Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hecubus 09-21-07, 09:21 AM	Sage advice: Wait a minute that is stupid. You can't lose those abilities from an assassin because your alignment shifts. 1. Agree: you can't progress as an assasin without being evil 2. If you kill someone using your assasin ability (death attack) than you alignment is called into question. If you your forced to be good, than you morally can't allow yourself to use a death attack. Roleplay situation there. 3. Almost every other ability shouldn't lose function with an alignment shift from being evil. This is common sense. A paladin should lose stuff based on his Value/Patron/Deity withholding his gifts/powers/abilities. Or perhaps, his moral sense destroys his faith in his abilities and so they wouldn't work. This is not the MO of an Assassin who decides to stop being an assaisin. He reatains his skills, he just may not CHOOSE to ever use them again. If oneday he does, than player/Dm evaluate the moral ramifications than. ----------------------- Article Q: Dear Sage What happens when an assassin becomes non-evil? --Thomas A: A character who no longer meets the requirements of his prestige class not only can’t advance any further in that class, but he also “loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class.” (Complete Warrior, p16) You retain Hit Dice (and the hit points derived from), base attack bonus, and base save bonuses granted by the prestige class. The rules don’t specifically list skill points (and class skills) as falling into either category; the Sage recommends that the character retain these functions even if he no longer meets the class requirements. So your repentant assassin would lose his sneak attack, death attack, poison use, save bonus against poison, uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and hide in plain sight class features, as well as his assassin spellcasting and any weapon and armor proficiencies gained from the class. He’d keep the skill ranks he bought with his assassin levels, as well as the hit points, base attack, and base save bonuses gained from those class levels. He also couldn’t gain any more assassin levels until his alignment returned to evil (at which point he’d also regain the various features he lost when his alignment changed to non-evil).
Bob Loblaw 09-21-07, 09:32 AM	Sage advice: Wait a minute that is stupid. You can't lose those abilities from an assassin because your alignment shifts. 1. Agree: you can't progress as an assasin without being evil 2. If you kill someone using your assasin ability (death attack) than you alignment is called into question. If you your forced to be good, than you morally can't allow yourself to use a death attack. Roleplay situation there. 3. Almost every other ability shouldn't lose function with an alignment shift from being evil. I agree with you from a common sense point of view. The rules are clear on this, once you leave the DMG and look in 2 or 3 books that you may or may not have. Personally, it doesn't make any sense and I don't do that in my campaigns. You retain all your previous class abilities. Using them may cause alignment shifts or other problems however.
Drag0nUL 09-21-07, 10:01 AM	That stuff makes no sense to me either. I mean I can see a cleric or other divine class/prestige class losing most of their abilities in case of alignment shift as they are not 'their', but granted by the respective god, which can revoke them at any time. But it seems just plain stupid that a non-evil assassin suddenly forgets how to sneak attack and dodge surprise blows.
NinjaPenguin 09-21-07, 10:09 AM	It makes sense, in the vast majority of cases, to lose things like: Divine Spellcasting Positive/Negative Energy Channeling Supernatural or Spell-like abilities tied to the nature of the values the prestige class upholds that you no longer do (DM's Fiat) These things. and possibly others. stem from the very basis of the class, its foundation. However, any Extraordinary abilities gained are actually physical things, or abilities you've learned to do not tied to your alignment, in general, and Arcane Spellcasting is usually a matter of simply having the training/talent by which to do it. In the specific example of the Assassin, Hide in Plain Sight is a (Su) ability of the class. No other abilities are 'special' in any way. Sneak Attack is knowing how to poke someine in just the right place. Death attack is knowing how to stab someone -just- right so the die (which isn't inherently evil, any more than casting Finger of Death is). In fact, the only thing an Assassin -might- lose is his spellcasting, even though it is Arcane. A DM might contend that losing your evil alignment removes your ability to hold the spells in mind, as you've broken the discipline you needed for it. I wouldn't entirely agree, but that's a matter to discuss with your DM.
RobbyPants 09-21-07, 10:14 AM	What really blows me away with this is that a good aligned rogue can Sneak Attack, but if an assassin becomes good, he suddenly loses his assassin Sneak Attack dice while still retaining those of the rogue? Perhaps it would be good to rewrite (read house-rule) the section on Ex-assassins. They can retain all of their abilities, but they cannot use the lethal portion of their Death Attack (only the paralysis part). Something like this (perhaps tweaked a bit) would make more sense to me.
NinjaPenguin 09-21-07, 10:25 AM	Why can't their Death Attack be lethal? In D&D, killing someone is surely not evil, as adventurers do it all the time. And its not evil to kill someone without them knowing you're doing it beforehand, its smart tactics. Now, killing someone regardless of alignment for the sole purpose of monetary gain is close to evil by many standards. As I said, its no more evil than an Invisible Wizard using Finger of Death, and that takes less time to boot!
2nd Ed Paladin 09-21-07, 11:00 AM	Based on the quotes provided it appears the sage is correct by RAW. If you don't think the answer makes sense than house rule it.
RobbyPants 09-21-07, 11:08 AM	Why can't their Death Attack be lethal? In D&D, killing someone is surely not evil, as adventurers do it all the time. And its not evil to kill someone without them knowing you're doing it beforehand, its smart tactics. Now, killing someone regardless of alignment for the sole purpose of monetary gain is close to evil by many standards. As I said, its no more evil than an Invisible Wizard using Finger of Death, and that takes less time to boot! Well, at that rate, you might as well eliminate the alignment restriction as a whole. I'm not going to argue the virtues of this one way or the other, but if you have to be evil to be an assassin in the first place, then it stands to reason that at least some aspect of the assassin is evil. I figured the lethal portion of the Death Attack fit the bill the best. That last part of my first post was just one way to handle it as a house-rule. Feel free to do what you like in your game.
