So the assassin is evil but the slayer is not?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

As far as I can tell the only one the assassin is required to kill is just the one to become an assassin. He can move forwards never again actually assassinating anyone else.


Aelryinth wrote:

Assassin the PrC' is much more narrowly defined. People are confusing the two.

They are not the same thing. Killing people you are told to kill and believe must die can be done by anyone. Killing people because you don't care, you're good at it, and it's your job, is more along what the PrC represents. That, and you'll kill ANYONE you're told to. It's what you had to do to get in, after all.

The stock flavor of the class does carry that implication, but are we saying stock flavor = mechanics?

In regards to "kill anyone no matter what," where is the mechanic codifying this is how the PrC must function? You mentioned the killing someone to get in prereq, but the killing prerequisite actually makes no mention of anything beyond you killing someone because you want to be an Assassin; no mention of some Dark Brotherhood like organization setting the Assassin a task. Depending on circumstance the Assassin may have even killed someone just to get better at killing on their on initiative or perhaps they wanted the renown of being the assassin of the dastardly duke and acted alone, thus qualifying for the PrC.


I always thought that the Assassin PrC as written should also include a maximum Int or Wis in single digits. Preferably low single digits.

I mean you aren't trying to be an assassin if you have to "kill someone for no reason other than to become an assassin". You're trying to become someone's stooge. A very disposable stooge.

In games I've run, I've been replacing "must be evil" with "must be a moron" and just using either the Red Mantis or some other homebrew for professionals rather than the as-written thugs with illusions of grandeur and the apparent blessing of the god of malefic morons (in FR, Cyric).

-TimD

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

chaoseffect wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Assassin the PrC' is much more narrowly defined. People are confusing the two.

They are not the same thing. Killing people you are told to kill and believe must die can be done by anyone. Killing people because you don't care, you're good at it, and it's your job, is more along what the PrC represents. That, and you'll kill ANYONE you're told to. It's what you had to do to get in, after all.

The stock flavor of the class does carry that implication, but are we saying stock flavor = mechanics?

In regards to "kill anyone no matter what," where is the mechanic codifying this is how the PrC must function? You mentioned the killing someone to get in prereq, but the killing prerequisite actually makes no mention of anything beyond you killing someone because you want to be an Assassin; no mention of some Dark Brotherhood like organization setting the Assassin a task. Depending on circumstance the Assassin may have even killed someone just to get better at killing on their on initiative or perhaps they wanted the renown of being the assassin of the dastardly duke and acted alone, thus qualifying for the PrC.

and with that last you just changed the pre-reqs for the class. "No other reason then to become an assassin" is pretty straight forwards.

You also seem to be trying to assign YOURSELF the person to kill. Which doesn't fit the pre-req much at all, and you're evil, why would you care?

And no, neutral doesn't work. Just because you are a sociopath who has no emotional involvement in what you do, it's still murder and self-justification through apathy. You don't even care enough to justify what you do.

==Aelryinth


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is nothing saying someone has to set your mark for you and there are different philosophies even among the evil. The prerequisite sounds more like something Travis Touchdown from No More Heroes would do ("I want to be an assassin because assassins are awesome!)... but then we're saying that no side motivation at all, like the lust for money, glory, or power can factor into the kill at all or it does not qualify. It seems carrying out a kill to be able to join an assassins guild wouldn't qualify you either as you are doing the kill because you want to join the guild, not because you want to be an assassin for its own sake.

"Because he told me to do it," would also seem to disqualify you because again, you aren't doing it just because you want to be able to be assassin but because of outside influences.

It's tricky stuff. Becoming an assassin is a spiritual quest that has to come from within apparently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

How you want to define assassins is not the point here.

The game has defined assassins as evil folks loyal only to the coin who kill anyone for money. Those people qualify for this PrC.

That's it. Not agreeing with that definition is moot. If you want to rule your assassins are different, go ahead and house rule.

==Aelryinth

Exactly right. The game makes it clear what the Assassin prestige class is meant to represent. A lot of people see the assassin concept (not necessarily the assassin prestige class) as being much broader in scope though, which is probably why the slayer class was created in the first place. A slayer can be a noble, loyal, knight to the king, but by its very in-game definition, an assassin can't.

Aelryinth wrote:

'assassin' the job covers many things. Any of those could fit into almost any class.

'Assassin the PrC' is much more narrowly defined. People are confusing the two.

They are not the same thing. Killing people you are told to kill and believe must die can be done by anyone. Killing people because you don't care, you're good at it, and it's your job, is more along what the PrC represents. That, and you'll kill ANYONE you're told to. It's what you had to do to get in, after all.

I doubt I could have said it better myself.

Nephril wrote:
and Dork i am completely surprised that someone with your history would make a comment claiming an rp class should be limited to a stereo type. i mean how completely unimaginative.

I am merely reiterating the prestige classes very description:

"Assassin [is] A remorseless murderer who kills for money and the sheer thrill of death-dealing."

