BackHandOfFate's page

Evil can never be not-evil. That to me is the problematic part of all this. That one little absolute statement. It does not require you to think, or question. It is evil, so condemn it. This act is good, so don't think about it.

People who think in black-and-white never think about morality, because why would they have to? Evil is evil, and good is good. Just do these things, and don't do those things. Oh, those people who do those things? They do them because they are evil.

It is the product of our animal brains, the part of use that is most brutish and nasty and clanlike. They are not like us, therefore they are evil. It is a philosophy that is responsible for so much evil in the world that I cannot help but see it as evil myself.

Ventnor, I think you are still missing the multiple posts addressing that portion of your argument. You need to separate the act from the person. Multiple times it has been stated that good people can do evil things and that evil people can do good things.

You act as if we don't have any reason behind why we view an act as evil and instead paint opposing viewpoints as blind and unthinking when it is actually you who are forcing oversimplication into a complex topic. For someone who accuses others of being 'moral absolutists' you sure are making a lot of rigid assumptions about the way other people think.

BackHandOfFate: You make a really good point, and I should have clarified what I meant better. I did not mean to say that it was good to kill innocents. This is a very bad situation no matter what happens. The point I was trying to make was that for the purposes of the paladin codes (Which specifically use the terms of good and evil acts, which was why I was using those terms) and maintaining good alignments saving the many by killing the few is the option that (at least if your GM is in any way good) the one that would not result in falling.

Charon's Little Helper: There should not be ANY situations where a paladin falls no matter what they do, because whether or not a paladin falls is dictated by their deity, and any deity who is a legal choice for a paladin would not condemn someone just for a situation they were placed in. If a GM is mean enough to place a paladin in a situation and then rule that they fall no matter what the paladin does they fall, the paladin's player should stop playing.

One post on that and I'll cease and desist since I don't want to turn this into Paladin thread #5334927824323156809. Paladins don't get their powers from deities. They are empowered by a higher (non-personified) power while adhering to a code of conduct that is independent of any specific deity. Nothing in the rules states a deity can take away a Paladins powers as with a Cleric. The code is what gives them power. Break the code, lose your power. This is true regardless of if the deity they follow believes the Paladin should be shown leeway. We've all seen examples of Good aligned deities straying into dark paths... 'Clash of the Kingslayers' for example.. Paladins follow a stricter code than even most good aligned deities follow. One that doesn't allow them to utilize dark methods to achieve what they view to be righteous ends. That is all I will say on the topic. I fully understand if your viewpoint differs on this. I will say I agree with you when you say a Paladin should not be placed in any situation where they fall either way, which is why I would avoid games that include these kinds of scenarios.

Now please let us return to the topic at hand.

I believe there should be a clear distinction made between morally 'good' and tactically 'good'. Because it seems the lines have been blurred a little in this discussion. Winning at chess is tactically 'good' and also devoid of any moral implication. Saving lives is 'good' from a moral standpoint despite the tactical risks that may be involved. Damning innocent lives to save many more lives in the process (as when you sacrifice a pawn to protect the other chess pieces) is obviously the strategically sound move to make. From a moral standpoint, however, you cannot view people as pawns that you can dispose of to the benefit of others and view it as a morally 'good' decision.

BackHandOfFate: The problem is, if you do not kill the singular family, many more innocent families die. In my opinion YOU would be killing the multiple families JUST as much as you would be killing the singular family, regardless of how indirect that killing was. (Remember, in this hypothetical scenario, there is no 3rd option.) There is no way to avoid killing innocents, therefore morality falls to which option kills more, therefore killing the family is a good act, because it saves more people, regardless of how it would normally be an evil act, because good and evil are based on context.

Captain, you are confusing the concept of 'good' with the concept of 'favorable'. Of course you want to save as many people as possible. That doesn't mean it's a 'good' act to murder innocent families. It just means that you've made a decision to favor the many over the few. Killing innocent people is never good. You're taking a decision that is ultimately beneficial to a large group of people and painting it as morally justified when anyone who's cracked a history book knows what that kind of thinking can lead to.

See; this, right here, is a dividing line that many cannot ever get across.

It is the point at which one's willing suspension of disbelief breaks, and one goes, "Nope; ain't never work that way, not even in fiction." and one cannot come to the conclusion that such a thing could ever be good: because of the persistent and abiding belief in hidden "strings attached" to <evil action>.

There's nothing hidden about these strings. The decision is plain to see, you are being 'forced' to commit evil with the promise of avoiding great catastrophe. It's not that I wouldn't have a character make a decision in this kind of scenario. The problem is, if this was a kind of game where this type of 'lesser of two evils, never a third option' thinking was prevalent among the DM and players, it would likely be a game I'd want to walk away from. Because the truth is, THAT is the most rigid, non compromising kind of thought process presented in this thread. I find it disappointing that my analysis comes across as rigid thinking to you. For me, suspension of disbelief belongs squarely in the 'fantasy' aspect of any game. I do not believe it should be applied to acts of good and evil to make them appear as anything other than what they are.