MrCustomer 09-21-07, 11:34 AM	While this makes little sense, seeing that many of these particular abilities don't require being Evil nor a particular alignment. Sneak attack, Death Attack and posion use etc. are skills, not granted powers like LoHs and Smite. The spells perhaps are evil and require an evil allignment to cast but other then that the skills shouldn't be effected. I think the reason is more then simple logic. It makes less sense for the rogue/assassin who gets Sneak Attack normally and only losses the assassin portion of his sneak attack damage. The primary reason however for such rules is to pervent dipping only to farm abilities, this applies to all prestige classes with an alignment requirement. Being an assassin requires you to be evil, allignment is not just a word on your sheet that you choose for conveneince's sake, hence the restriction. This prevents the prestige class from being abused, ie the Paladin/Assassin, otherwise allignment based classes will loose their flavour, Assassins are evil is basically what they are saying, no Good Assassins. Consider being evil a trap that is hard to escape, repenting is a difficult path that requires sacrifice if you wish to roleplay the reason.
Drag0nUL 09-21-07, 11:52 AM	Well, at that rate, you might as well eliminate the alignment restriction as a whole. I'm not going to argue the virtues of this one way or the other, but if you have to be evil to be an assassin in the first place, then it stands to reason that at least some aspect of the assassin is evil. I figured the lethal portion of the Death Attack fit the bill the best. The evil part in the assassin class is the flavor. You are a trained killer, that usually kills for money. I don't see why using a save-or-die ability should be evil, when using a save-or-die spell is not. In my games you have to be evil (true evil, not just filling-the-requirement evil) to become an assassin but, if you have good roleplay reasons to repent and reject your former evil ways (it happened once), I don't see any reasons why you shouldn't keep what you have learned. The Slayer of Domiel from BoED is a prestige class of LG assassins(they are repeatedly called 'assassins' in the flavor text).
RobbyPants 09-21-07, 12:46 PM	The evil part in the assassin class is the flavor. You are a trained killer, that usually kills for money. I don't see why using a save-or-die ability should be evil, when using a save-or-die spell is not. In my games you have to be evil (true evil, not just filling-the-requirement evil) to become an assassin but, if you have good roleplay reasons to repent and reject your former evil ways (it happened once), I don't see any reasons why you shouldn't keep what you have learned. The Slayer of Domiel from BoED is a prestige class of LG assassins(they are repeatedly called 'assassins' in the flavor text). So you have to be evil to get the assassin's abilties, but not to maintain them? So only a truely evil person would learn how to use a death attack, but anyone would freely use it once they know how?
TrashCrap 09-21-07, 02:12 PM	So you have to be evil to get the assassin's abilties, but not to maintain them? So only a truely evil person would learn how to use a death attack, but anyone would freely use it once they know how? Yes. If you learn how to be an assassin, a change of heart/alignment (imo) shouldnt make you forget your skills. As the OP said, a paladin gets his abilities from a higher being. An assassin actually learns his skills himself. If you decide to change alignment, sure you can keep your abilities but if you want to keep the Good alignment, you wont use them unless you want to be penalized in a way that your DM finds appropriate.
Drag0nUL 09-21-07, 02:21 PM	So you have to be evil to get the assassin's abilties, but not to maintain them? So only a truely evil person would learn how to use a death attack, but anyone would freely use it once they know how? Not really. A good person would not use death attack freely. Or else they wouldn't be good. But if that person was an assassin once they still know how to use death attack, just that they would only use it against the bad guys. Last time I checked, killing the bad guys wasn't an evil act.
Senevri 09-21-07, 02:28 PM	Divine Spellcasting Positive/Negative Energy Channeling Supernatural or Spell-like abilities tied to the nature of the values the prestige class upholds that you no longer do (DM's Fiat) these read as "divine, divine, divine-ish", pretty much. ...No, Assassins retain all their abilities in my game if they shift alignment.
TrashCrap 09-21-07, 03:06 PM	Not really. A good person would not use death attack freely. Or else they wouldn't be good. But if that person was an assassin once they still know how to use death attack, just that they would only use it against the bad guys. Last time I checked, killing the bad guys wasn't an evil act. Your logic however condones class dipping. Why wouldnt a rogue turn evil, become an assassin, and then turn back good? While I agree that you shouldnt lose your abilities for changing alignment, I think that in order to keep the spirit of the class/game if you are a non-evil Assassin, you get penalized for using your abilities NO MATTER WHO the enemy is. You still retain your abilities and have the POTENTIAL of using them, but doing so should bring negative effects. Otherwise you would have Paladin Assassins who add smite damage to their death attack :rolleyes: .
Drag0nUL 09-21-07, 03:47 PM	Your logic however condones class dipping. Why wouldnt a rogue turn evil, become an assassin, and then turn back good? While I agree that you shouldnt lose your abilities for changing alignment, I think that in order to keep the spirit of the class/game if you are a non-evil Assassin, you get penalized for using your abilities NO MATTER WHO the enemy is. You still retain your abilities and have the POTENTIAL of using them, but doing so should bring negative effects. Otherwise you would have Paladin Assassins who add smite damage to their death attack :rolleyes: . Well because in most of the games I play people wouldn't turn evil and back good unless they have a very good roleplay reason to do so. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with class dipping ,as long as the character can develop a convincing story about why he is a sorcerer 3/paladin2/sacred exorcist1/spellsword 1/abjurant champion 2/kinght phantom 3/blackguard 5 (this exampleis purely arbitrary) and keep in character all the time. And you wouldn't be a non-evil assassin. You no longer assassinate people because that would be evil. But you are a person who did that once and knows how to do it effectively. If that thing can be used to further the cause of good, why not do it? Still, I can understand some people's fear of class dipping for balance reasons, but trust me, there are much worse things a rogue can do than go 1 level into assassin for death attack. To the Paladin/Assassin part: one of the most memorable (roleplay-wise) characters I have ever witnessed was a Paladin/Assassin. More specific, he was a fighter 2/rogue 3/assassin 2 who had grown up on the streets and knew nothing than fight for survival. He joined our (mostly) good group as a spy on behalf of the organization we were hunting. While he had no remorse in providing vital information to the enemy and generally thwarting our major operations against the said organization, when he received orders to assassinate my cleric(who had got to a pretty high position in the church of the Silver Flame that was coordinating most of the hunt for the said organization) as a reprisal for a successful raid on one of their strongholds he just couldn't bring himself to do it. My character had saved this guy's hide more than a couple of times and even had him brought back from the dead on one occasion. So after hesitating for a long time and being under constant pressure he had to make a choice. So he confessed everything. Instead of the execution he expected he received forgiveness. This drove him to make an oath to serve The Flame with all his power and eventually led him down the path of a paladin.
