alignment: Good doesn't mean 'good person', it means you serve the causes and alien mechanations of the Upper Planes. Please, someone tell me what an evil person does... unless we've reduced alignment to two words on the character sheet that's only good for qualifying for stuff, because if you can be a good person with all that under your belt, anyone can be considered "good" provided enough arguments. Good and Evil can be changed to Red and Blue in DnD without missing a beat. Ultimately, it comes down to a house rule. I'm just surprised that so many think that killing people is a happy dandy thing to do. We're playing a game where you gain powers based on how many creatures your group has snuffed.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 09:33 PM	I would not say that for the real world, but in D&D yes because some races actually are evil. Its not just having different beliefs but embracing good or evil (in the game). Genocide is never okay, ever. In D&D, all species are redeemable, except fiends. And exterminating fiends would greatly unbalance the Multiverse and result in its destruction. Genocide sucks. Out of curiosity, which class without an alignment restrictions has a Death Attack? I'd be interested in that for one of my characters. Not many. That's why I want to remove the alignment restriction. Second, there are certian elements of the Assassin class that are, at the core, evil. Top on the list is Poison Use. Look at the only other place that ability shows up in the core rules: Blackguard. Furthermore, look at the person banned from ever using poison: Palladin. That's bad logic right there. See below: While I am sure that you could make a hundred arguements for why poison use SHOULD not be evil, those arguements are pointless, because it is considered so in the rules. Nope: Can a good-aligned ninja use poison without violating her alignment? In other words, is using poison considered an evil act? Nothing in the alignment information in the Player’s Handbook or the poison entry in the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide specifically describes the use of poison as an evil act. Of course, the purpose to which you put the poison might well be an evil act: Using poison to murder the local constable is just as evil as knifing him in a back alley. It’s possible that using poison might violate a character’s personal moral code, or the moral code of his faith or cause. For example, if local laws restrict the use of poison, its use would be considered an unlawful act, which would violate a paladin’s code (which includes “respect [for] legitimate authority”). The DM is the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn’t legal in his campaign. So it's not evil. Nyeh! So, assuming that the character does not want to kill for money, and thus be evil, then the Assassin PrC is completely unsuitable. Think about the following: A man that works as an assassin for a cause he believes in. The cause also happens to involve saving lots and lots of innocent lives, and free a whole lot of people from slavery. Now, if the man also happens to get paid for his assassinations, he's evil? According the arguments on this thread, assassinating people is something that a "good" person would do. However, it is clearly stated by the core rules that "evil" people do it. Good and evil people also use poison. Assassination is a viable option for both. Assassins have come to terms with the fact and have no qualms about killing people, good, neutral, or evil. I know it's by RAW and everything, but I bet there can be Neutral or even (rarely) Good people who don't hesitate to kill. I mean, Alhandra is described as fighting evil mercilessly. Seriously, where is the line drawn? You can be someone trained and able to kill people at the drop of a hat because thats what you like to do, but still be a good person? Well, the training by itself is not an issue. Learning doesn't fall under any definition of evil, so it can't be evil. Ultimately, it comes down to a house rule. I'm just surprised that so many think that killing people is a happy dandy thing to do. Well, it's an adventurer's job.
Conskite 08-17-06, 09:38 PM	How can killing kobolds be bad. Thats what the game is about. You don't stop to shake anyone's hand.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 09:53 PM	How can killing kobolds be bad. Thats what the game is about. You don't stop to shake anyone's hand. If you're talking to me: I was talking genocide. Genocide is always bad. But then again, kobolds are wussies.
Conskite 08-17-06, 09:54 PM	Only lawful good paladins spare the weak.
allenchan 08-17-06, 09:55 PM	But then again, kobolds are wussies. Pun-Pun is most disappointed with you.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-17-06, 09:57 PM	Pun-Pun is most disappointed with you. Well, then I do what I always do: Rub his tummy. Raspberries also work, but only when it's my bedtime (he never sleeps, and it has to be someone's bedtime).
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 10:30 PM	Only lawful good paladins spare the weak. Unless they're non-human -- then its beatin' time.
Kursk 08-17-06, 10:56 PM	You could say that a military sniper is a type of assassin. Could be a good aligned person. It's the intent that matters. If he only goes after the "enemy" then I don't see a problem.
Kreoli 08-17-06, 10:59 PM	To kill someone just for a living or for the fun of it you have to be simply evil (mentally ill, incredibly selfish, extremely socially disrupted) except you can handle extreme guilt and self-hating, or if you burn with righteous fury. IMO good assasins could exist but would only do their job if they believed it made the world better.
Navigator 08-18-06, 01:00 AM	Nothing says the Assassin can't have his own rules as to who he does and doesn't kill. I think that's on the law/chaos axis more than than the good/evil. Or that's just my own opinion. Paladins. DnD alignment: Good doesn't mean 'good person', it means you serve the causes and alien mechanations of the Upper Planes. That is actually a very, very interesting point. I'm not entirely sure how that fits into the argument, but it clarifies your own train of thought. If that's what you really consider to be a "good" alignment, then you're absolutely right about everything you've said. Good and Evil can be changed to Red and Blue in DnD without missing a beat. And there, ladies and gentlemen, VA said it all in one sentence, and I couldn't have said it better myself. Good and evil people also use poison. Assassination is a viable option for both. I'm pretty sure it was pointed that using poison is inherently a bad thing in D&D. Aren't Paladins forbidden from using it? Well, the training by itself is not an issue. Learning doesn't fall under any definition of evil, so it can't be evil. So.... intent doesn't matter? But you're justifying that evil actions can be good by reason of intent. If you kill someone, but for a good intent, it's ok. But if you do something neutral (learning) in order to do something evil (kill people because you like doing that sort of thing), it's evil, right? The only way to really get around that is saying that liking to kill people isn't evil or that Assassins don't like killing people, but out of necessity. But I mean... I think it's safe to say that Wizards like casting spells, and liking to kill people makes you at least non-good. However, this is all moot in regard to VA's Red/Blue comment. In reality, you can argue than any action is a good one, or an evil one, unless it's extraordinarily mundane. I mean, you could say that killing babies is a good thing, because if you didn't they'd have a poor upbringing. You could also say that building homeless shelters is an evil thing, because it enables homeless people to remain lazy. (The two above examples are not necessarily the views of the poster.) Anyway, this is going nowhere fast, and it seems anyone that still cares about arguing is pretty comfortable with their view on good/evil. In conclusion, we're just giving eachother heartburn at 1AM for no good reason.
Steelwill 08-18-06, 01:02 AM	Ok there is much arguement that killing no matter what is an evil act, but I can't honestly see that this veiwpoint is upheld within D&D. Killing in many respects is presented as just another means of problem solving, else Paladins arguably the paragons of good, would not be sword swinging soldiers with a cause. So ruling out that killing represents either good or evil, learning the tools of the assassin trade do not necessarily have to be evil either (unlawful perhaps, as poison use is referred to as being illegal in most common societies in D&D). The Assassin PrC is evil in the DMG, probably because you are killing for profit, and the entry means for becoming an Assassin is to kill for no reason other than gaining access to the Assassin PrC. My recommendation to you then would be to create your own PrC (in fact that's also the DMG's recommendation regarding Prestige Classes in general) that might afford this player what he is looking for. My 2 cents, I hope it helps.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-18-06, 01:08 AM	I'm pretty sure it was pointed that using poison is inherently a bad thing in D&D. Aren't Paladins forbidden from using it? Its only evil if you're using the toilet paper worthy book of Exalted Deeds, which then turns around and gives you what are, mechanically, poisons to use. By Core, poison use is not evil. Paladins also can't travel with people that annoy them, but that's also not evil.