If one cannot accept the scenario as it functionally is, or mentally contrive a scenario that functions for the purpose of the test, then one cannot come to the "same" conclusion as another who can. Neither person is wrong - one is more rooted into reality, while the other has the ability to loosen their mindset from the universe in which we love, but neither of these are wrong. But they will crest mutually irreconcilable differences.

So, what you're saying is... If I am of the mindset to analyze and critique contrived scenarios that never present a third option, that I cannot loosen my mind enough? If 'loosening your mindset' involves somehow turning concepts of morality (which are clearly definable in said fantasy universe) on their head and saying 'Killing innocents can be a good act from a moral standpoint' then yeah count me out. Because that is ultimately what this boils down to. As I said earlier, my problem was never with these scenarios being presented in the first place. My problem was with these actions being rationalized as 'good' when all they really are is 'tactically sound' at best.

Is killing an innocent wrong? Yes

Is killing an innocent always wrong? no

Stop trying to confuse me with contradictory statements. It won't work! :p

We can all think of a scenario in which killing an innocent is the right choice. If your not original enough enjoy

** spoiler omitted **
From there it is just deciding where the line is

The line is right there at that first life.

Please note what I said in an earlier post. Self sacrifice is the only sacrifice that can be for the greater good because it is the only righteous kind of sacrifice. Killing one innocent soul to eliminate all evil is still killing for the convenience of others. The promise of eliminating all the worlds problems with a single dark deed is THE ultimate sham. I'd half expect a DM to place good players in this scenario as a villainous deception to try to get them all to stain their soul, and take the first step towards the dark side. The first step is always the most important. Then from there it just gets easier and easier to view the lives of others as a means to an end.

Cleric: "You are going to do everything to protect your people, that's not a suggestion. That's a fact, I just want to say that you should never ever forget that your final goal, is to protect people. It's easy for one to loose himself"

Swashbuckler: "What exactly defines everything? What is the limit in what we do?"
Cleric: "I... I really do not think there is one. As long as it is to keep your people safe I think you will do everything. Would you kill a whole family to save many many more? Yes you would. Now would you sleep at night? That's a very different question"
Swashbuckler: "Yes, I would. You are right. It's all about the people. We don't matter if we cant protect them. And yes... I could sleep at night."

This is the problem with any 'greater good' scenario. The fact that 'good' is anywhere in the discussion. There is no greater good if good is nowhere to be found. Only difficult AND oversimplified decisions.

In exactly what scenario would someone have to go in and personally kill an innocent family to save numerous others? This is a very contrived scenario. Much more often than not, when you are dealing with a 'who lives and who dies' situation, the deaths of those involved are caused by something other than your own hand.

For instance, a plague has spread and you are trying to decide how to allocate limited medical staff and supplies to be the most effective. Are you killing the family in that situation? Certainly not. And a good person isn't justifying their decisions in any way because good people are humble. They empathize with their suffering, and sacrifice their own time, energy, and sometimes lives to doing everything they can to save others.

I saw people referencing Spock's sacrifice bringing up the age old 'needs of many outweigh needs of few' argument. The problem is that in that movie, it was SPOCK that said it before he sacrificed his own life. He didn't say it while shoving someone else into that radioactive chamber. That is where the line is drawn.

When it comes to life or death, there can be no greater good where murder and coercion are in play. Self sacrifice is the only kind of sacrifice that can ever be for a greater good because it is done willingly. That is part of what defines good, valuing the lives of others more than your own life. Valuing the lives of some over the lives of others and mentally preparing yourself to personally snuff out innocent life for some 'greater cause' is nowhere near any kind of good.

Congrats on missing the point. The argument was over whether a Paladin could have authority over and above what other PC classes would have by virtue of being a Paladin.

If you read my previous post, I DID address this. I would argue that people most certainly WOULD be more likely to respect their word, seek their council and heed their advice BECAUSE they know the person they are dealing with IS good and trustworthy by virtue of his/her profession. I labeled that as Moral Authority earlier on. Yes, other characters can be good aligned. Yes, other characters can be trustworthy. But even other good and trustworthy characters don't ALWAYS have to behave in a good and trustworthy manner. So yes, this does set them apart from other classes in that respect.

I'm not saying that a Paladin can walk up to any stranger and expect them to obey his orders. I'm saying a Paladins' reputation is such that you can expect people to trust his judgement a bit more quickly and be cooperative because they know he isn't out to screw them. Existing authority figures (The generally well meaning kind) are far more likely to trust a Paladin, who is always honest in his dealings, because they know he doesn't have some kind of hidden agenda. A Paladin doesn't have to DEMAND authority. He gets it by behaving as he should, by being good and humble, asking for people to work with him for the greater good.

A DM certainly doesn't have to go by this logic. They can have commoners be skeptical of any stranger until they are blue in the face just because if that is how they want to run the game. I'm simply making the argument from my standpoint.

Also the argument I made was that authority has to be granted in some way, this can be forced or otherwise. The Balor you mention has authority because the populace fears him and obeys his authority. Thus he has authority granted by the populace which he used force and intimidation to obtain.