RobbyPants 09-21-07, 03:55 PM	Yes. If you learn how to be an assassin, a change of heart/alignment (imo) shouldnt make you forget your skills. As the OP said, a paladin gets his abilities from a higher being. An assassin actually learns his skills himself. If you decide to change alignment, sure you can keep your abilities but if you want to keep the Good alignment, you wont use them unless you want to be penalized in a way that your DM finds appropriate. Not really. A good person would not use death attack freely. Or else they wouldn't be good. But if that person was an assassin once they still know how to use death attack, just that they would only use it against the bad guys. Last time I checked, killing the bad guys wasn't an evil act. Okay. That makes sense, so long as use of Death Attack after the alignment shift might shift your alignment back. I just figure that if a class has an alignment requirement, then the use of at least one of its class features must be tied to that alignment. Still, I can understand some people's fear of class dipping for balance reasons, but trust me, there are much worse things a rogue can do than go 1 level into assassin for death attack. Agreed. It's actually a pretty bad idea unless you don't care that the DC of your Death Attack will remain abysmally low.
Drag0nUL 09-21-07, 04:06 PM	Okay. That makes sense, so long as use of Death Attack after the alignment shift might shift your alignment back. I just figure that if a class has an alignment requirement, then the use of at least one of its class features must be tied to that alignment. I don't see Death Attack as being inherently evil, but rather it's typical use (killing more or less innocent people for money).
MrCustomer 09-21-07, 04:10 PM	Yes. If you learn how to be an assassin, a change of heart/alignment (imo) shouldnt make you forget your skills. As the OP said, a paladin gets his abilities from a higher being. An assassin actually learns his skills himself. If you decide to change alignment, sure you can keep your abilities but if you want to keep the Good alignment, you wont use them unless you want to be penalized in a way that your DM finds appropriate. Logically this is true, poison use and sneak attack, even death attack are trained abilities that don't require a particular alignment to learn in of themselves. However from a meta-gaming point of view the flavour of certain classes is ruined when people dip into them just for min/maxing. Ie become an Assassin to get Assassin abilities, become evil only to meet the requirments, but tell the party members that they will behave themselves, "Don't worry Bob the paladin, I won't actually be evil, I'm just LE for the Assassin levels and then I will become good" This rule prevents people from abusing alignment restricted prestige classes in this manner. This applies to all alignment restricted classes, so it's more then a matter of just the assassin alone, I think a general rule should apply in these cases. From a balance point of view, classes with an allignment restriction are balanced for that restriction in mind. The downsides of alignment restrictions is compensated by the powers and abilities the prestige class gains. Those restrictions are a negative to a class, assassins for example are evil and even if they behave themselves are likely to be targeted by do-gooders whereever they go, denied healing by temple priests, the city guards have him siezed, distrust from good and nuetral party members, paladin hunts them down, etc. It follows, for balance reasons, that if they no longer are paying the penelty of the alignment restrictions that they should no longer receive the benifits either. In most cases, such as the Paladin, the mechanics of loosing their abilities is obvious, in some cases, like the Assassin, the mechanics are less obvious. When a Player chooses an alignment based class, then they should be prepared for the long haul. You want an evil PC Assassin, you know the consequences of your choice and actions, after all you have to murder someone for no other reason then to become an assassin, you are making a very deliberate decision. The Player should not choose to become an assassin unless they are committed to that course of action, there should not be any changing your mind afterwards. From a roleplaying point of view if you want to explain the loss of abilities in a beleivable context, perhaps the trauma and guilt of his actions causes him to be unable to use these Assassin abilities.The PC murdered someone in cold blood for no other reason then to learn these skills, it sickens his guilty conscience to the point that his hand shakes, he gets physically ill or throws down his weapon, etc. when he tries to use the sneak attack or death attack abilities as he remembers with guilty horror the crimes he has commited to learn those abilities. The spells of course are Evil energy and without an evil will to bend them to the assassin's will he should loose them. I beleive that Assassins should loose their abilities should they change their aligment from evil. I advice this to prevent such classes from being abused by players only interested in farming abilities. I would be very hesitant to make an exception otherwise, and even then would be more inclined to have the PC retrained then to allow the abilities to be continued.
RobbyPants 09-21-07, 04:48 PM	I don't see Death Attack as being inherently evil, but rather it's typical use (killing more or less innocent people for money). Generally speaking I agree. I personally don't see why assassins have to be evil, and I house-rule them as non-good for the prereq.
Drag0nUL 09-21-07, 05:01 PM	From a balance point of view, classes with an allignment restriction are balanced for that restriction in mind. The downsides of alignment restrictions is compensated by the powers and abilities the prestige class gains. So you think assassin is such a strong prestige class that it would be have to be 'balanced' by this alignment restriction? I don't see any reason other than flavor for which somebody would chose to take levels in assassin. An assassin has to spend 3 full rounds to produce a save-or-die effect with a DC of 10+class lvl(max +10 pre-epic)+int modifier. Any wizard(or rogue/wizard/arcane trickster if you want to keep the rogue-ish flavor) can do that as a a standard action with disintegrate/finger of death. And then spend the next 2 1/2 rounds doing something useful. Those restrictions are a negative to a class, assassins for example are evil and even if they behave themselves are likely to be targeted by do-gooders whereever they go, denied healing by temple priests, the city guards have him siezed, distrust from good and nuetral party members, paladin hunts them down, etc. And how would you make the difference in game between an assassin that 'behaves' and an ordinary rogue?
annoyinglizardvoice 09-21-07, 06:36 PM	Why do assassins have to be evil? Has anyone here ever played Tenchu. The characters in that act in the way that the assassin class sugests, but they seem to be the good guys. The assassin class can be used to create a character to kill the typical "tyranical overlord" villan whilst leaving everyone around them unharmed just as easily as it can be used for someone who stabs inocents in the back.