claypigeons 08-18-06, 01:24 AM	1. Why are people arguing real world morals from the DnD standpoint? 2. Why are people arguring DnD morals at all? A) It may be evil to kill someone for personal gain in DnD. Whoopdy freaking do! ~/EVERY/~ PC is evil then. Every single one since the beginning of the game. All of them. B) In a game, that when reduced to its core points, is pretty much just about killing people to get shiny items, why are people dragging this out to 5 pages on the issue of killing for gain? THE GAME IS BASED ON IT FFS. :rolleyes:
Steelwill 08-18-06, 01:50 AM	1. Why are people arguing real world morals from the DnD standpoint? 2. Why are people arguring DnD morals at all? A) It may be evil to kill someone for personal gain in DnD. Whoopdy freaking do! ~/EVERY/~ PC is evil then. Every single one since the beginning of the game. All of them. B) In a game, that when reduced to its core points, is pretty much just about killing people to get shiny items, why are people dragging this out to 5 pages on the issue of killing for gain? THE GAME IS BASED ON IT FFS. :rolleyes: CLAYPIGEONS 1. and 2. Because the original poster wanted to know how to create a good type assassin, since the core PrC is evil, which will naturally require the exploration of good and evil in determining this,(at least regarding Assassins of nothing esle) and answering his question. To A and B, in my previous post, I gave my reasons why I do not think killing always equals evil, but to simplify, if D&D thought all killing was evil, all classes that have tons of skills for killing would not have the ability to choose alignments, Paladins are a good example. I even pointed out that poison use is more frequently listed as unlawful in the core books, rather than evil. (I don't know if it became evil specifically in either the book of vile darkness or exalted deeds, but if so I need to errata any neutral or good aligned monster that uses natural poisons to evil now). As for what the game is based on, I think the tone it sets is for heroics and adventure, as there isn't a single core class in the PHB that has an alignment restriction for evil, but at least 1 for lawful, 1 for lawful good, and 1 for neutral...seems pretty biased away from evil to me. Killing for purely personnal gain very nearly describes Neutral Evil motivation as it is detailed in the PHB, so at the very least I would say the game accounts for it, but hardly that its all about it. NAVIGATOR: I read your post a couple or so above mine. The major difficulty with good/evil in D&D I have noticed, is that in our world, good and evil are only (provably) value judgements, which are extremely subjective things. In D&D there are many spots where good/evil are truly objective, except unfortunatly, not for PC's and DM's. PC's aren't typically character's that are objectively good/evil, like good/evil Outsiders, so they are subjectively aligned in a cosmology where much is objectively so. On top of that, alignment meets with subjective judgements between player's and DM's...what happens if your own value system doesn't match the DM's? Many a player of a Paladin has met this situation. The last resort for these arguements is to either agree to disagree or rationalize that particular actions are either validated or not by their circumstances. Where alignment and similarly good and evil are subjective, intent matters, where it is not, intent does not. Its spotting the situations as alignment subjective or objective in D&D that can make matters difficult. My 2 cents.
Pegasos989 08-18-06, 04:13 AM	I also have problems seeing why this thread is still going... The same arguments will be repeated over and over again. I think that we can generally agree on these: A person affecting extra deaths for no other reason than personal gain is evil. (Yes, if adventrurer kills a random kobold he sees to get money, I sure as hell count him evil. If he however has also other reasons, like protecting the weak, it might be diffrent. The mercenaries are biggest flaw of this sentence as someone should be able to hire himself as a soldier without being evil, especially if others he kills also hired themselves and knowingly took that risk of dying for money. So that is what the extra means, it CAN be interpreted very widely, I know, but it is meant to allow some freedom with mercenaries and the like. Not enough to slaughter civilians but enough to fight other mercenaries, etc.) A person who puts his own life at great risk for no other reason than to protect the innocent and the weak is good. Now we have 2 things, one good, one evil. If assasin belongs to the evil one, he is evi, if to the good one, he is good. And I am going to gauge my eyes out if I see "Yeah, but assasin trains to kill..."... So do the following classes: Fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, cleric, rogue, bard... all with non-poor BAB (tho even wizards might train offensive spells). They all train the skills to get good in eliminating opponents, if they use the skill for the sake of good, I see no reason for them to be evil.
claypigeons 08-18-06, 04:56 AM	And I am going to gauge my eyes out if I see "Yeah, but assasin trains to kill..."... So do the following classes: Fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, cleric, rogue, bard... all with non-poor BAB (tho even wizards might train offensive spells). They all train the skills to get good in eliminating opponents, if they use the skill for the sake of good, I see no reason for them to be evil. Not only do nearly all classes train to kill, as you level (most of the time by killing stuff.. heh), you become more efficient at killing stuff. Higher attack bonus, more attacks, more and better spells, better magical enhancements...
Tormsskull 08-18-06, 07:49 AM	Here is what all you people trying to justify this are doing: You take one exceptional situation or circumstance, and then connect it to another exceptional situation or circumstance in order to say "See, based on these two issues this is in fact possible." My thoughts: Poison use is dishonorable. It seeks to rob someone of their physical and/or mental capabilities. It is usually used by a person who can't compete with their target, and thus they use poison to get an edge. Is it evil in and of its self? No. Assassins are required to be evil for good reason. Remember that these characters you are making are supposed to be real people. They don't exit in the real world, but in their own game world, they are real. In order to not go insane, you have to rationalize your actions. You cannot be a good person and assassinate people, it doesn't work that way. Here is the simple answer, even though I'm beginning to suspect that this also was not a real post. Ask your DM. If the DM allows you to make your own prestige class simply snip the abilities from different classes that you'd like, present them to your DM, and let him decide. If the DM says assassinating people has no effect on your alignment, then in that campaign, that is how it is.
Kreoli 08-18-06, 09:34 AM	Tormsskull: I think you are misunderstanding the whole argument, what people who support good-assasins are trying to point out is that an „assasin“ - a character with all the skills and oppurtunities of an assasin, hasn't to work like an assasin. How, and for who you work is up to the player and thus good assasins would be able to exist (assasins who only killed for the same reasons as paladins, for an example). Vaalingrade Ashland: I agree, in core poison use is not evil, but it is extreemly dishonorable and thus IMO lawful good assasins should not be allowed to use it.
Callahan 08-18-06, 09:55 AM	Well the idea behind the majority of prestige classes is that you are part of an organisation. The Assassin is a strong case for that, as he is a member of an evil group that trains and employs it's members to kill for nothing else then proffit. When a member of this group stops being evil he goes against the order and is then thrown out of the organisation (or has stuff thrown at him[possibly topped with things that caus the person hit to make various Fort. saves]). This is pritty much the whole idea behind the assassin Prestige class. Now it is possible that the player could continue using his skills to do good by core but in order to make assassins good by default you have to tweak them a bit. It really does not take much at all, the good assassin in the book that shall not be mentioned is nearly identical (aside from the touch death attack) so mostly you have to make up fluff about it in order to convert.
Tormsskull 08-18-06, 10:36 AM	Tormsskull: I think you are misunderstanding the whole argument, what people who support good-assasins are trying to point out is that an „assasin“ - a character with all the skills and oppurtunities of an assasin, hasn't to work like an assasin. How, and for who you work is up to the player and thus good assasins would be able to exist (assasins who only killed for the same reasons as paladins, for an example). Kreoli, let me quote myself here: Yeah, it just seems like a stretch to me I guess. I could justify almost any combination of classes/alignments/abilities I want and form new classes that caputre the things I want into one nice little package. The questions is, should I do this? When you say "good assassins would be able to exist" the RAW disagrees with you. You can houserule it, but remember, it is still a houserule. In trying to make a logical argument that someone could look to your point of view and say "He might be right" you'll want to use facts, evidence, precedents. So far all I see is theory and "what ifs". Any Star Wars fans around? Think of the Dark Side. The whole movie series spells it out quite clearly for you Dark Side = Evil. Do you know how many people say "But what if I only use it for good purposes?" Guess what, it doesn't matter, you still become evil. That's what being an assassin is like, to me. You are using evil methods, and at first, you might have qualms about doing certain things. After each kill you make, those qualms start to fade away, and before you know it, you're evil. This thread has got me thinking. We should host Ventrilo sessions where some of us who disagree on a point can all log in and dicuss it verbally. I really am shocked how often text doesn't communicate as intended.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-18-06, 11:34 AM	Assassins are required to be evil for good reason. Remember that these characters you are making are supposed to be real people. They don't exit in the real world, but in their own game world, they are real. In order to not go insane, you have to rationalize your actions. You cannot be a good person and assassinate people, it doesn't work that way. Again, we're ignoring the widespread murder adventurers undertake in a give afternoon. You can't murder people and be a good person. You can, however, murder people and be a Good person.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-18-06, 11:46 AM	I'm pretty sure it was pointed that using poison is inherently a bad thing in D&D. Aren't Paladins forbidden from using it? I pointed out where using poison is unaligned. It's in the same post you quoted a small portion from. Paladins are indeed disallowed to use it. That doesn't change the fact that any other Lawful Good person may use it. So.... intent doesn't matter? But you're justifying that evil actions can be good by reason of intent. Let me rephrase: Learning doesn't interact with anyone else, so it can't be an aligned action. D&D isn't thought fascism that makes you evil for doing things for an evil reason. It judges you based on your actions. Vaalingrade Ashland: I agree, in core poison use is not evil, but it is extreemly dishonorable and thus IMO lawful good assasins should not be allowed to use it. In D&D, a persons alignment determines what the character is, not what he is and isn't allowed to do. Lawful Good Assassins should too be allowed to use poison, even if the DM sees it as dishonorable. Minor failure in upholding one's alignment should not cause an alignment change.