The description goes on from there...

A mercenary undertaking his task with cold, professional detachment, the assassin is equally adept at espionage, bounty hunting, and terrorism. At his core, an assassin is an artisan, and his medium is death. Trained in a variety of killing techniques, assassins are among the most feared classes.

...

Assassins tend to be loners by nature, seeing companions as liabilities at best. Sometimes an assassin's missions put him in the company of adventurers for long stretches at a time, but few people are comfortable trusting a professional assassin to watch their backs in a fight, and are more likely to let the emotionless killer scout ahead or help prepare ambushes.

It's right there in black and white of the core rulebook. Feel free to reflavor it as you desire; there's nothing stopping you (I do it all the time to great fun). Just recognize that when you do so, you are not playing the prestige class as it was meant to be portrayed.


Aelryinth wrote:


And no, neutral doesn't work. Just because you are a sociopath who has no emotional involvement in what you do, it's still murder and self-justification through apathy. You don't even care enough to justify what you do.

==Aelryinth

You do not have to be a sociopath for this. It would indeed be sociopathy in our world. but in the world of pathfinder being paid to kill something is not remotely unusual and wouldn't be thought of sociopathy, it's the norm. Whether your killing humanoids, evil or good, monsters, mutants, aliens, llamas or what have you.

It's neutral between evil and good, your not justifying anything it doesn't apply to your morality scale. There is no sort of self justifcation. Neutral doesn't mean apathetic to the world it means you are not in the world of pathfinder's viewpoint of what evil is and what good is, your between and thats your morality scale.
For a neutral assassin, the killing is simply the most reliable and expediant way to secure what you need for your life. It's a paycheck.
Most assassins in movies, tv, books and various RP's usually fit in the Evil I enjoy it, and Neutral it's a paycheck it's what i'm good at examples.

I honestly think that it's pretty well supported in the abilities as well.
the Assassin Prc class is in fact the only class I know of with an assassinate ability that can be used to NOT KILL someone. Ninja and Slayer actually only kill, Assassin can knock out and kill. This allows them to be a neutral assassin who ONLY kills the target and knocks anyone else out always.

do note that the above was an argument for what I think the Assassin should be, in my belief


Zwordsman wrote:


It's neutral between evil and good, your not justifying anything it doesn't apply to your morality scale. There is no sort of self justifcation. Neutral doesn't mean apathetic to the world it means you are not in the world of pathfinder's viewpoint of what evil is and what good is, your between and thats your morality scale.

Um, what?

That's not what "neutral" means, nor what "evil" means. They're both game-defined terms.

From the PRD:

Quote:


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Killing the innocent is one of the only ways defined to be of evil alignment. Murderers are evil -- to be an assassin, you must be a murderer (it's defined as a prerequisite).


the req is to kill someone for the purpose of being an assassin.

it doesn't say you have to kill a good person. You can easily decide to kill another assassin to prove your a better assassin, Or kill a famous villian to make your name well known as an assassin As others have said there isn't some giant old assassination guild who tells you who to kill. It's your choice who you kill. My character chose to kill the maurading barbarian cheif. Why? Because killing him and having his assassin name become well known from it was the most expediant path to his goals. After all if you can ghost into a barbarian hoarde camp and bring back proof and leaving it with your calling card. Well that's better than a billboard.

How doesn't that definition of neutral apply to pathfinder's neutral? Reading over the definitions of neutral (the one between good and evil not lawful and chaotic) it really is just self concerned either within the bounds of their chaotic-lawful levels.

Reading the alignments I only really feel like good doesn't fit easily when entering Assassin (though I believe it could work for later in the characters life if they have abig event. I dont think the yshould lose all their class levels because of some big emotional event for them)

various neutrals:
Lawful Neutral
Order begets order. My word is my bond. Chaos will destroy the world. Respect rank. I live by my code and I'll die by my code. Tradition must continue. Order is the foundation of all culture. I am my own judge.

Core Concepts: Harmony, loyalty, order, organization, rank, rule, system, tradition, word

A lawful neutral character admires order and tradition, or seeks to live by a code. He might fear chaos and disorder, and perhaps have good reason to do so from past experience. A lawful neutral person is not as concerned about who rules him so much as how secure he and his compatriots are, and finds great solace in the normality of society. Such a character may admire the strongest of leaders and punishments if they keep order, and he may support wars against other nations even if his own country is a brutal invader—his only concern is the rightness of the military action.

A lawful neutral character who follows his own code never breaks it willingly, and may become a martyr to defend it.

Neutral
Our whims and desires are irrelevant, compared to the turning wheel of the world. I am who I am. Trust no one but your friends and family. The wheel turns in spite of us. Systems come and go. All empires fade. Time is a healer. The seasons never change. The sun does not care what it rises over.

Core Concepts: Balance, cycles, equality, harmony, impartiality, inevitability, nature, seasons

A neutral character is unusual in that she may have one of two distinct philosophies: she may be a person who is neutral because of distrust or apathy toward others, or one who wishes to have a truly neutral stance in the world and rejects extremism.