Mindolin 09-21-07, 06:51 PM	Assassins should be allowed to have any non good alignment. Remember everyone, this is the Sage, the same guy who brought us the errata that dwarves can have their speed lowered in heavy armor. The guy sometimes gets lucky and knows what he is talking about, but just as often has no clue what he is talking about. Okay everyone, let's look at it this way: what other classes do we know that penalizes you all your class abilities if you change alignment? There are a few that penalize you, but not so much. Only one I can think of off the top of my head is paladin (note: only going base class, makes it easier here). So, the paladin changes alignment and no longer has any paladin abilities. Should the same happen to the assassin? I say no for one reason: the source of the powers. A paladin gains it from divine power, an assassin trains for it, as evidenced by how assassins have spellbooks. That is something most prestige classes that have a required alignment where you lose your abilities if you change alignment, as a general rule, they are powered by the divine. Also, let's not forget that the quote is from a supplement, and so is not required to be used in play, even without a house rule.
Drag0nUL 09-21-07, 07:12 PM	And there is also one more detail that might hint that Sage might be wrong. Some (prestige) classes have an entry called ex-whatever which details what happens with a character that no longer fulfills the requirement for that class. Shouldn't this mean that when this entry is missing, nothing happens?
Suzu 09-21-07, 09:46 PM	Why can't their Death Attack be lethal? In D&D, killing someone is surely not evil, as adventurers do it all the time. And its not evil to kill someone without them knowing you're doing it beforehand, its smart tactics. Now, killing someone regardless of alignment for the sole purpose of monetary gain is close to evil by many standards. As I said, its no more evil than an Invisible Wizard using Finger of Death, and that takes less time to boot! The only thing that seems to make assassins evil is the require for the prestige class: killing an innocent for no other reason than to join the assassins. Take that out, and your left with poison use, spells, sneak attack and death attack. None of those things are evil.
Thubby 09-21-07, 10:09 PM	i find all this talk of deathattack=evil rediculous, seeing as how a non alignmented class gets it. and unless im mistaken, and EXALTED class gets it. i think its the poison, and/or the "dark magic"
Mindolin 09-21-07, 10:26 PM	The only thing that seems to make assassins evil is the require for the prestige class: killing an innocent for no other reason than to join the assassins. Take that out, and your left with poison use, spells, sneak attack and death attack. None of those things are evil. You are incorrect. Sorry to put it bluntly like that but I just saw it and you are. The only requirement is to kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassin's guild. Why an innocent? You can go hunt a goblin, or an orc, or the local evil warlord (every region's got them you know, they breed like goblin were-rabbits). It never mentions an innocent.
Suzu 09-21-07, 10:53 PM	Good bloody Christ. Please excuse my ignorance. Now which code do I need to wrap round this thing so I can whisper '*******'?
Suzu 09-21-07, 10:54 PM	Hmmm, now that's one I wasn't expecting it to filter... What about **********?
Suzu 09-21-07, 10:55 PM	Wow. Oops, sorry, am I spamming this thread? Ignore my foolishness, after all I just mixed up innocent and 'some random guy'
MrCustomer 09-22-07, 02:42 AM	So you think assassin is such a strong prestige class that it would be have to be 'balanced' by this alignment restriction? I don't see any reason other than flavor for which somebody would chose to take levels in assassin. An assassin has to spend 3 full rounds to produce a save-or-die effect with a DC of 10+class lvl(max +10 pre-epic)+int modifier. Any wizard(or rogue/wizard/arcane trickster if you want to keep the rogue-ish flavor) can do that as a a standard action with disintegrate/finger of death. And then spend the next 2 1/2 rounds doing something useful. The rule is meant for all allignment restricted classes as a general rule. As for being a strong prestige class, yes they are. Comparing only a single one of their abilities to a Wizard is somewhat absurd. The sum of all the assasin's abilities are impressive when compared to a suitable non-prestige class, it's far more powerful then say your standard Rogue for instance. And how would you make the difference in game between an assassin that 'behaves' and an ordinary rogue? Well an Assasin MURDERS SOMEONE IN COLD BLOOD SIMPLY TO BECOME AN ASSASIN AND MUST BE EVIL, a Rogue on the other hand could be a law abiding, taxpaying citizen, a Rogue could be Lawful Good and work as a scout for the good guys, he could be a Chaotic Good Half-Elf with a love of dwelving into dungeons looking for lost treasure, he could be a Neutral Good diplomat who does some spying for his king while representing him in other lands. A Rogue does not need to be a criminal, thief, evil nor a cold blooded murderer. You see the Rogue in your party that promises to behave may or may not be totally sincere, but you know he isn't a Chaotic Evil cold blooded murderer who will off you for a copper peice. As a Paladin in a group I am inclined to give the Rogue the benifit of the doubt that he's reformed and no longer commits petty crime now that he is properly employed. The Chaotic Evil Assasin who burnt down an orphanage to join his Guild and I met shortly after his last job where he killed the Chief Priest of the Temple of Pelor for the low price of 30 pieces of silver on the other hand I am not so willing to accept that he "behaves"
Senevri 09-22-07, 03:55 AM	...And the Lawful Evil assassin, who eventually becomes the best regent of the largest city in the area? But, yeah. Assassins are evil. Still, no reason why they'd lose their skills and abilities if they stopped being evil.