Arganis 08-18-06, 11:49 AM	When you say "good assassins would be able to exist" the RAW disagrees with you. It's a shame any prestige classes are considered RAW. That's what being an assassin is like, to me. You are using evil methods, and at first, you might have qualms about doing certain things. After each kill you make, those qualms start to fade away, and before you know it, you're evil. The implementation of the literary anti-hero has always varied between Evil people who do Good things and Good people who do Evil things. The Assassin PrC, by the RAW, may be evil, but none of the abilities granted by the class are evil. The only evil defined is A) profiting from your killings and B) killing just to kill. When these things are removed and the targets are evil, what you have is simply a soldier of justice who practices expedience. Vaal's point about killing is a valid one. Adventurers engage in wholesale slaughter, with level 4 parties capable of slaying legions of lessers daily. How is drawn out carnage more acceptable than swift precision execution? How do you differentiate between good killing and evil killing? Is it evil to make use of a surprise round? While I am inclined to agree with you that killing people takes its toll, because as a military brat I have known plenty of veterans, it is unfair to single out assassins compared to any other class--including paladins. This thread has got me thinking. We should host Ventrilo sessions where some of us who disagree on a point can all log in and dicuss it verbally. I really am shocked how often text doesn't communicate as intended. Sounds like fun!
Gamandria 08-18-06, 11:49 AM	I think it is not a problem for PCs to kill monsters because D&D has avery simple view of good and evil. Monsters that are evil are evil and need to be dealt with. It is the motivation that matters here. DO the PCs adventure soley for personal gain? If so maybe they are more neutral than good. Do they only kill evil monsters on their quests? Do they adventure out of a desire to help people or improve the world?
Tormsskull 08-18-06, 12:25 PM	Again, we're ignoring the widespread murder adventurers undertake in a give afternoon. You can't murder people and be a good person. You can, however, murder people and be a Good person. Honestly, this is all dependant upon the DM. If as a DM all of your adventures revolve around PCs slaughtering creatures, then I think you are robbing your PCs of a good enviroment. Some groups like hack and slash, that is basically what you are describing. I prefer a role-play heavy game, where your choices and decisions have consequences/rewards. You often talk about green skins = kill on sight. In many a campaign this might be true to a cityguard or a defender of a land. Upon seeing a creature which you view to be a threat, I do not believe it is evil to disable that creature. If past experiences have told you that this type of creative has some strange power that you have no means of supressing other than killing it, then I think you would be able to kill it without being evil. A lot of this is based on situational material. Here is a situation: Two kingdoms, Kingdom A is made up of 99% humans and shares a border with Kingdom B. Kingdom B is made up of 99% goblins and often sends small groups (a dozen or so) into Kingdom A's land in order to plunder. Group A, a force of 50 mounted soldiers in service to Kingdom A comes across a dozen goblins which they believe to be from Kingdom B. Group A charges and slaughters the goblins. Does this make them evil? I don't believe so. Now lets take a group of adventurers from Kingdom A. They travel across the border into Kingdom B and start attacking a village. Is that evil? I would say yes. What I will admit to is the typical adventure made by WotC modules is based around adventurers killing "monsters". This stems from old school D&D where monsters were truly monsters, and you didn't have to worry about being politically correct. When you start throwing in all of these splat book monster races as PCs, things start to get fuzzy. If a PC goblin is walking through town and even doing good deeds, then maybe this other goblin could be good as well. If goblins kill humans anytime they see them, and humans kill goblins anytime they see them, then I don't think it is evil for either side to kill the other in a normal surprise combat situation. While I am inclined to agree with you that killing people takes its toll, because as a military brat I have known plenty of veterans, it is unfair to single out assassins compared to any other class--including paladins. Its all based on degree. IIRC rangers cannot take favored enemy of their own race without being evil. Why is this? I believe it is because they would have to rationalize specializing in killing their own race. When you do that, you cannot be good. An assassin takes this many steps forward. An assassin is effectively taking favored enemy (everything that can be affected by Death Attack). Sounds like fun! I have a server running constantly for our WOW group. I could set up a time to discuss a few of these issues if anyone would be interested.
Arganis 08-18-06, 01:03 PM	Group A, a force of 50 mounted soldiers in service to Kingdom A comes across a dozen goblins which they believe to be from Kingdom B. Group A charges and slaughters the goblins. Does this make them evil? I don't believe so. 50 mounted soldiers running down 12 goblins is not evil, but a single soldier sneaking up on and killing a single goblin is? Its all based on degree. IIRC rangers cannot take favored enemy of their own race without being evil. Why is this? I believe it is because they would have to rationalize specializing in killing their own race. When you do that, you cannot be good. An assassin takes this many steps forward. An assassin is effectively taking favored enemy (everything that can be affected by Death Attack). That was a 3.0 thing. Removed in 3.5, presumably because people other than me thought it was silly. What about a ranger in a land of disjoint and occasionally hostile human tribes. When this ranger fights, he usually fights humans, but that is completely independent of his alignment. You should be able to kill members of your own race and be good. Otherwise, aren't good people just racial supremists? I have a server running constantly for our WOW group. I could set up a time to discuss a few of these issues if anyone would be interested. I won't be able to do this for a few weeks, but once I am able I wouldn't mind random chat sessions, if for no other reason than just to socialize.
Tormsskull 08-18-06, 01:29 PM	50 mounted soldiers running down 12 goblins is not evil, but a single soldier sneaking up on and killing a single goblin is? Hey now, you're incorrectly extrapolating, I think. I understand the 50 v 12 remark, but when you say single soldier sneaking up on, are you referring to an assassin now? That was a 3.0 thing. Removed in 3.5, presumably because people other than me thought it was silly. What about a ranger in a land of disjoint and occasionally hostile human tribes. When this ranger fights, he usually fights humans, but that is completely independent of his alignment. Yeah, my memory jumps between 3.0 and 3.5 selectively at times it seems. You should be able to kill members of your own race and be good. Otherwise, aren't good people just racial supremists? Yeah, you should be able to kill members of your own race and be good. But I don't think you should be able to specialize in killing members of your own race. This isn't specializing like "I'm going to keep getting better at all of these sword swings and defensive movements because I want to be a better swordsman" its "I'm going to learn exactly where to stick this dagger/bolt/spear/whatever to kill my opponent instantly." I won't be able to do this for a few weeks, but once I am able I wouldn't mind random chat sessions, if for no other reason than just to socialize. Cool deal. Maybe we'll get some others interested in the next few weeks.
Arganis 08-18-06, 01:59 PM	Hey now, you're incorrectly extrapolating, I think. I understand the 50 v 12 remark, but when you say single soldier sneaking up on, are you referring to an assassin now? Yep. He's not doing it for money, he's just killing his enemies with the training at his disposal, that being stealth and deadly blows. He is no more evil for this than the fighter who becomes strong enough to kill in one hit without prompting a save. Yeah, you should be able to kill members of your own race and be good. But I don't think you should be able to specialize in killing members of your own race. This isn't specializing like "I'm going to keep getting better at all of these sword swings and defensive movements because I want to be a better swordsman" its "I'm going to learn exactly where to stick this dagger/bolt/spear/whatever to kill my opponent instantly." Any woman who takes a self-defense class is evil? Such courses are designed with human (male human no less) assailants in mind, and many of them teach techniques for dealing signficant pain. With respect to the ranger, knowing your opponent is a basic tenant of combat. The Ranger's Favored enemy need not represent a hatred of, dislike, or desire to kill said enemies--that's old-school thinking. It could simply represent experience in fighting a particular creature type, including your own. Moral distinctions are independent of the mechanic.
Navigator 08-18-06, 02:17 PM	So, we've decided that Assassins don't necessarily like killing people any more than other adventurers, which is the same as saying that Wizards don't like casting spells any more than other adventurers. And we all know Wizards hate casting spells... I mean, duh. I've seen some people say that all adventurers are trained killers. Okay, well, show me one class that is trained specifically to kill things. The fact is, most classes can function without killing things, and an Assassin's reason for existing is just the opposite, to kill things. It's not being "sneaky" or "stealthy", it's using every resource you have available to you in order to kill something, no matter what they are. Other people are justifying good Assassins by saying that real life soldiers are trained to kill. Do you honestly believe that someone being enlisted is saying to themselves "YEEEHHHAAAAWWW, time to kill me some people!"? No. In fact, most people I know that went into the armed forces did it for competely different reasons, and sometimes even out of necessity. They key factor is, you wouldn't be an Assassin if you didn't like or give much mind to killing people. If you argue that intent matters, learning (neutral action) to KILL PEOPLE (evil intent) is an evil act. Just in the same way that casting a spell (neutral) to animate dead (evil intent) is an evil act that doesn't effect anyone. Can Good people cast animate dead? No. Can Neutral and Evil characters cast it? Yes. Okay, so there's a good Wizard that casts animate dead... it doesn't necessarily make him evil because it's not his primary function as a character. Killing is unquestionably the primary function of Assassins. If you argue that intent doesn't matter, then all characters in D&D are stuck at one spot in the alignment axis that can be chosen by consulting a dartboard. Yeah, so adventurers end up doing the same thing in the end anyway. Anyone can use poison, even Lawful Good characters according to some people. Hell, don't commoners get a base attack bonus? Sweet, they're trained to kill things too! I'm not saying you have to be Evil. I'm saying you can't be Good. If you're saying that Good is merely a planar association, then ignore everything I said.