A neutral character could seem selfish or disinterested. She might be driven primarily by an acceptance of fate, and the most extreme followers of this alignment become hermits, hiding from the zealots of the world. Some neutral characters, however, strive openly for neutrality, and shun any act that veers too extremely toward any alignment. This type of neutral character prides herself on navigating her way between law and chaos, evil and good. She may have a fatalistic view in the face of nature and the fundamental power of night and day.

Chaotic Neutral
A rolling stone gathers no moss. There is only today. Be like the wind and be taken wherever fate sees fit. He who fights fate courts folly. You only live once. Power to those who do not wish for power. Avoid anything in a uniform. Challenge the old orders.

Core Concepts: Capriciousness, fate, freedom, individuality, liberty, self-possession, unpredictability

A chaotic neutral character values his own freedom and ability to make choices. He avoids authority and does not fear standing out or appearing different. In extreme cases, he may embrace a lifestyle entirely suited to himself—living in a cave near a city, becoming an artist, or otherwise challenging traditions. He never accepts anything at face value and makes up his own mind rather than blindly accepting what others tell him to do or think.


and again this is somewhat based in what I think should be opened up for assassins

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's a legacy thing from 3.5 and earlier.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

This prestige class does not represent loyal knights to the king who save the kingdom from trolls.

It represents a vile thug who kills anyone, lowly criminal or high priest alike, as a profession for no other reason than for their love of death and/or money.

These two concepts are very different, and wholly incompatible with one another. One is clearly benevolent, the other obviously not.

Why can't loyal knights who save the kingdom from trolls also happen to be vicious killers?

That's the wrong way to ask the question. The proper way is "why can't a vile thug who kills anyone, lowly criminal or high priest alike, [...] for no other reason than their love of death and/or money be a loyal knight?"

And the answer is obvious -- a loyal knight wouldn't kill anyone for no other reason than their love of death and/or money, since such a person would have no qualms about killing the king himself, and that's not loyal.

looks like someone hasn't read nanatsu no taizai


Orfamay Quest wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
I'd say having a group of fanatically loyal psychopaths on his side might even be why that king managed to become and stay king in the first place.

Absolutely. And those fanatically loyal psychopaths are (evil) slayers, not assassins, because assassins are by definition not fanatically loyal to anything except the sound of coin.

I think you are thinking of Red Mantis Assassins.


Cool thing about prestige requirements is that they are only checked when taking the first level of that class, meaning you may redeem yourself and become a paladin if you wanted to through the atonement spell. This also means that the fighters ability to switch feats becomes really OP.

The Exchange

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Keep in mind that the prestige class is over 10 years old at this point, having been directly imported into PFSRD from the open content of D&D 3rd edition

This is not the case. The assassin on d20pfsrd.com was not imported from anywhere other than the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.


It's more accurate to say that the assassin is functioning on old design ideas. If it were made to day, I'm certain the assassin would be different. It would have a bit more oomph and not have an alignment restriction. Or at the very least have non-good as the restriction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thelemic_Noun wrote:

So, apart from poison use (which is a core mechanic of several classes), what class features does the assassin offer? The only ones that really scream "I'm an evil black hat" are the ones involving corpse abuse (true death, angel of death). The rest are either enhancements to the death attack or class features shared with other classes.

So really, other than the ability to get a death attack four levels earlier, what does the assassin offer that the slayer does not?

It seems that, with the publishing of the slayer class, the only reason the assassin PrC is evil is because you have to kill someone for no reason other than to join the assassins.

I hate to say it, but you need to bring back the assassin's spellcasting ability, because you've made a base class that does all the same things, minus the ability to turn a corpse to dust without a handy pile of sticks and tar.

The assassin is evil for thematic reasons, not mechanical ones. Killing someone strictly for money(profit) is what makes the assassin PrC evil. A slayer doing the same thing would also be evil.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I just wish the assassin still had his spells. :(


chaoseffect wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
I'd say having a group of fanatically loyal psychopaths on his side might even be why that king managed to become and stay king in the first place.

Absolutely. And those fanatically loyal psychopaths are (evil) slayers, not assassins, because assassins are by definition not fanatically loyal to anything except the sound of coin.

By definition assassins are people who carry out assassinations. Saying they are ONLY loyal to coin by default is a stretch I think, though that is one way for them to be.

He was speaking of the PrC, not the assassin profession. Being an assassin does not make you evil. It could be argued that the PC's are assassin. The issue is that the word "assassin" has a bad connotation attached to it, and D&D/Pathfinder uses those in the game. I don't mind because it makes things simple and reduces arguments in home games. I am sure nobody is confused about what was on the devs minds when they made the assassin PrC evil.


chaoseffect wrote:
The thing is your assertion that everything he does it about money isn't anywhere in the actual class mechanics or even the flavor text. The class says the assassin is a cold, detached professional killer. The rest? That's all you adding on to it. It's certainly a valid way to flavor it, but it is hardly the one true undisputed RAW way.