Drag0nUL 09-22-07, 06:28 AM	The rule is meant for all allignment restricted classes as a general rule. As for being a strong prestige class, yes they are. Comparing only a single one of their abilities to a Wizard is somewhat absurd. The sum of all the assasin's abilities are impressive when compared to a suitable non-prestige class, it's far more powerful then say your standard Rogue for instance. I didn't mean to compare only one of their abilities to the wizard. What I meant is: the assassin possesses no important ability that can't be reasonably duplicated by a spellcaster of equivalent level. And no, the assassin is not a strong PrC. For a true Skill-monkey is weaker than the standard rogue. For a spellcaster rogue is weaker than the Arcane Trickster. Well an Assasin MURDERS SOMEONE IN COLD BLOOD SIMPLY TO BECOME AN ASSASIN AND MUST BE EVIL, a Rogue on the other hand could be a law abiding, taxpaying citizen, a Rogue could be Lawful Good and work as a scout for the good guys, he could be a Chaotic Good Half-Elf with a love of dwelving into dungeons looking for lost treasure, he could be a Neutral Good diplomat who does some spying for his king while representing him in other lands. A Rogue does not need to be a criminal, thief, evil nor a cold blooded murderer. You see the Rogue in your party that promises to behave may or may not be totally sincere, but you know he isn't a Chaotic Evil cold blooded murderer who will off you for a copper peice. As a Paladin in a group I am inclined to give the Rogue the benifit of the doubt that he's reformed and no longer commits petty crime now that he is properly employed. The Chaotic Evil Assasin who burnt down an orphanage to join his Guild and I met shortly after his last job where he killed the Chief Priest of the Temple of Pelor for the low price of 30 pieces of silver on the other hand I am not so willing to accept that he "behaves" But why an evil rogue that worked as an assassin (the profession not the class) and repents be treated differently than a member of the Assassin PrC?
NinjaPenguin 09-22-07, 08:30 AM	I believe a lot of this might be cleared of if the generic term 'Assassin' weren't used. An 'assassin' is a profession, a simple English word, and its game term definition and English definition don't synch well. So... we have this prestige class: The Guild Assassin, lets say, or some other similar. The Guild teaches those willing to sacrifice their morals tricks of the trade that normal rogues can't get, and that multiclassing into wizard would hurt their other abilities to acquire. Deadly strikes, stealthy spells, poison, the whole nine yards. If you can kill someone with it, you'll probably at least see someone in the Guild learning how to use it (through relevant feats and whatnot in theme). If you turn from evil, though, and leave the Guild, you have a problem. Their teachings are based on the mindset of the trained killer. If your mind is no longer willing to hold those patterns of thought, you can't hold their magical training. Furthermore, the patented Death Attack is the product of a certain, precise combination of precision and force of will. Other classes may copy the idea of it, but they do so differently. Without your murderous focus, you simply cannot get 'in the zone' to perform this attack. I could probably go on, but the fact is I honestly can't think of a way to justify losing 'poison use'. Personally, even in this scenario, I would not remove the Sneak Attack dice, as it specifically stacks with a class feature you already have with no alignment restriction. And lets face it: Taking Assassin for the SA and Poison Use abilities isn't that good a deal if you're going to give up the spellcasting and death attack. In summary, perhaps forming a list of what abilities you -do- lose, for balance purposes, if you change alignment. That way 'dipping' is still an option, but you can't dip for the exclusive alignment dependent abilities unless you stick to it. Edit: Also, should another class grant an 'identical' class feature to the Guild Assassin... (say another class grants Death Attack), it would not be completely improbably to combine the old training with the new. So if you entered some other class that gains 'Death Attack', you might be allowed to let your Assassin levels stack (on a 1 or 1 basis at most with the class granting the Death Attack, perhaps). Just a thought.
Suzu 09-22-07, 12:03 PM	It's ludicrous. Murder is not an evil act in itself in D&D, assassins shouldn't have to be evil in the first place!
weasel0 09-22-07, 12:14 PM	Of course, in 99% of DnD poison use is considered evil right off the bat.
Bob Loblaw 09-22-07, 12:33 PM	It's ludicrous. Murder is not an evil act in itself in D&D, assassins shouldn't have to be evil in the first place! Murder is an evil act by DnD standards. Killing in self defense is not, but murder is. Also note that the requirements aren't just murder. The requirements are: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. That is perfectly in line with the definition of evil used by DnD. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. Being a member of the Assassin class is evil by these standards. Whether or not you lose your abilities based on your alignment is another issue which has been addressed already.
Drag0nUL 09-22-07, 12:45 PM	Of course, in 99% of DnD poison use is considered evil right off the bat. From a moral perspective mostly. I mean, a man using poison is in 9 out of 10 cases an evil man, but using poison is not an evil act in itself per RAW.
Drag0nUL 09-22-07, 12:51 PM	Murder is an evil act by DnD standards. Killing in self defense is not, but murder is. Not by most adventurers mindset. Imagine this scenario: some evil cultists are minding their own business (like summoning demons, creating undead etc.) in their underground temple. Some adventurers barge in having been paid by the local community to stop all this. The cultists fight back in defense of their own temple and get killed to the last man. This makes all the adventurers murderers, right?
Thubby 09-22-07, 01:04 PM	Not by most adventurers mindset. Imagine this scenario: some evil cultists are minding their own business (like summoning demons, creating undead etc.) in their underground temple. Some adventurers barge in having been paid by the local community to stop all this. The cultists fight back in defense of their own temple and get killed to the last man. This makes all the adventurers murderers, right? said demon is going to try to destroy, pillage, or otherwise cause serious harm to the world at large. and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't want to cause trouble with their horde of the unliving. granted, there are cases where the necromancer just wants farmhands he doesn't need to feed, and there may well be some repentant demon, but those are in the minority, and are something adventurers should keep an eye out for.