Tormsskull 08-18-06, 02:21 PM	Yep. He's not doing it for money, he's just killing his enemies with the training at his disposal, that being stealth and deadly blows. He is no more evil for this than the fighter who becomes strong enough to kill in one hit without prompting a save. Then it goes back to the whole point of where it occurs/what is the situation in order to determine. Is this assassin sneaking up on a goblin who is hostile or who he has a good reason to believe will be hostile? If so I'd likely say it is not an evil action. If the goblin is just farming crops in the Goblinville in the country of Goblinolia, then I'd say it is an evil action. Any woman who takes a self-defense class is evil? Such courses are designed with human (male human no less) assailants in mind, and many of them teach techniques for dealing signficant pain. Now you're simply grasping. Training to defend yourself by learning how to hurt (read: not kill) a prospective attacker is an orange compared to the assassin's apple. There is definitely not enough similiarty to use these in an argument. With respect to the ranger, knowing your opponent is a basic tenant of combat. The Ranger's Favored enemy need not represent a hatred of, dislike, or desire to kill said enemies--that's old-school thinking. It could simply represent experience in fighting a particular creature type, including your own. Moral distinctions are independent of the mechanic. I'd have to read the PHB 3.5 to be 100% clear on it, but based on what you are saying it seems like they did that. The 3.0 logic seems to make more sense to me re: favored enemy but if the 3.5 says what you say then that's how it is.
Arganis 08-18-06, 02:29 PM	I've seen some people say that all adventurers are trained killers. Okay, well, show me one class that is trained specifically to kill things. The fact is, most classes can function without killing things, and an Assassin's reason for existing is just the opposite, to kill things. It's not being "sneaky" or "stealthy", it's using every resource you have available to you in order to kill something, no matter what they are. Rogue? Fighter? Other people are justifying good Assassins by saying that real life soldiers are trained to kill. Do you honestly believe that someone being enlisted is saying to themselves "YEEEHHHAAAAWWW, time to kill me some people!"? No. In fact, most people I know that went into the armed forces did it for competely different reasons, and sometimes even out of necessity. And an assassin couldn't possibly have become an assassin because of those same completely different reasons? He couldn't possibly have trained in his craft by working for a good organization that killed evil figures? They key factor is, you wouldn't be an Assassin if you didn't like or give much mind to killing people. You mean people always do things they genuinely want to do? Killing is unquestionably the primary function of Assassins. And killing evil people is the primary function of good assassins.
Arganis 08-18-06, 02:31 PM	Now you're simply grasping. Training to defend yourself by learning how to hurt (read: not kill) a prospective attacker is an orange compared to the assassin's apple. There is definitely not enough similiarty to use these in an argument. This was in comparison to the ranger's favored enemy ability, not any assassin mechanic.
Tormsskull 08-18-06, 02:39 PM	This was in comparison to the ranger's favored enemy ability, not any assassin mechanic. My bad. When I saw the blank line and the "With respect to the ranger," I thought that was the start of a new thought.
Arganis 08-18-06, 02:48 PM	My bad. When I saw the blank line and the "With respect to the ranger," I thought that was the start of a new thought. Hmm! In my line of work, ambiguity like that is my bad, not the reader's.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-18-06, 02:51 PM	So, we've decided that Assassins don't necessarily like killing people any more than other adventurers, which is the same as saying that Wizards don't like casting spells any more than other adventurers. And we all know Wizards hate casting spells... I mean, duh. The problem with that analogy -- adventurers love killing. I've seen some people say that all adventurers are trained killers. Okay, well, show me one class that is trained specifically to kill things. Paladin, Barbarian, Rogue, Fighter, And clerics with the War, Destruction, or Death domains. Seriosuly, do you think any character that takes a save or die spell is evil too? it's using every resource you have available to you in order to kill something, no matter what they are. You just defined 'adventurer'. Other people are justifying good Assassins by saying that real life soldiers are trained to kill. Do you honestly believe that someone being enlisted is saying to themselves "YEEEHHHAAAAWWW, time to kill me some people!"? No. In fact, most people I know that went into the armed forces did it for competely different reasons, and sometimes even out of necessity. You're naive if you think everyone that joins the armed forces is doing so for purely altruistic reasons. They key factor is, you wouldn't be an Assassin if you didn't like or give much mind to killing people. Or and adventurer. Maybe you're just playing the wrong game. Advanced Snuggles and Hugs is a BESM supplement. If you argue that intent matters, learning (neutral action) to KILL PEOPLE (evil intent) is an evil act. Just in the same way that casting a spell (neutral) to animate dead (evil intent) is an evil act that doesn't effect anyone. The problem her is that its not an evil act to animate dead. Can Good people cast animate dead? No. Actually, yes. A Good wizard can cast animate dead. Killing is unquestionably the primary function of Assassins. And fighters and Paladins and Barbarians... I'm not saying you have to be Evil. I'm saying you can't be Good. And the fact is that you're sadly mistaken about DnD morality.
NinjaE 08-18-06, 03:05 PM	"See now, master Al'dim... I'm not some sort of heartless killer. Your death would bring neither me, nor any of your next of kin any amount of satisfaction or joy. Your cessation, willful or forced, of knowingly sending raids into elven territory, however, would bring me a great deal of both. Let me put it this way; your continued existence is causing and will continue to cause a great number of deaths. One life is worth infinity. Logically, this means that your life is worth as much as the combined lives of every single saint who has ever lived. Undoubtedly, those saints would agree. I, however, make no claims to sainthood, or a minimum of capacity for logical thought. I *will* kill you, and I *will* wear your skin as a mask, if having the order to stop those raids issued requires it. I assure you that I am capable of such a thing; not even your bedfellows would realise that *anything* had happened before I forge your confession and apparent suicide note. You can, however, issue that order without any form of bloodshed on your part. As I detest bloodshed, I suggest you do your part, so that you do not force me to do my part and thereby take actions that will cause me a great deal of emotional distress. The order will be issued by you within the next week, or it will be issued by me the following day. I truly hope we won't ever meet again." See? I'd say this guy wasn't evil. In fact, I'd call him downright forgiving and nice towards the other guy (if a little too heavy on the threats to be exalted). Of course, this doesn't need to be an assassin. It could be any class, though most likely a rogue or illusionist... I need to find a group where I can play this guy. *edit* Double negative. Also, VA, I think you're being a bit pessimistic towards the adventuring profession in general. Not EVERYONE plays sociopaths who adventure for money and kicks. :P ( Also, don't be dissing BESM. It's totally awesome. )
Arganis 08-18-06, 03:12 PM	"See now, master Al'dim... I'm not some sort of heartless killer. Your death would not bring neither me, nor any of your next of kin any amount of satisfaction or joy. Your cessation, willful or forced, of knowingly sending raids into elven territory, however, would bring me a great deal of both. Let me put it this way; your continued existence is causing and will continue to cause a great number of deaths. One life is worth infinity. Logically, this means that your life is worth as much as the combined lives of every single saint who has ever lived. Undoubtedly, those saints would agree. I, however, make no claims to sainthood, or a minimum of capacity for logical thought. I *will* kill you, and I *will* wear your skin as a mask, if having the order to stop those raids issued requires it. I assure you that I am capable of such a thing; not even your bedfellows would realise that *anything* had happened before I forge your confession and apparent suicide note. You can, however, issue that order without any form of bloodshed on your part. As I detest bloodshed, I suggest you do your part, so that you do not force me to do my part and thereby take actions that will cause me a great deal of emotional distress. The order will be issued by you within the next week, or it will be issued by me the following day. I truly hope we won't ever meet again." See? I'd say this guy wasn't evil. In fact, I'd call him downright forgiving and nice towards the other guy (if a little too heavy on the threats to be exalted). Of course, this doesn't need to be an assassin. It could be any class, though most likely a rogue or illusionist... I need to find a group where I can play this guy. Cept for the whole skin as a mask thing (creepy man), I'd say that's a good example of a Good archetype that could be played by an assassin. Of course... it could just be a false threat designed to intimidate... then that would be okay too.