Indeed. Who says the guy you whack to join can't be corrupt/evil himself? Nobody.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
It's more accurate to say that the assassin is functioning on old design ideas. If it were made to day, I'm certain the assassin would be different. It would have a bit more oomph and not have an alignment restriction. Or at the very least have non-good as the restriction.

Archaic, outdated, obsolete ... sounds about right. Much like alignment itself.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Archaic, outdated, obsolete ... sounds about right. Much like alignment itself.

Detecting scorched surface area.


Emmanuel Nouvellon-Pugh wrote:
Cool thing about prestige requirements is that they are only checked when taking the first level of that class, meaning you may redeem yourself and become a paladin if you wanted to through the atonement spell. This also means that the fighters ability to switch feats becomes really OP.

Unfortunately, no. If you fail to meet the requirements, you lose all the class abilities. Dumb rule, but there you go.


I have and assassin in the campaign I am running. It is a modified Crimson Assassin so it does have spells. He is a Holy Assassin of Iomeadea, most of his spells have been redirected to undead damaging and he is a white lion not a red mantis. He is part of a secret guild that hunts down and puts down Necromancers, specifically the guild that is the main foe. I am treating it kind of like the Inquisitor which does the dirty work if its church. He is LE and that was how the player proposed it knowing there will social issues due to the alignment. I would have been fine with neutral but the concept matters.

Personally I don't like the severe alignment restrictions on classes. I'm th one that wanted a Paladin of Besmara, I still would have had a very strict code but I was met with heavy resistance from some of my group excluding the GM and on this message board. I think depending on the backstory and assassin could be of any alignment. And the spells are awesome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
I'd say having a group of fanatically loyal psychopaths on his side might even be why that king managed to become and stay king in the first place.

Absolutely. And those fanatically loyal psychopaths are (evil) slayers, not assassins, because assassins are by definition not fanatically loyal to anything except the sound of coin.

the king, just so happens to be, a giant coin.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
He was speaking of the PrC, not the assassin profession. Being an assassin does not make you evil.

If you are jaded enough that you will kill someone merely for a contract, you're evil in my book.


LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
He was speaking of the PrC, not the assassin profession. Being an assassin does not make you evil.
If you are jaded enough that you will kill someone merely for a contract, you're evil in my book.

This is true.

But since that's not a requirement of the Assassin class, it doesn't matter. Class is not concept, concept is not class. You can be an Assassin without being an assassin, just as you can be a Barbarian without being a barbarian.


Zwordsman, you do realize that just because the person you kill isn't good still makes you evil right? Murder is murder. And again, we are talking murder not self defense which is what a fair number of adventurers do. Heck, my good characters and even neutrals always give the option to surrender to the enemy until the last moment and never coup but instead stabilize and take all their stuff, then leave them.

It is like killing someone evil does NOT make you good. It is about WHY you killed them. Just doing it to fill a requirement to join a guild is a pretty evil reason. Doing it to save a village is a bit more noble but grey. The assassin class requires you to be evil because you are a contract murderer. You have to commit murder for no other reason but to join like an initiation. If your character is ok with that, they are a cold hearted monster. Again, I point to the operative in Serenity and Jonathan Teatime in Discworld.

Also, you know sociopathy/psychopathy is a disorder that means you simply are unable to feel empathy for other people so hold no value on the lives of others right? Someone correct if I am wrong please.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
He was speaking of the PrC, not the assassin profession. Being an assassin does not make you evil.
If you are jaded enough that you will kill someone merely for a contract, you're evil in my book.

This is true.

But since that's not a requirement of the Assassin class, it doesn't matter. Class is not concept, concept is not class. You can be an Assassin without being an assassin, just as you can be a Barbarian without being a barbarian.

Yes it is because only an evil person will kill someone for no other reason than to be admitted into the Society of Assassins. Yes it doesn't say you have to be evil, but abiding by the requirements requires you to be evil,


Murder is evil. but is killing the marauding criminal guy who regularly killls villiages rapes them and such still evil? Killing the mage who burned down an orphanage (for no reason that any of the playeres no of. It just looks like the mage tested a new spell on a random building) That sound exactly like the kind of thing that a hero does to become well known. The only difference I can see with that scenario is that the hero lets it be known he did it while the assassin leaves a calling card and wants to be hired for more kills.

Why does certainly make the distinction, your killing for the purpose of being an assassin. Who and how you kill should also be factored in.

Regularly players will go in to caves or dungeons and kill the creatures that live there for the purpose of getting money.

Your killing to learn to be an assassin. Your purposfully killing a humanoid for the express purpose of improving your skills. It's evil to kill someone at random but there are many situations where it wouldn't be considered evil honestly.

Adventurers are often hired to kill some villian. That act isn't specifically evil when they do it. So why would it be evil for the same villian to be killed by some random guy for no pay, expressly to improve his skills and make his name known throughout the land?