Lykor 09-22-07, 01:40 PM	Losing some abilities when you no longer qualify for a prestige class makes sense - losing spells and diety based effects some examples. Losing other abilities (such as rage if lawful) make sense from an alignment perspective. Other abilities make less sense: why do I lose improved uncanny dodge if I already have uncanny dodge? As for assassin: If you are non-evil you should lose the death attack. I would say that a non-evil person would not want to be doing that sort of thing. You would also lose poison due to the fact that poison use is evil. *Note: If you are playing a non-evil poison campaign, go ahead and keep it. Keeping other abilities such as sneak attack, uncanny dodge, evasion, fast movement, arcane spells (no diety required) should be kept. Here's something else to gnaw on: If you have a high level paladin who becomes a blackguard and trades in a couple paladin levels for blackguard levels, he likely cannot use any blackguard abilities. Why? Becuase the paladin won't meet the minimum blackguard requirements: 5 ranks in hide (not on paladin skill list). As such, it's impossible to go paladin 10/blackguard 10 without planning to do so ahead of time.
Bob Loblaw 09-22-07, 02:19 PM	Not by most adventurers mindset. Imagine this scenario: some evil cultists are minding their own business (like summoning demons, creating undead etc.) in their underground temple. Some adventurers barge in having been paid by the local community to stop all this. The cultists fight back in defense of their own temple and get killed to the last man. This makes all the adventurers murderers, right? I'm going to avoid the alignment debate in this thread. Suffice it to say that fighting against evil is a good way to show that you are good-aligned.
Hecubus 09-22-07, 04:17 PM	Originator of the thread. I still think its Bologna ( I love the way that word looks). ***Yeah I know I doubled posted the start of this thread, in this thread and another thread. It was an accident. I thought I didn't successfully post in the earlier thread. And when I went to go find it, I couldn't so I reposted it here.*** So to keep my thoughts going on this subject. I love all your insights on this issue. Here are my continuted thoughts. Oh yes by virtue of the rules, and page sixteen in the complete warrior clarifies it, but as I said before. It doesn't make sense. I agree with the Sage, in his advice in many instances, but sometimes I can't go with it. Thank the lords of kobal that its considered advice. But in this instance it is a rule. Granted. House rules have never been a problem for us. We have several well tested house rules throughout the years. Some are put in play and evaluated and than removed. Others get altered.... examples are: Falling Damage, suffers 2d6 per 10 feet fallen. Half of which is Nonleathal. Solves people jumping off extreme hights. Of course our games are less heroic that way, but perhaps more realistic, dare I say. Rules for breaking bones. Quick and dirty rules based on threshold of damage. Clarified Nonleathal damage. You take nonleathal damage into the thousands, that just means your unconcious for that long while it heals. coma simulator. Extreme skill checks can simulate feat functional abilities, and other neat tricks. For instance a Concentration with a Intelligence key ability allows a mage to prepare his spells in half the time. High DC to achieve it. Gives him more reason to put skill points into concentration. plus a number of other tricks that can be done with concentration are offered. Slight of Hand extreme check allows you to quickdraw in dual situations.... yadda yadda yadda. Oh a pet peeve of mine. There is no reason mechanically to have Regeneration used that often. No real rule exists for taking off limbs or cutting out organs, etc..... Sunder is not allowed to remove limbs except in instances cited under lets say the hydra, or and giant squid. I have had a few people want to cut the hand off of some npc because he wants to stop something the wizard may be doing with a wand. Hand of Vecna? We came up with a hard and simple rule that allows a person to sunder a limb. Its really hard to do, because all of a persons protections are compounded and added to the persons opposed attack roll when its attempted. So basically far superior weapon wielders can take the hand off a common farmer, in a decidedly evil campaign, because he wants to make an example of him.
Drag0nUL 09-22-07, 04:50 PM	As for assassin: If you are non-evil you should lose the death attack. I would say that a non-evil person would not want to be doing that sort of thing. You would also lose poison due to the fact that poison use is evil. *Note: If you are playing a non-evil poison campaign, go ahead and keep it. Keeping other abilities such as sneak attack, uncanny dodge, evasion, fast movement, arcane spells (no diety required) should be kept. 1. Not even if your life/saving the world depended on it? 2. Can you quote any rule stating that poison use is evil? The ninja in CAdv has poison use and can very well be LG. 3. Agree here. Though I can see some logic in what some people have said about spellcasting being fueled by the evil in one's soul. Not saying it's core, just a logical variant. And to the people replying to my evil cultist example. I was not attempting to start an alignment debate. Merely to point out a situation in which an act that would pass as murder in civilized society is in fact non-evil.
Lykor 09-22-07, 06:25 PM	The rules for poison use are in the DMG. While there are certain "good" poisons, they suck as much as normal poison and there really isn't difference between the two. For using death attack: this is something that your character won't want to take litely. If it is up to him to save the world by murdering a guy in his sleep, it still isn't good or heroic (think neutral and possibly chaotic).
Drag0nUL 09-22-07, 06:47 PM	I have read the DMG section on poisons and can find no mention of using them being evil. And if a good aligned character had the skills and opportunity to slip a well placed dagger between the evil high and might wizard that is plotting for world domination, why wouldn't he? I agree it is not as heroic as having an epic fight, but good doesn't always equal honorable.
Thubby 09-23-07, 12:20 AM	For using death attack: this is something that your character won't want to take litely. If it is up to him to save the world by murdering a guy in his sleep, it still isn't good or heroic (think neutral and possibly chaotic). why? rogues can do the same thing, its just not an instant death effect, rather a heap of damage. in fact, thats the entire basis of the rogue's combat style is to kill the enemy before they can try to kill you back. and rogues can be LG. if its a death effect= evil problem, how bout all those nice save or die spells? if its about killing someone before they can defend themselves, thats the rogue's job, and shares it with rangers, ninja, and more classes, any of which can be good, even lawful.
Ghulshagg 09-23-07, 11:03 AM	It's pretty simple: the sage is wrong. Ex-assassins don't lose any abilities, just like the other 3 non-divine, core classes. both bards and monks retain all abilities, and barbarians only lose the rage ability. as to class dipping, if you allow a player to say "my rogue is now evil so he can be an assassin" you as the DM are wrong for allowing it. if a player wants to change alignment, he has to begin behaving within the norms of the new alignment, and they had better have a good reason. alignments are set by roleplay, not by metagame selection.