Callahan 08-18-06, 03:26 PM	And an assassin couldn't possibly have become an assassin because of those same completely different reasons? He couldn't possibly have trained in his craft by working for a good organization that killed evil figures? Well, the problem with that is that good assassins are about as common as honest polititians. Evil assassins are a standard. Anything is possible, from a good demon to a blood thirsty paladin in D&D but such things are quite unique and can't all be catered to in the base core (which is designed with the basic idea of D&D game play in mind).
NinjaE 08-18-06, 03:30 PM	I was inspired by the passage of UA where it discussed in-game qualification criteria for the PrC's. Assassin's was killing a guy and walking out disguised as him and carrying his head in a bag. "Steal Skin" should really be on the assassin's spell list. Though yeah, it might just be an intimidate check that rolled a bit low on the convincingness. Or he might just mean he'd disguise himself, and the "skin" part was metaphoric. Eh.
Arganis 08-18-06, 03:35 PM	Well, the problem with that is that good assassins are about as common as honest polititians. Evil assassins are a standard. Anything is possible, from a good demon to a blood thirsty paladin in D&D but such things are quite unique and can't all be catered to in the base core (which is designed with the basic idea of D&D game play in mind). This I agree with. Fully. If a player comes to me and really wants to work out a good assassin (for reasons other than merely the assassin's crunchies), I would be inclined to work with him to make it happen.
Kradlo 08-18-06, 04:59 PM	That's exactly what adventurers do though. Step 1: Find someone who wants something that can be obtained via larceny and murder. Step 2: Commit said larceny and murder, usually against those who have a different world view, or are of a different race. Step 3: Profit. Let's look at some definitions, shall we? Larceny - The wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another from his or her possession with intent to convert them to the taker's own use. Murder - The killing of another human being under condition specifically covered in law. Your claim is that this is what adventurers do. Not that some adventurers do this, but "that's exactly what adventurers do." So, regardless of the campaign or the character, all adventurers are merely murderers and thieves. When a troll that lives under a bridge attacks a band of adventurers, how is it murder if they are victorious and slay him? How is it larceny when they find the spoils that the troll has taken from its previous victims? Please explain in detail how larceny and murder have been committed. Try to explain it as if to a jury, because these are serious charges, and hyberbole won't cut it. Come on, I'm dying to hear an answer, though I doubt you'll do otherwise than throw out more baseless generalizations.
Trevan0 08-18-06, 05:59 PM	Reading this thread has enlightened me (and given me a headache). Anything with the name "Assassin" is irrevocably evil, this much is obvious. Thus, in my campaign, I will create the "Super Stealth Fighter" Prestige Class. It will have all the abilities of the Assassin, except you don't need to be evil and you don't need to kill someone to join. To compensate, whenever you fight, you must wear black "stealth" paint on your face. I don't feel there is a balance issue with my class. It takes the "Super Stealth Fighter" 3 rounds to kill someone, where as by that time the Wizard could have thrown out 3 save or die spells. 6 if they're in a hurry.
Navigator 08-19-06, 01:34 PM	You're naive if you think everyone that joins the armed forces is doing so for purely altruistic reasons. Just as much as you're naive if you think everyone joins to kill people. And fighters and Paladins and Barbarians... Fighters are trained specifically to be masters of weapons and combat manuevers. Paladins are trained to uphold the law, protect the weak, and destroy evil. Barbarians are trained to survive in the wilderness using brute strength and instinct. Assassins are trained to kill. Actually, yes. A Good wizard can cast animate dead. I've addressed that: Okay, so there's a good Wizard that casts animate dead... it doesn't necessarily make him evil because it's not his primary function as a character. Killing is unquestionably the primary function of Assassins. And the fact is that you're sadly mistaken about DnD morality. "Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."Evil" implies hurting, opressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.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. Everyone seems to be blatantly ignoring what Player's Handbook says. I'm arguing for the PHB, just for the record. You mean people always do things they genuinely want to do? No. But, in order to become an Assassin, you need to be at least a 5th-level character. I'm not really sure where this puts you in society exactly, but you're generally more powerful than 80% of other humanoids that you live with. I'm going out on a limb to say that you can pretty much take care of yourself if you're on par with a troll. So, I think to say that it's a clear choice on the character's part to become an Assassin, that they would like to do what Assassins do. I mean, afterall, according the core rules, you have to kill someone for no reason other than to join the Assassin's Guild, which I think is a pretty clear indication that you have to want to do it.
Rhjamiz 08-19-06, 03:44 PM	Fighters are trained specifically to be masters of weapons and combat manuevers. Paladins are trained to uphold the law, protect the weak, and destroy evil. Barbarians are trained to survive in the wilderness using brute strength and instinct. Assassins are trained to kill Which implies killing is inherently evil. I disagree, but but this isn't the point of this post. (Infantry are trained to kill. For money, no less. Seriously... Infantry have some cool stories. Questionable morality indeed.) Essentially, all these arguments boil down to "An assassin is evil/can be good because I think they are/can be." The "assassin = evil" side just happens to be lucky enough to have a book on their side that sort-of agrees with them. Either that, or they are choosing the argument BECAUSE the book says so. Whatever. It's all opinion, and no matter how much anyone tries, you won't be able to change the other side's opinion. At all. EVER. I happen to say assassins can be good. I'll even pull out some fancy shmancy book example to do it, mind you I don't recall which one it's from. "Redeemed Villain." (If it happens to be BoED, I apologize. I find both it and the BoVD to be contradictory and retarded. They both make me sad. :( ) I mean, Sweet Raptor Jesus, if a Mind Flayer can be good, then so can an assassin. I'd say it is statistically more likely for an assassin to exist who trained for the purpose of assassinating "monsters", than a Mind Flayer having a change of heart, and cuddling puppies when he isn't having tea with the local Priest of Pelor/Lathander. If anything, assassins are neither good, nor evil. I'd say they fall under a more neutral alignment. This is of course, personal opinion. For the sake of argument, assassins can be good. I win. P.S. Puppies, for God's sake.
Cifer 08-19-06, 04:38 PM	happen to say assassins can be good. I'll even pull out some fancy shmancy book example to do it, mind you I don't recall which one it's from. "Redeemed Villain." (If it happens to be BoED, I apologize. I find both it and the BoVD to be contradictory and retarded. They both make me sad. ) I agree on your comment regarding BoVD - haven't read BoED enough to form an opinion. And I want to hear an apology right now! Fighters are trained specifically to be masters of weapons and combat manuevers. Paladins are trained to uphold the law, protect the weak, and destroy evil. Barbarians are trained to survive in the wilderness using brute strength and instinct. Assassins are trained to kill. What are fighters supposed to do with their weaponmastery and combat maneuvering? Just stand there and say "Hey, I'm a weaponmaster and know combat maneuvers"? Paladins... well, of course, there's all this business about being a paragon and inspiration for Joe-Commoner, but I see paladins as specialists - they are called when a holy warrior is needed. Surely being a warrior is about killing people or protecting things - and most probably killing or incapacitating (remember, the assassin can also paralyze with his attack) people that want to get at the things the paladin protects. With barbarians I count exactly two class abilities that are not designed for combat (trap sense and fast movement) - in which way that does not encompass killing people and breaking things would you use rage four times per day? Heavy lifting for 90 seconds doesn't seem that important to me...
Rhjamiz 08-19-06, 05:20 PM	Oh, crap... it is from BoED? Damn. I was really hoping I saw it somewhere else. Whatever. My point is only slightly less valid. I'm so sorry. :(
Navigator 08-20-06, 10:19 PM	What are fighters supposed to do with their weaponmastery and combat maneuvering? Just stand there and say "Hey, I'm a weaponmaster and know combat maneuvers"? Paladins... well, of course, there's all this business about being a paragon and inspiration for Joe-Commoner, but I see paladins as specialists - they are called when a holy warrior is needed. Surely being a warrior is about killing people or protecting things - and most probably killing or incapacitating (remember, the assassin can also paralyze with his attack) people that want to get at the things the paladin protects. With barbarians I count exactly two class abilities that are not designed for combat (trap sense and fast movement) - in which way that does not encompass killing people and breaking things would you use rage four times per day? Heavy lifting for 90 seconds doesn't seem that important to me... By your logic, Commoners, Experts, and Aristocrats are also trained to kill. If you extend your logic, it means that anything and everything with hit dice is trained to kill. Therefore, anything and everything existing in the D&D world, regardless of setting, is trained to kill. Hogwash. But are Commoners, in fact, trained killers? Absolutely not. They specifically farm, shepherd, make cheese, and all that stuff. Just in the same way Bards are trained to entertain. Sure Bards have spells like shout, greater and nightmare, but are you going to tell me that Bards are trained to kill? Please.