Something people keep alluding to is "killing to join a society of assassins' that is not occuring at all. There is no guild. there is nothing like that. So by how the prc has it's just improving your skills and making your name known. So we again go to why you chose that target.

This an example: a king hiring adventurers to kill the supplier who supplies the other kingdom that the king is at war with. That doesn't sound particularly evil considering your adventurers live and work for said king/kingdom. So how is it evil for an assassin to take the same contract?

Situations like the above is why I think the class should really be "non-good" required. or Neutral/ evil.

As for psycho and socio paths. here is a site that is pretty well worded
http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/03/the-difference-between-psychopaths-and- sociopaths/

but short version, psychopath is one who dips into dangerous area. Socio doesn't.
In both cases it's being unable to relate to society as a whole. It's not apathy.

You can be anti social and apathetic of socieities' rules and your culture's moral compass without being socio or psycho. That does not mean a sociopath does not see any value in lives. (though a psycho likely would not) By the same point being used to killing or not being bothered does not automatically make one a sociopath or psychopath.( see some military and law enforcements)

A extreme example is Sherlock from the BBC series, if you want to see; in the charactersr words " a high functioning sociopath" but he highly highly borders psychopath area (according to my psych friend anyway)

Batman is techincally pretty close to sociopath as he doesn't believe the law applies to him, but does apply to everyone else. He's removed from society and took up the cape. it's a form of it anyway (depending on which canon/history/retcon you go with)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

meh, I murdered a random guy to join the assassins so I could learn skills to save thousands of people.

chaotic good biotch


Missed the point again. If you killed the guy so you could learn the skills to be helpful to society, you don't get it. it says NO OTHER REASON than to become an assassin. There can litterally be no motivation at all to killing that person other than to join. Not to improve your skills, not to learn techniques, not to save people, nothing. You kill someone ONLY because you want to join. That's all. No middle ground. You killed to join and that is the only reason you did it. No subtext.


Jaçinto wrote:
Missed the point again. If you killed the guy so you could learn the skills to be helpful to society, you don't get it. it says NO OTHER REASON than to become an assassin. There can litterally be no motivation at all to killing that person other than to join. Not to improve your skills, not to learn techniques, not to save people, nothing. You kill someone ONLY because you want to join. That's all. No middle ground. You killed to join and that is the only reason you did it. No subtext.

Let me ask you cause I am confused.

Join what?
you keep mentioning "join" there is NOTHING to join there is no guild there is no one grading your kill, there is nothing but your character. killing someone. to be an assassin. It's not like killing someone is your entry fee and you trade the dead body for your membership card.

Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin.
Mechanically= Kill someone specifically for entry to this PRC.

You kill specifically for the purpose of taking class levels in this prestige class. i.e. becoming an assassin. You are learning new skills thats what the new class is. The whole point of leveling is improving your skills. THAT is what leveling is intrinsitcally, you learn and/orm aster more skills from your new class.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Your adding in some sort of guild or assossiation to "Join" is adding your own subtext on what an assassin should be. Not what the class actually specifies.

I very much agree Saving people is a reason so that doesn't work as "your killing to learn to save people" not "killing to be an assassin" Though it's fine to plan ahead on your character's life development to eventually become a good guy using his assassination skills for good (assuming your GM allows you to keep the class when your not Evil; or changes it to non good. Or i guess if your being paid by the party to be a member of their group). But at the level you take Assassin you have to have killed specifically for the prestige class and not thinking "i'll kill this person so I can learn to kill bad guys better"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because alignment restrictions are pointless limitations to role play and should be completely removed from the game.

If you want all Slayers to be evil, then make it so in your game, but don't ask the devs to force that restriction to all of us.

Class is not concept. Concept is not class.

Classes are just mechanical constructs. A character's concept is defined by how its player roleplays it, not by what's written on its class description!


Ehhhh, that description actually does define the class and generally what members of said class is like. Well, if you want to roleplay why you have this as your profession that is and why anyone chose to train you in said class. Your character's "character" shows what they will become and if anyone things you have got the stuff to learn what they are teaching. Nobody just wakes up one day and says "I'm a level one wizard now!" Cause that is terrible storytelling in a storytelling game.

Oh course, in your game you can do what you want but generally yeah that description tells you what people of that class are supposed to generally be like. Otherwise, you are slapping the creative devs and writers in the face and saying in the world and game they made, they are wrong and their stories (fluff and flavour is story and vice versa. no getting around that) that you choose to play in are bad.

Again, at your table you can do how you like but those descriptions, by default, are not throw away. Everything and I mean -everything- in the rule book is a rule but every GM has the authority to use as much of it as they like.

Lemmy you sorta contradicted yourself. You say you want all alignment restrictions removed but you tell others not to make the devs change things to force a restriction. You can't say the devs need to change things to how you want and then say others can't do the same.