Drag0nUL 09-23-07, 12:30 PM	As to class dipping, if you allow a player to say "my rogue is now evil so he can be an assassin" you as the DM are wrong for allowing it. if a player wants to change alignment, he has to begin behaving within the norms of the new alignment, and they had better have a good reason. alignments are set by roleplay, not by metagame selection. Very true. Every time a player comes to me with his/her character and specifies alignment, I ask: Why? What has this character done so far that justifies his alignment?
MrCustomer 09-23-07, 01:13 PM	Not by most adventurers mindset. Imagine this scenario: some evil cultists are minding their own business (like summoning demons, creating undead etc.) in their underground temple. Some adventurers barge in having been paid by the local community to stop all this. The cultists fight back in defense of their own temple and get killed to the last man. This makes all the adventurers murderers, right? The actions of these local cultists is breaking the law of the local community that hired the adventurers, they are criminals. The self-defence card can only be played by innocent persons, not by criminals, just as in real life if some criminals were robbing a bank and the police showed up, I doubt that the criminal's case of "we only shot at the police in self defence" would stand in the trial that followed their capture, shooting police is considered murder not self defence. Good and Evil are also relative to society and it's laws. Summoning Undead and Demons can rightfully be considered evil for many reasons. Apart from demons being evil, the very act of summoning these dangerous, evil creatures places the local comunity at risk. What if the Undead or Demons escape? What if the Evil cultists decide to use them to raid the nearby village, the cultist's activities make them a very real risk to the community and it has every right to be proactive in defending itself against that potential threat. Really if the city I lived in knew that there were crazed evil nazi cultists in the hills arming themselves with missile launchers and the germ warfare, the police or even military would be sent up to put a stop to it. I'm sorry you used Evil Cultists summoning undead and demons.....
Drag0nUL 09-23-07, 02:02 PM	The actions of these local cultists is breaking the law of the local community that hired the adventurers, they are criminals. The self-defence card can only be played by innocent persons, not by criminals, just as in real life if some criminals were robbing a bank and the police showed up, I doubt that the criminal's case of "we only shot at the police in self defence" would stand in the trial that followed their capture, shooting police is considered murder not self defence. Good and Evil are also relative to society and it's laws. Summoning Undead and Demons can rightfully be considered evil for many reasons. Apart from demons being evil, the very act of summoning these dangerous, evil creatures places the local comunity at risk. What if the Undead or Demons escape? What if the Evil cultists decide to use them to raid the nearby village, the cultist's activities make them a very real risk to the community and it has every right to be proactive in defending itself against that potential threat. Really if the city I lived in knew that there were crazed evil nazi cultists in the hills arming themselves with missile launchers and the germ warfare, the police or even military would be sent up to put a stop to it. I'm sorry you used Evil Cultists summoning undead and demons..... Of course the police can shoot them, as they represent the law, but if you are a bounty hunter hired by one of the criminals' previous victims and you kill them you would still be charged with murder. And I am speaking from an absolute perspective. The local laws if we are speaking of medieval-type society were not very just. Think of late medieval Spain for example where having a slightly different opinion of the Bible could get you hanged or even worse. I assume that by your logic the inquisitors were not murderers since they obeyed the law, right? Unless there was a specific, well-worded local law that prevented summoning demons/animating undead, having them proves nothing. After all, many Americans carry guns, but how many are/plan to be serial killers?
MrCustomer 09-23-07, 02:35 PM	It's pretty simple: the sage is wrong. Ex-assassins don't lose any abilities, just like the other 3 non-divine, core classes. both bards and monks retain all abilities, and barbarians only lose the rage ability. as to class dipping, if you allow a player to say "my rogue is now evil so he can be an assassin" you as the DM are wrong for allowing it. if a player wants to change alignment, he has to begin behaving within the norms of the new alignment, and they had better have a good reason. alignments are set by roleplay, not by metagame selection. The PHB though specifically mentions the conditions of the requirements for those three classes and what occurs should they change alignment as is specific to their class. They also have additional restrictions that other such classes do not have, for example a Cleric could take a level as fighter and still be able to level up as Cleric, but a Monk who took a level of another class could not return to Monk. These induvidual restrictions don't apply to other classes. You are right it would be a poor DM to allow someone to suddenly be evil and then turn again. That is also why there are some very specific requirements on the Assassin prestige class, it takes more then just simple Evil, but a very deliberate choice to murder someone for "no other reason" that the character is commited to being evil. A good DM however really doesn't need rules, they are there to aid us not-so-good DMs. For us not-so-good DMs, we should make the players follow the class requirements or loose all the class features. It's hard to become Evil you say? Well it is also hard to reform from being evil as well, and loosing your skills from the evil class is part of that reforming. You said you were turning evil and wanted to be an assassin, I told you what the requirements and consequences were when you were going in. When you risked life and limb to murder Lord Fontique and his family in cold blood for 0 XP and 0 profit to become an assassin you went into the class with full knowledge of what you were getting yourself into. Now if you are a good DM, then naturally you should make any class or prestige class fit your campaign. You could decide that an Assassin could reform would only fall into the restrictions of classes like say the Monk and Bard. In which case I would still take away the Assassin spells at the very least saying they were gained from harnessing an Evil power to your will, (the Assassin guild regularly makes sacrifices to an evil demon to grant it's members certain magics or some such story) or alternatively, the Assassin Guild, the Shadow Blades, only has one way out of it's membership ranks, death, and it sends assassins after the former assassin. If you aren't going to hold players to the requirements then you will run the risk of players who dip for min/maxing or whatever flavour of the week, munchkinism run rampant, something should happen when the PC no longer meets the class requirments.