Navigator 08-20-06, 10:27 PM	The "assassin = evil" side just happens to be lucky enough to have a book on their side that sort-of agrees with them. 1) I never said Assassins have to be evil. I'm arguing that they can conceivably be neutral. 2) "sort-of" agree? I think it's pretty clear what the PHB states.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-20-06, 10:39 PM	By your logic, Commoners, Experts, and Aristocrats are also trained to kill. If you extend your logic, it means that anything and everything with hit dice is trained to kill. Therefore, anything and everything existing in the D&D world, regardless of setting, is trained to kill. Hogwash. A hyperbole if I ever heard one. Commoners suck at combat. If they gain levels, then that's an indicator that they've actually killed things. Same goes for Experts and Aristocrats. But are Commoners, in fact, trained killers? Absolutely not. They specifically farm, shepherd, make cheese, and all that stuff. And do not gain levels from any of those things. Just in the same way Bards are trained to entertain. Sure Bards have spells like shout, greater and nightmare, but are you going to tell me that Bards are trained to kill? Please. They are decent at it because they're specifically noted as Jacks of All Trades. Combat is a subset of All Trades. So Bards learn how to kill things, too. Not as well as Assassins, though. Hell, some Wizards are specifically trained to kill things in different ways. As BlaineTog noted so masterfully earlier, a Wizard with Power Word: Kill is even better than an Assassin at killing. How can you expect him to be Good?
Navigator 08-20-06, 11:33 PM	Commoners suck at combat. If they gain levels, then that's an indicator that they've actually killed things. Same goes for Experts and Aristocrats. So, are you saying that Commoners are trained to kill? It's my belief that just because you happen to be able to kill something, it doesn't mean you're trained to do so. I am personally able to kill people, and so is everyone else on this board. Are we trained killers? I know I'm not. The argument isn't how things gain hit dice. It's what they're trained to do. Hell, some Wizards are specifically trained to kill things in different ways. As BlaineTog noted so masterfully earlier, a Wizard with Power Word: Kill is even better than an Assassin at killing. How can you expect him to be Good? This goes back to what I said earlier and above. Anyone is able to kill things, that doesn't mean that it's their primary function. I would say that a Wizard regularly preparing Power Word: Kill is probably evil, but having the capability is not what makes you evil. Again, everyone is blatantly ignoring the core rules here. Therefore, I give up. If the only argument existing that makes Assassins "Good" is that all the other base classes are also capable of killing things after all this time, then this is truly going nowhere.
Falkus 08-20-06, 11:42 PM	Actually, I'd say that the main argument for their being good assassins is that killing people isn't necessarily evil, and if an assassin only assassinates evil people or monsters for the same reasons that other good aligned adventurers kill evil people or monsters, then said assassin can't possibly be evil.
allenchan 08-20-06, 11:55 PM	And do not gain levels from any of those things. Actually, they do. :D Overcoming challenges are not strictly for combat (indeed, many published adventures, and the dmg itself, suggest awarding ad hoc XP for non-combat encounters). And there are also level 20 commoner cooks in wotc stuff (i think the sharn book)
BlaineTog 08-21-06, 12:16 AM	Again, I am blatantly ignoring the core rules here.Fixed. (And Power Word: Kill doesn't have the [Evil] tag. Ergo, casting it isn't intrinsically evil. Ergo, one can cast it in certain situations and not move towards the evil end. Ergo, it's the circumstances that define whether or not a kill is evil. Ergo, assasins that only kill under those situations can be good). If the only argument existing that makes Assassins "Good" is that all the other base classes are also capable of killing things after all this time, then this is truly going nowhere.It's not the only one, but you certainly need to provide an indesputably good reason why it's ok for a fighter or wizard or rogue to train in lethal methods but not an assasin if you want to get around it.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-21-06, 12:19 AM	So, are you saying that Commoners are trained to kill? That's pretty much what I'm not saying. Most Commoners don't even advance further than 2nd level. If they advance further, thay might pick up a few tricks for combat, reflected in their BAB. Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, and Rangers (arguably even Rogues) are specially trained to kill. Others (don't twist my words) are not, though many pick up combat tricks and learn to do stuff. It's my belief that just because you happen to be able to kill something, it doesn't mean you're trained to do so. Never said that, never will. I am personally able to kill people, and so is everyone else on this board. Are we trained killers? I know I'm not. Never said anything of the sort. The argument isn't how things gain hit dice. It's what they're trained to do. The best way to gain HD in D&D is to kill things. If a Commoner manages to gain a new level, and advances as a Commoner, then that's an indicator that he's not ready to let go of his life as a Commoner (not that he wouldn't be even better at being a Commoner with a PHB class). This goes back to what I said earlier and above. Anyone is able to kill things, that doesn't mean that it's their primary function. It's the primary function of the High BAB classes, and possibly the Rogue. I would say that a Wizard regularly preparing Power Word: Kill is probably evil, but having the capability is not what makes you evil. And using the capability is? No. Since killing is unaligned, it all comes down to what you're trying to accomplish. Again, everyone is blatantly ignoring the core rules here. Even you. Therefore, I give up. If the only argument existing that makes Assassins "Good" is that all the other base classes are also capable of killing things after all this time, then this is truly going nowhere. The argument is that other classes are trained to kill, much like the Assassin. You've just kept on (intentionally or otherwise) misunderstanding everyone.
nameless_one_86 08-21-06, 04:28 AM	That is a good point that Someone brought up. A character doesn't have to have the Assassin prestige class to well, act as one. That is part of the whole roleplaying aspect of D&D ;) Truth. I play Cleric that is a member of assassin's guild. My players asked me for good assassin and I said no for a very simple reason - Death Attack. I can only imagine that is the only reason your player wants an assassin if it were spells, he'd take some sorcerer levels and get Arcane Trickster ;)
Tormsskull 08-21-06, 08:15 AM	Navigator, you make some good points. I think it is senseless to continue this discussion, it seems that the assassins can be good side is failing to grasp the idea of specialization. Are fighters trained to be good @ combat? Yes. Does this, in a way, mean they are trained to kill? Yes. Does this mean they are specialized specifically in killing? NO! Are assassins specialized specifically in killing? YES! That is the crux of the argument. I think this is what many of the assassins can be good side are missing. If you DM your own campaign, you can feel free to view alignment in any way you want, drop requirements for the PrCs, or whatever. If you want to have a consistent game where the rules make sense, you are going to need to retailor some aspects of the game if you choose to say specializing in killing is not evil. In truth, my question would be what is in fact evil? If you specialize in torture, but you only torture evil people, can you remain good? If you have the ability to destroy someone's soul, but you only do it to evil people, can you remain good? Think carefully when you change the way the rules work.
Arganis 08-21-06, 09:42 AM	Therefore, I give up. If the only argument existing that makes Assassins "Good" is that all the other base classes are also capable of killing things after all this time, then this is truly going nowhere. And if the only reason assassins are evil is because they have an ability called "Death Attack", then I agree: This is going absolutely nowhere. Are assassins specialized specifically in killing? No, you're just being prejudicial due to the traditionally negative connotations of words like assassin and death, in addition to being far too fixated on the provided flavor in the DMG. You refuse to accept that an assassin kills using deception, misdirection, and anatomical expertise as effectively (perhaps even less so) as a barbarian kills with strength and anger or a fighter with quite a bit of general expertise depending on the feat chain. You maintain the irrational belief that knowing how to kill is more evil than actually killing, that it is more evil to stab someone in the heart than it is to swing in the general vicinity of the heart. The way I understand your arguments, an assassin who kills 2 evil dictators a year is more evil than a fighter who slaughters 5,000 evil/neutral humanoids on a battlefield in the same timeframe. The knowledge of where and how to hit someone is more evil than knowledge of how to use a weapon that is designed to kill? That's laughable. You are arguing a semantic difference that is fashioned to protect your views. And finally... Think carefully when you change the way the rules work. I think this is a bit patronizing, but maybe I'm just in a foul mood today.
archcomponent 08-21-06, 09:55 AM	You refuse to accept that an assassin kills using deception, misdirection, and anatomical expertise as effectively (perhaps even less so) as a barbarian kills with strength and anger or a fighter with quite a bit of general expertise depending on the feat chain. It's evil for the same reason that a monk using freezing the lifeblood followed by a coup de grace is automatically evil, or a rogue who uses bluff to feint and then sneak attack, or a shadowdancer who has a shadow follower swoop out of darkness to drain the life of an opponent, or even a ranger who useds manyshot with arrows of slaying.