Looking at alignment as a restriction on your role play is wrong. You take your character's character (meaning personality) and then look at where does it fit. Your sense of character limits and restricts what your game character can be. You don't pick an alignment. Rather you make a person first, think about who and what they are, then pick the alignment that fits that best and class that makes most sense for them to grow into becoming.

Basically, first you make your backstory and history for the character to see who they are, then you give them their class representative profession and the alignment that best represents them. You don't pick an alignment and play it, you play and represent who they are with an alignment once you settle on their personal characteristics.

Therefore, a truly good person would not become an assassin. A person who, while maybe not being evil, finds his way by tracking people down, hunting them, and bringing them down for whatever reason like say a bounty hunter could be a slayer.


Jaçinto wrote:
Again, at your table you can do how you like but those descriptions, by default, are not throw away. Everything and I mean -everything- in the rule book is a rule but every GM has the authority to use as much of it as they like.

Gonna have to disagree here. Fluff is suggestions. Its the basic default interpretation. It is by no means every member of a class ever. It also is not, and certainly has never been, a rule.

They are throw away. They're suggestions. They have absolutely zero mechanical bearing on the creation of your characters. They interact with the system as a whole in absolutely zip ways.

Fluff is not now and will never be rules.


Take every bit of "fluff" out of the rulebook and you will have a terribly boring book with no feel at all to the game and just have numbers really. Heck, even saying names of abilities and having races and classes exist at all is fluff. Take out all the fluff and enjoy your list of spreadsheets and playing a game of compare numbers and add variables. Go ahead and play a game with zero fluff. The story is fluff and character goals are fluff. Calling things spells is fluff too.

Absolutely everything in the book is a rule. Every rule in the book can be disregarded. That is every edition and incarnation of D&D and pretty much all other role playing games.


Your assuming that the player never learns it themselves and has to find a teacher or something. But it doesn't have any of those requirements.

having a wizard, or sorcerer, or assassin start learning on their own isn't against any fluff either.

A lv 1 wizard might be someone who found a book, or just made a spellbook and is just naturally inclined towards magic and understanding it comes easy.
To sum up.. there is really no reason you can't become a lv 1 wizard, in the middle of a forest, in a monsoon after killing a badger or something. The way a game like pathfinder works is by cooperative storytelling. Who is to say your character hasn't been thinking about working on their magic inclinations for a while now?
Of course items from the class won't just "appear" you'll still have to buy them (unless you have a nice gm who lets you get them next time your in atown free of charge due to taking levels in it)

I"m pretty sure requiring any sort of teacher isn't in the fluff of almost anything I can think of (and the ones that do have a requirement in the crunch for teachers) so it would be your own requirements on taking class levels.
Generally, unless the gm wants characters to roleplay it out (which can take a lot of time and doesn't apply that much fun in the case of some players and some players who are watching) leveling up and figuring out your new class and new abilties are generally assumed to be in the background by the rule's implications. The implication stemming from the book's lack of requiring any time taken out to level, or restricting leveling while not in town or preventing leveling in say.. the middle of a dungeon during a lull. Anything else is how the GM wants to run it. I mean most GM's won't require you to cite every article of clothing or how you arrange your pack, Until it might be relevant for a scene. So what your character thinks about or reads or talks about during "off player action" time is pretty much up to the gm and the player. The game doesn't actually sell "starter gear for learning to be X class" nor does it require teachers except for specific cases.

And a note not everyone builds characters from their history etc. More than a few simply build who they are at the start of the game (i.e personality which very much lends itself to alignment as you said)

Also.. yeah.. you play alignment because you play your character. Your character is made up of their choices which determines their alignment. I don't see a distinction between "playing your character" and playing your alignment because your character's nature is that alignment... In actual play, if your roleplaying and not directing a robot, there isn't much of any distinction between the two because all the parts (class alignment race personality etc) roll into one thing. Your character.

What I'm (and maybe others) are saying is that an actual Assassin in play is not always 100% an evil person, but the class is restricted to evil alignment. But I think the mechanics and the idea of "assassins" in a world like pathfinder (not our world as they are different cultures) support the possibilities of assassins who aren't pure evil.

I mean hell their main ability Death attack is in fact the only assassination tech that can knock out or paralyze and NOT just slaughter the target.
So honestly this class, had it been more updated to what pathfinder is (as it was ported and slightly modified when CRB came out but not quite as updated as anything after CRB. and its not like prestige classes get archetype updates in later books), would be a very good choice for someone who wanted to scout ahead and remove guards etc for the crew. Especially if that player had wanted to not kill for it.
but as it stands your playing an evil character with this prc-which it would be out of character to just start knocking out guards instead of killing them. Or your playing the other classes and hoping you can knock them out in one attack so they don't scream.

Cause we know poisons aren't working really for the quiet take down.


Jaçinto wrote:

Take every bit of "fluff" out of the rulebook and you will have a terribly boring book with no feel at all to the game and just have numbers really. Heck, even saying names of abilities and having races and classes exist at all is fluff. Take out all the fluff and enjoy your list of spreadsheets and playing a game of compare numbers and add variables. Go ahead and play a game with zero fluff. The story is fluff and character goals are fluff. Calling things spells is fluff too.