MrCustomer 09-23-07, 02:57 PM	Of course the police can shoot them, as they represent the law, but if you are a bounty hunter hired by one of the criminals' previous victims and you kill them you would still be charged with murder. And I am speaking from an absolute perspective. The local laws if we are speaking of medieval-type society were not very just. Think of late medieval Spain for example where having a slightly different opinion of the Bible could get you hanged or even worse. I assume that by your logic the inquisitors were not murderers since they obeyed the law, right? Unless there was a specific, well-worded local law that prevented summoning demons/animating undead, having them proves nothing. After all, many Americans carry guns, but how many are/plan to be serial killers? In the D&D world hiring private mercenile forces to enforce justice seem to be the generally legal thing to do. If the party is legally commisioned to uphold the law, privately or by the local community (which would be a public commision from the government) then their actions are identical to any police action, they effectively being made constables. Yourt example in spanish history would be of Lawful Evil elements in the government of the time. Which is an entirely different case then a lawful good community being under threat from an Evil cultist group sumoning Evil Demons and Evil Undead. Certainly there is a difference between having a slightly different religious view and EVIL CULTISTS SUMMONING DEMONS AND UNDEAD, which I guess would be the very extreme of having a different religious view, somewhat way off the scale of what the inquisition was dealing with. The right to bear arms in American is a whole different issue from the rights and wrongs of a criminal gang of bikers hording fully automatic machine guns with cop killer bullets shipping bags of cocaine and heroin across the border. But as for your question of how many Americans carry guns, I could point out the HUGE difference in violent crimes and murder rates, particularly people being shot with guns, between America and countries such as say Canada. BUt I am not talking about individual beliefs. A Group of distinctly EVIL cultists doing distinctly Evil activities that pose a hostile threat and clear and present danger to the local community does not, in my humble opinion, raise any questions as to the morality of stopping their activities, or of using force against them should they violently oppose the group sent against them.
Drag0nUL 09-23-07, 04:03 PM	In the D&D world hiring private mercenile forces to enforce justice seem to be the generally legal thing to do. If the party is legally commisioned to uphold the law, privately or by the local community (which would be a public commision from the government) then their actions are identical to any police action, they effectively being made constables. Yourt example in spanish history would be of Lawful Evil elements in the government of the time. Which is an entirely different case then a lawful good community being under threat from an Evil cultist group sumoning Evil Demons and Evil Undead. Certainly there is a difference between having a slightly different religious view and EVIL CULTISTS SUMMONING DEMONS AND UNDEAD, which I guess would be the very extreme of having a different religious view, somewhat way off the scale of what the inquisition was dealing with. The right to bear arms in American is a whole different issue from the rights and wrongs of a criminal gang of bikers hording fully automatic machine guns with cop killer bullets shipping bags of cocaine and heroin across the border. But as for your question of how many Americans carry guns, I could point out the HUGE difference in violent crimes and murder rates, particularly people being shot with guns, between America and countries such as say Canada. BUt I am not talking about individual beliefs. A Group of distinctly EVIL cultists doing distinctly Evil activities that pose a hostile threat and clear and present danger to the local community does not, in my humble opinion, raise any questions as to the morality of stopping their activities, or of using force against them should they violently oppose the group sent against them. I was not raising the issue of the morality of stopping their actions, but rather the issue of the legality of it. In fact that was the point I was trying to make. That morality and legality are tow different things and not all that is moral is legal and viceversa. Let's way that in a city, a group of young people of dubious past and motives start buying weapons and building a gang-like structure, with the intent of causing trouble. It would be a very moral act if the police moved in in order to prevent such acts. But legally, since these guys haven't yet broken the law, there is nothing the police can do about it. And back to my evil cult example. As far as the community in question doesn't have a law that explicitly bans summoning demons/animating undead/worshipping evil gods, the adventurers would have no legal support to enter the said temple and slaughter the inhabitants.
Mindolin 09-25-07, 09:52 AM	For those who say that Death Attack is an evil ability: is it really? Does that mean that in your games Coup de gras is also an evil ability? They are the same, except that Coup de Gras is much better in combat.
heffroncm 09-25-07, 12:57 PM	For those who say that Death Attack is an evil ability: is it really? Does that mean that in your games Coup de gras is also an evil ability? They are the same, except that Coup de Gras is much better in combat. Neither are evil in themselves. If you sneak into a room where someone is sleeping and Coup de Gras them, yeah it's an Evil act. Even if it's the horrible NE despot that is grinding this country beneath his thumb, it's still an Evil act. Sometimes you have to cross the line for the greater good, and that's exactly what causes problems for Paladins. On the same note, if you follow someone around in a way that they can't detect you for 3 rounds, then slip a knife in their ribs, it's an Evil act. Killing a Helpless or unaware enemy when there is any other choice is going to be pushing you towards Evil. Like anything else, Coup de Grasing one helpless Kobold won't cause a Paladin to fall, but over time it does erode the morals and morale of the killer.
Hecubus 09-26-07, 09:36 PM	Continuing this thought as the orginator of this thread. My decision was to not recognize what the sage said in this matter and not to recognize a spurious rule in the Complete Warrior. They clearly have indicated in the PHB what happens to certain classes when they become Ex-Class. They did not in the DMG. Requirements to ENTER the Class are spoken of there. There is nothing indicating in the DMG, a DMs resource of what happens when they shift there alignment. However its easy to to assume that to TAKE further levels in the assasins class you would have to be Evil. In my view you retain all abilities gained there. Someone brought up the point that half dragon template ability gained, in that class that gives it to you, Do you lose that? thats stupid, to put it bluntly. Sage and Company need to rethink that rule in the Complete Warrior and really consider the consequeces of such a concept and ruling. The rules don't flow very smoothly in that circumstance, and I think since everything is Moving to 4th Edition they are getting lazy when they are making such considerations on the rules. I suppose they think they wont have to address it any very much longer.
Thubby 09-26-07, 10:00 PM	Killing a Helpless or unaware enemy when there is any other choice is going to be pushing you towards Evil. Like anything else, Coup de Grasing one helpless Kobold won't cause a Paladin to fall, but over time it does erode the morals and morale of the killer. seeing as thats how almost every rogue ever created does that, i seriously doubt it. most would call that "dishonorable" maybe, few would call it evil. (still a problem for a paladin though)