Tormsskull 08-21-06, 10:08 AM	No, you're just being prejudicial due to the traditionally negative connotations of words like assassin and death, in addition to being far too fixated on the provided flavor in the DMG. So your stance is that assassins are not specialized specifically in killing? You refuse to accept that an assassin kills using deception, misdirection, and anatomical expertise as effectively (perhaps even less so) as a barbarian kills with strength and anger or a fighter with quite a bit of general expertise depending on the feat chain. Rogues use deception, misdirection, and anatomical expertise effectively. They do not have an ability that allows them instantly kill someone. You maintain the irrational belief that knowing how to kill is more evil than actually killing, that it is more evil to stab someone in the heart than it is to swing in the general vicinity of the heart. Not quite. If you choose to slaughter people on a general basis, you're evil. If you study the workings of the body with the purpose of finding the most efficient way of ending life, choose to specialize in that field, then I believe you would be evil. At the very least, there is no way you could be good. The way I understand your arguments, an assassin who kills 2 evil dictators a year is more evil than a fighter who slaughters 5,000 evil/neutral humanoids on a battlefield in the same timeframe. I don't know how you judge "more evil". Is chaotic evil "more evil" than lawful evil? The knowledge of where and how to hit someone is more evil than knowledge of how to use a weapon that is designed to kill? That's laughable. You are arguing a semantic difference that is fashioned to protect your views. I am not sure you understand my views. A fighter can specialize in a dagger. That means he is pretty good at fighting effectively with a dagger. An assassin can use that same dagger to kill someone instantly. He need not have any special knowledge with the dagger; his knowledge of anatomy allows him to know where to strike. He choose to learn his knowledge, he decided he wanted to learn how to kill people with one stroke/shot/what have you. I think this is a bit patronizing, but maybe I'm just in a foul mood today. Maybe a bit. The point being, the designers of the game had something in mind when they decided an assassin must be evil. If you choose to change that ruling, then you should understand the implications that makes for others areas of the game. Arganis, the DMG would agree with my views. I believe that classic fantasy would reflect my views. Would you care to point to an example of a good assassin somewhere in a book or movie or historical account? Perhaps if I had an example of what you consider to be a good assassin I could better understand the angle you are arguing from.
Wopple 08-24-06, 09:00 AM	To take what I said in the other thread and plop it here... Okay, to very quickly recap my main point in the other thread that we lost so much of: We are not asking whether or not Assassins can kill and be good, we are asking if the PrC of Assassin can have a good player take it. There is an evil guild structure and you are required to sacrafice a life to join. Therefore only evil players may take ranks in Assassin. If you want to house rule it, house rule it. The DMG even says of PrC's that they are in no way definitive, and always under the purview of the DM.
archcomponent 08-24-06, 02:59 PM	We are not asking whether or not Assassins can kill and be good, we are asking if the PrC of Assassin can have a good player take it. Exactly! The only issue is does the book AS WRITTEN require you to be evil? Yes, it does. We're done. Case closed. How can you argue with the text that's right there in front of your face? That's the only question, and it isn't exactly a stumper. Some good ninja wants to take this class? He can't. Go home.
soul_knife4359 08-24-06, 03:09 PM	To take what I said in the other thread and plop it here... Okay, to very quickly recap my main point in the other thread that we lost so much of: We are not asking whether or not Assassins can kill and be good, we are asking if the PrC of Assassin can have a good player take it. There is an evil guild structure and you are required to sacrafice a life to join. Therefore only evil players may take ranks in Assassin. If you want to house rule it, house rule it. The DMG even says of PrC's that they are in no way definitive, and always under the purview of the DM. to sum this al up, according to the RAW, no a good character cannot take levels in the Assassin PrC. However, Rule 0 applies
archcomponent 08-24-06, 03:32 PM	to sum this al up, according to the RAW, no a good character cannot take levels in the Assassin PrC. However, Rule 0 applies Do that and you might as well make Vecna exalted and have elven Dwaven defenders and have chaotic neutral paladins running everywhere.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-24-06, 04:45 PM	Do that and you might as well make Vecna exalted and have elven Dwaven defenders and have chaotic neutral paladins running everywhere. Look at the difference in flavor. Maybe the Dwarven Defender's abilities could be used by elves, I'm not getting into that discussion. But Paladins and Cleric have specific abilities that are granted by their gods. Vecna is evil, so he grants his favor to evil creatures. Same goes for all the other gods. Assassins don't get their abilities from a divine entity.
archcomponent 08-24-06, 05:27 PM	Look at the difference in flavor. That's the point, you're destroying the roleplaying aspect and the flavor of the classes. You're changing the assassin guild from the evil institution it is. So why not suddenly make Vecna a good god so your player can be a follower? Why not lift the CoC for paladins and a follower of a god of any alignment take the class? And why bother limiting the dwarven defender to dwarves or the arcane archer to elves?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-24-06, 05:45 PM	That's the point, you're destroying the roleplaying aspect and the flavor of the classes. You're changing the assassin guild from the evil institution it is. Which is good, because they're an incompetant institution that would have been destroyed years ago if they're sending newbies to kill random people OR botch thier jobs.
FeceMan 08-24-06, 07:39 PM	Yeh know... Assassins shouldn't be good. They shouldn't be neutral or evil, either.
Wopple 08-24-06, 08:35 PM	Which is good, because they're an incompetant institution that would have been destroyed years ago if they're sending newbies to kill random people OR botch thier jobs. One would assume it would have to be a nice, clean kill to join. While not in the rules, any DM that lets you take Assassin for killing a Kitten with a club in the town square needs to be shot. Also, to join you need to be at least level 5 first. Have ranks in stealthy abilities. That's hardly a newb. And who said anything about botching jobs? I would assume a botched job would be cleaned up by a higher up and then that would be the end of it for he who botched it up. C'mon now, t first introductory kill is common in Assassin stories and myths and modern media. Many even make you kill someone close to you, WotC went easy on that aspect of it. Look.. the DMG says it is an evil clan that forces you to kill someone just to show your commitment. That along the with the requirement mean you MUST BE EVIL. SO YOU HAVE TO BE EVIL TO TAKE ASSASSIN! END! OVER! FINITO! If you don't like it, chaaaaaaaaaaaaannnge it. I can see myself changing it, albeit with restrictions and a signifigant trial. Just house it.. it.. is.. not.. that... big.... a.... deal. If you disagree, house it. Why are you trying to convince us that WotC are retards and omfg you guys are so right? who cares? And I re-state YET AGAIN, the DMG says prestige classes are by no means Definitive, and the DM has total power over them. So even WotC is not saying you have to do it, it is just their reccomondation. Take it or leave it, just like the rest of D&D...
Wopple 08-24-06, 08:35 PM	Yeh know... Assassins shouldn't be good. They shouldn't be neutral or evil, either. They should be alignmentless!
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-24-06, 09:48 PM	One would assume it would have to be a nice, clean kill to join. While not in the rules, any DM that lets you take Assassin for killing a Kitten with a club in the town square needs to be shot. But they don't actually state this, even if they expect it. The number of savage killings for 'no reason other than to join' would soon get back to them. Also, to join you need to be at least level 5 first. Have ranks in stealthy abilities. That's hardly a newb. You are quiet and you are a survivor. But by no means does that mean you're particularly good at killing. And ape could kill someone at random. And who said anything about botching jobs? I would assume a botched job would be cleaned up by a higher up and then that would be the end of it for he who botched it up. C'mon now, t first introductory kill is common in Assassin stories and myths and modern media. Many even make you kill someone close to you, WotC went easy on that aspect of it. They're sending an untested assassin wannabe to try to fulfil a contract. No actual training required. They are risking thier lively hood on the assumption that all newbies will be successful. Look.. the DMG says it is an evil clan that forces you to kill someone just to show your commitment. That along the with the requirement mean you MUST BE EVIL. SO YOU HAVE TO BE EVIL TO TAKE ASSASSIN! END! OVER! FINITO! And the evil clan presented in the DMG are incompetant louts.
Trevan0 08-24-06, 10:11 PM	Hmm... 5 Levels of Dark Hunter, 3 levels of Ninja, 1 Level of Shadowdancer and 4 levels of Rogue. That gives you Sneak Attack, Death attack, Poison Use, Hide in Plain Sight and Uncanny Dodge. I think the only thing you're missing is saving throw bonus vs. Poison and the Assassin Spell list. So it's possible to get all these abilities and be Lawful Good.