Absolutely everything in the book is a rule. Every rule in the book can be disregarded. That is every edition and incarnation of D&D and pretty much all other role playing games.

The book fluff is a suggestion. A good one, at that. It tells you which can (theoretically) be accomplished by each class and gives you a nice starting point to create your character.

However, it's not a restriction.

You don't have to play a Rogue to be a sniveling scoundrel who gets by through wit and charm. You don't have to play a Paladin to be the a LG Paragon of Virtue. You don't have to play a Barbarian to be a fierce warrior from a totemic clan that lives in the wilderness.

And no, not every word in the book is a rule. That has never been the case.


No you don't need to be a paladin to be the LG paragon of virtue but you need to be a LG paragon of virtue to be a paladin. You have those all flipped the wrong way around.


Jaçinto wrote:
No you don't need to be a paladin to be the LG paragon of virtue but you need to be a LG paragon of virtue to be a paladin. You have those all flipped the wrong way around.

That's because the Paladin has a mechanical restriction. That's not true of most other classes.

And even then, the Paladin only tells you a few things about you, like your Alignment and some behavioral restrictions. It doesn't tell you how to roleplay your character.

Your class does not tell you who or what your character is. It only tells you what your character can or cannot do. The name of the class is irrelevant. Fighters wouldn't be any more stealthy if they were named "Scout" and Rogues wouldn't be any better in combat if they were named 'Invincible Warrior".


And all you need to be an assassin is to be evil and to have committed one murder with no restrictions on how the target is obtained for no other purpose than to become one.

It isn't a club where people dictate how you act afterwards. You can have any motivation you want both before and after. You just have to commit the murder for the purpose of becoming an assassin.

See paladin requires you be a LG paragon of virtue because its baked into the mechanics for it.

Assassin? Gotta be evil, and commit one murder just to become an assassin. There is nothing else there in requirements. You do not have to be without loyalty whatsoever. You do not have to be in it only for the coin. You do not have to learn the super secret handshake of a guild of greedy butchers.

Doesn't exist here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
He was speaking of the PrC, not the assassin profession. Being an assassin does not make you evil.
If you are jaded enough that you will kill someone merely for a contract, you're evil in my book.

I should have given an example.I agree that killing for money/profit is evil. The non-evil assassins I was speaking of are those that such as government agents who kill people to protect their country, as an example. To avoid any hair-splitting we will assume the gov't is not having him kill people for bad reasons. :)


Jaçinto wrote:

Take every bit of "fluff" out of the rulebook and you will have a terribly boring book with no feel at all to the game and just have numbers really. Heck, even saying names of abilities and having races and classes exist at all is fluff. Take out all the fluff and enjoy your list of spreadsheets and playing a game of compare numbers and add variables. Go ahead and play a game with zero fluff. The story is fluff and character goals are fluff. Calling things spells is fluff too.

Absolutely everything in the book is a rule. Every rule in the book can be disregarded. That is every edition and incarnation of D&D and pretty much all other role playing games.

Everything in the book is not a rule. You have flavor/fluff which tells you how the designer looks at his creation, and it can give you hints as to how a rule is supposed to work. Then you have mechanics, which tell you how the rule works.

As an example the it is not a rule for a ranger to be some outdoors nature worshipping guy. It is the base flavor behind the class. With his 6 skill points, and favored enemy I can play him as a ninja or assassin, etc etc.

The bard with his ability to inspire people, heal and his social skills could be a priest in the game. There is no rule against it, even though the flavor given does not make him a priest.

More non rules-->magic item creation guidelines, and WBL.


First, I used paladin as a basic example because it is one of the ones he mentioned in his example. I was not talking about it specifically.

Secondly, I am done arguing this and will not post again. If you wish to continue arguing with me, please pay five pounds for five minutes or eight for a course of ten. Points for anyone that understands what I am talking about without googling it.

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wraithstrike; Bards being priests is a thing I love to play with. Desna and Shelyn come to mind as Gods they for whom they preach.

As far as Assassins and alignment goes, well a lot of people see alignment as a carry over from the older system. That's a gripe I have, as I love alignment for the roleplay and the characters that can be made within and around that particular system. That the multiverse is so tied to alignment in the form of the afterlife's punishment/reward outsider mechanic makes me happy, and I've had a dead character show up as an outsider on a few occasions.

Evil people kill, and so do good and neutral people. What makes them their alignment is the intent, the reasoning behind it. Generalizations ahead;

Good people kill to protect and save or because they have to when no other option is present. Neutral people kill generally because no other option is present or because the thing/being they killed has directly affected their lives in some way. Evil people kill because they enjoy it, can get away with it, because someone has wronged them, or because they're paid to.