Hakim 08-25-06, 02:36 PM	I ran a Lawful Good Elven Assassin once. A very James Bond types character. Licensed to kill but it was for the greater good of the Elven nation kinda thing.
Tormsskull 08-25-06, 02:39 PM	Hmm... 5 Levels of Dark Hunter, 3 levels of Ninja, 1 Level of Shadowdancer and 4 levels of Rogue. That gives you Sneak Attack, Death attack, Poison Use, Hide in Plain Sight and Uncanny Dodge. I think the only thing you're missing is saving throw bonus vs. Poison and the Assassin Spell list. So it's possible to get all these abilities and be Lawful Good. But not in core D&D. The argument has already been made that non-core sources change the situation dramatically. To anyone who thinks good assassins should be allowed, do you think ANY PrC should have an alignment restriction, and if so, give me an example of one.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-25-06, 03:05 PM	To anyone who thinks good assassins should be allowed, do you think ANY PrC should have an alignment restriction, and if so, give me an example of one. Competant flavor writing would remove all alignment restrictions. But since I lack the phenominal magic powers to do it; Classes like the Blackguard or the Acolyte of the Skin where you're actually making deals with Dark Lords and demons are fair game. Just being in an archetype that 'usually' wears a black hat, like Assassin, or Ur-Preist (old one, don't know about the new one's restrictions), shouldn't count because that's just jamming flavor text down your throat.
Tormsskull 08-25-06, 03:21 PM	Competant flavor writing would remove all alignment restrictions. But since I lack the phenominal magic powers to do it; Classes like the Blackguard or the Acolyte of the Skin where you're actually making deals with Dark Lords and demons are fair game. Just being in an archetype that 'usually' wears a black hat, like Assassin, or Ur-Preist (old one, don't know about the new one's restrictions), shouldn't count because that's just jamming flavor text down your throat. I don't know Acolyte of the Skin, but why should Blackguards have to be evil? They are just choosing to use certain abilities/powers in order to get the job done. If a particular blackguard uses those powers to defeat evil creatures, then why should he always HAVE to be evil?
archcomponent 08-25-06, 03:56 PM	That along the with the requirement mean you MUST BE EVIL. SO YOU HAVE TO BE EVIL TO TAKE ASSASSIN! END! OVER! FINITO! Exactly. There is just one guild of assassins, and that guild is evil! It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. The assassin PrC is evil, done. THE END. Though if you're just going to cut out the roleplaying aspect of classes like a butcher, no one's going to be able to stop you from having a game with good assassins and blackguards and chaotic paladins and godless clerics and nonsense like that. What's the best way to go about providing this PrC for him? Simple. You can't. That's the only answer.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-25-06, 04:28 PM	I don't know Acolyte of the Skin, but why should Blackguards have to be evil? They are just choosing to use certain abilities/powers in order to get the job done. If a particular blackguard uses those powers to defeat evil creatures, then why should he always HAVE to be evil? I'm going to go with 'being the servant of the forces of darkness' for 100, Alex. Though its clearly possible for someone to be a Lawful Neutral servant of those dudes. Either way, a Blackguard is a Paladin for the other 'team' anyway, so meh.
Wopple 08-25-06, 04:39 PM	And the evil clan presented in the DMG are incompetant louts. No. They require 1 kill to join. DM would decide circumstances. Only your massive range of assumptions would make them incompitent... And if you think they ARE incompitent then don't take classes in it. Who wants to deal with an all evil, incompitent guild?
Wopple 08-25-06, 04:42 PM	Competant flavor writing would remove all alignment restrictions. But since I lack the phenominal magic powers to do it; Classes like the Blackguard or the Acolyte of the Skin where you're actually making deals with Dark Lords and demons are fair game. Just being in an archetype that 'usually' wears a black hat, like Assassin, or Ur-Preist (old one, don't know about the new one's restrictions), shouldn't count because that's just jamming flavor text down your throat. Again.... they set it up as a guild... Much as vecna has a cult given in their rules which is evil, the assassin PrC is an EVIL GUILD! They would not let a good person in. If you don't like it... change it in games you DM. If you are a player frustrated by a DM who disagrees with you, tough. get a new DM or just play the game within your current dm's rules. Alignment restrictions make sense here. Remember, too, if WotC DID change the DMG to remove alignment stuff, you could STILL have a DM who decided they are evil only. Rule 0 > all. People have been *****ing about this since 3rd ed. They'd have changed it in 3.5 if they thought you had a point.
piromaniacson 08-25-06, 04:48 PM	I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but there are some occurences when assasins can actually become good guys. Once in a campaign setting an assasin guild took in a fighter and converted him into an assasin before he had killed someone to join the guild. Then after many months of training he was ordered to kill a man who had been caught stealing and the penalty is death. They wanted the fighter/assasin to kill this man execution style. The fighter/assasin simply said he would not do it and heriocly stood up against his masters and fellow guild members. A battle raged on and by making many strength checks and with a chance of luck he made it out of the scenario without killing the man. He recieved no alignment changes and a bunch of experience and cool points. This is also known as Batman Begins and the Fighter/Assasin is Bruce Wayne.
Wopple 08-25-06, 04:59 PM	I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but there are some occurences when assasins can actually become good guys. Once in a campaign setting an assasin guild took in a fighter and converted him into an assasin before he had killed someone to join the guild. Then after many months of training he was ordered to kill a man who had been caught stealing and the penalty is death. They wanted the fighter/assasin to kill this man execution style. The fighter/assasin simply said he would not do it and heriocly stood up against his masters and fellow guild members. A battle raged on and by making many strength checks and with a chance of luck he made it out of the scenario without killing the man. He recieved no alignment changes and a bunch of experience and cool points. This is also known as Batman Begins and the Fighter/Assasin is Bruce Wayne. While a cute story, that is exactly the point. In D&D, you have to kill someone to join, not lead the group after months of training. So, this is how batman begins would have went with the Assassin Guild presented in the DMG. A fighter gets invited to join an Assassin's guild. He fights his way up a mountain and learns skills needed to join. He gets to the top and they ask him to kill someone they know stole, for which the punishment is death. He refuses and has recieved absolutly no training. Now, they would try to kill him. He would either die, get away, or kill some of them in a fight. Any way it goes down, he would have 0 ranks in Assassin.
jagraham 08-25-06, 07:54 PM	I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but there are some occurences when assasins can actually become good guys. Once in a campaign setting an assasin guild took in a fighter and converted him into an assasin before he had killed someone to join the guild. Then after many months of training he was ordered to kill a man who had been caught stealing and the penalty is death. They wanted the fighter/assasin to kill this man execution style. The fighter/assasin simply said he would not do it and heriocly stood up against his masters and fellow guild members. A battle raged on and by making many strength checks and with a chance of luck he made it out of the scenario without killing the man. He recieved no alignment changes and a bunch of experience and cool points. This is also known as Batman Begins and the Fighter/Assasin is Bruce Wayne. Batman never kills anybody by surprise. How is he an assassin?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-25-06, 08:39 PM	They would not let a good person in. Assassins don't have detect alignment. There's not way they can ensure this, save for the cascade failure of exposing themselves that the 'kill someone at random' requirement implies.
piromaniacson 08-25-06, 08:59 PM	I understand that it's not reasonable for Batman to be trained as an assasin before being required to by the guild. I'm just simply stating that it happened in the movie. Also even if he supposedly wasn't trained to be an assasin, he learned how to hide in shadows better than before, and was more efficient in combat as they progressed. So in my opinion he leveled in some class, but maybe not assasin.
soul_knife4359 08-25-06, 10:03 PM	Do that and you might as well make Vecna exalted and have elven Dwaven defenders and have chaotic neutral paladins running everywhere. don't mistake what i'm saying. my position is, and always has been that the assassin class sould be left as evil only, especially with the evidence in the phb that killing defaults to evil, or at best neutral.
Always-Late 08-25-06, 10:25 PM	chaotic paladins and godless clericsUnearthed Arcana FTW.
Wopple 08-26-06, 10:58 AM	Assassins don't have detect alignment. There's not way they can ensure this, save for the cascade failure of exposing themselves that the 'kill someone at random' requirement implies. Yeah.. if only there was some way to detect alignment without the spell.. maybe by trying to get them to do something a Good person would not do... say they have to do this before they join... OH MAN I WISH I COULD THINK OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT THEY COULD DO!
Wopple 08-26-06, 10:59 AM	I understand that it's not reasonable for Batman to be trained as an assasin before being required to by the guild. I'm just simply stating that it happened in the movie. Also even if he supposedly wasn't trained to be an assasin, he learned how to hide in shadows better than before, and was more efficient in combat as they progressed. So in my opinion he leveled in some class, but maybe not assasin. I'd go more with shadowdancer, personally.