What makes each alignment matter and what defines them is not only the intent but the feeling, in my book; a good person does not like killing, generally speaking. A neutral person may be weirded out by it and wish they didn't HAVE to, but it isn't a matter of liking or disliking it. Someone evil enjoys it, and/or doesn't care one way or the other. Batting a fly means as much to evil as severing someone's head in many cases.

Thus we have enter the Assassin PrC; they don't care or they enjoy it, and they make a living off of doing this. They have likely joined a group of people who are similar minded because it's convenient and there are scapegoats all around them, and nobody would care if any one of them died. They make it hard for the people they've killed to come back from the dead because that might mess up THEIR plans, THEIR payment, THEIR livelihood.

A Slayer can have many reasons for being what they are, and honestly there's a lot more fluff as to what a slayer CAN be. Their class abilities lend themselves to killing things very well, yes, but they have a lot of NON-combat versatility as well, specifically the studied target class feature. It also provides bonuses beyond just attack and damage, moving into various skill checks. A slayer could be an infiltrator, an assassin, a protector, a liberator, a robin-hood-esque freedom fighter, a back-alley thug, a ranger's apprentice, any number of things that don't JUST involve killing things for profit. An Assassin PrC is made for murder, plain and simple.

Mechanics aside, as I view modern Ninja and Slayers who are focused on the task of assassination very good at their job with more to their character than 'Kill fo cash', the fluff is why I keep the PrC evil.


So, no one actually mentioned Zhayne's noted "Avenger" prestige class that, alignment aside, was mechanically identical to Assassin. (Or if they did, I missed it.)

Granted he used regrettably pejorative adjectives in his post - a turn off both intellectually and emotionally - but the point bears repeating: Wizards of the Coast created and published to their site (as part of an April Fools) a class that they approved of for play in their game. It still sees table use to this day, despite being mechanically sub-par.

It was mechanically identical to Assassin. It was permitted for and balanced for play. It required non-chaotic.

The fact that Assassin is, as a class, strictly sub-par to all other classes is also baffling. It feels like it's a PrC meant exclusively for bad guy NPCs - kind of like an NPC class for evil NPCs, at least power wise.

As a player, I like the early access to the martial instant-kill or, even better, instant paralysis (for dealing with situations of non-evil foes that can't be convinced and need to be bypassed). Unfortunately, it's very weak, naturally. Still a cool idea.

It might work quite well in a game run with NPC classes.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zwordsman wrote:

the req is to kill someone for the purpose of being an assassin.

it doesn't say you have to kill a good person. You can easily decide to kill another assassin to prove your a better assassin, Or kill a famous villian to make your name well known as an assassin As others have said there isn't some giant old assassination guild who tells you who to kill. It's your choice who you kill. My character chose to kill the maurading barbarian cheif. Why? Because killing him and having his assassin name become well known from it was the most expediant path to his goals. After all if you can ghost into a barbarian hoarde camp and bring back proof and leaving it with your calling card. Well that's better than a billboard.

But the requirement is that you kill the person for no other reason than to qualify to become an assassin. You are introducing a bunch of other reasons to kill your designated victim. I am not sure that you would even be given a choice of who to kill.


David knott 242 wrote:
But the requirement is that you kill the person for no other reason than to qualify to become an assassin. You are introducing a bunch of other reasons to kill your designated victim. I am not sure that you would even be given a choice of who to kill.

Once again. Its not an organization. There is no dark brotherhood that is handing out assignments. Unless your gm house rules otherwise, you may kill whomever you wish in the quest to become an assassin.


As written, it's as easy as, "Hey, that's a bad guy. You know, I think I'll kill him to ba an assassin."

So long as that's your reason, you get in.

(This feeds not the difference between rules and intent on another thread, but there you go.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
But the requirement is that you kill the person for no other reason than to qualify to become an assassin. You are introducing a bunch of other reasons to kill your designated victim. I am not sure that you would even be given a choice of who to kill.
Once again. Its not an organization. There is no dark brotherhood that is handing out assignments. Unless your gm house rules otherwise, you may kill whomever you wish in the quest to become an assassin.

Though it is a comomn trope that assassins belong to a guild of assassins, that isn't necessarily true, and the entry for Assassin prestige class in no way suggests that becoming an assassin means joining an assassins guild.

@David Knot - if an assassin's guild is not involved, who is limiting the choice on whom to kill? Nobody - that's an assumption you're including that is not mentioned in either the fluff nor mechanics.

@Thomas Long 175 - at the same time, you're assuming there is no assassin's guild, and just as the Assassin prestige class doesn't imply there is an assassin's guild at work, it doesn't imply there isn't one. You say there is no dark brotherhood handing out assignments, but there very will could be. The Assassin entry is ambiguous enough not to imply if either is true, but it also doesn't suggest that such a case is false.

Both you and David are making assumptions - trying to add additional information that is not in the rules. Neither one of you is completely accurate - perhaps its true for your home games, but not specifically by the book.

51 to 100 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / So the assassin is evil but the slayer is not? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.