I don't think I was disagreeing with you on that. I also specifically brought up the point that authority can be obtained in a number of ways by DEFINING authority.

A Paladin on the other hand isn't going to strike down anyone who disobeys him, as that would be evil. A level 1 Paladin likely wouldn't have the power to force everyone to bend to his will. But that still doesn't change that rule by intimidation is something ANYBODY sufficiently powerful can do, and still doesn't mean that a Paladin has implicit authority.

Again, you're echoing my exact sentiments. I never said a Paladin would try to impose his will on others in a way similar to a warlord or a Balor. Yes a Paladin could use intimidation. But he doesn't make threats without good and righteous cause.

The Paladin Thread Train (PTT)(TM) is just getting warmed up! Lets get this party really going. Time to crack open a dictionary!

Define Authority: 1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

It seems some are sticking to the latter portion of this definition, claiming that only official recognition by existing authority figures grants one authority. This is not the case.

A Balor can teleport into a small town and say "I'm in charge". Was he elected Mayor of this boondock town? Nope. Is some ignorant yokel going to brazenly stroll up to him, point his crooked finger at the Balor and say. "Now wait juuust a cotton pickin second, mister. Y'all gotta be a citizen of this here small town for a minimum of ten years an then run fer public office before y'all can start barkin orders at us town folk."? Maybe. Does that stop the Balor from using his power to enforce his will? NOPE. Thus, he has authority over the town by virtue of having the power to wipe it off the map with insignificant effort on his part.

By the same logic, a Paladin, who is likely more powerful than 99% of people in the known world even at low levels, DOES have the power to exert his will on others. He just doesn't do it in the same way a Balor would. A Paladin is a righteous harbinger of truth and justice. He is humble and tries to work WITH existing authority if their goals and his don't outright clash. He's not out to conquer and pillage, but to defend the weak against evil. The moral authority he possesses as a result of the lifestyle he chooses gives him power and respect, even if he isn't mayor of every town he strolls into.

The fact that 'ACTUAL' authority was used as a qualifier means nothing as I have now defined what authority ACTUALLY means. As for the "Well it depends on what your definition of 'Paladin' is.." argument...

In fantasy realms, words have definitions.. A Paladin isn't some rare sight that you only behold once every five hundred years when the planets align. They are everywhere and the DC to know what a Paladin is can easily be made untrained. If you want to re-define what a Paladin is in your game, then by all means do so. As is, there are definitions for things in Pathfinder. Paladin is one such word that has a specific definition. We're not in Europe during the middle ages. We're in a fantasy setting with magic missiles and goblins and such. If you need your game to be different in that respect to have fun, then do it. Lord knows the games I play have about 500 house rules and tweaks.

I don't really like this line of reasoning, honestly. Life experience has taught me that the people who boast about their own righteousness the loudest are often the most corrupt.

While what you say is true, that assumes the Paladin is boastful about who he is. That may be how some choose to play the class, and it is decidedly pompous to do so. Paladins embody not only what it means to be lawful. They also embody what it means to be GOOD in a much heavier sense. That includes displaying an appropriate amount of humility, which is implied when a class is dedicated to putting others before themselves. True, a paladin may not shy away from the spotlight when it is shined on them. But, they do not seek that spotlight at the expense of others.

A paladin can say "I'm a Paladin." and easily prove it in some way without having to resort to being boastful and arrogant. Using lay on hand to heal the wounded, for example..

What's all this now?

"You Don't Have Any Actual Authority, Just Because You're A Paladin"

False.

Paladins have MORAL authority because they hold themselves to such a strict code of ethics. That may not give them title or the right to lawfully govern. But it does give them power. Even if they aren't an elected or appointed official, people will often look to them for guidance because they know a Paladin isn't out to screw them. Even elected officials will seize the opportunity to enlist the aid of a Paladin for the same reasons. They aren't just some random mercenary. They are always noble, altruistic, and HONEST. No other profession can claim the same high standards unless it has a similar code of conduct.

*Cue 1960's-esque Red Raven theme song complete with visualized sound effects when people get punched.*

I think whether you can start the feat without being evil and whether you can finish the feat without being evil are different questions.

If the player can come up with a plausible explanation for why they have so much blood on their hands, then they can take the feat. Then if they want to stay non-evil, it's a roleplaying challenge to resolve out how to balance their code of ethics with their killing spree.

But if you can kill one intelligent non-combatant for personal gain or for no greater cause without having it be an evil act, it should be possible to kill 200 intelligent non-combatants for personal gain or for no greater cause without having it be an evil act. Simply repeating the exculpatory circumstances of the first time 199 more times should be sufficient.

Whether or not it is possible to do this once or two hundred times and maintain your current alignment is irrelevant. This story feat makes it a personal GOAL to do this 200 times.

But before we continue, lets define the word "Goal"

'Goal: the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result.'

That means this is something on your bucket list. It's not just some circumstance that you'll face sometime in your life where you're put in the position where you HAVE TO SLAY 200 NON COMBATANTS. You are actively seeking these people out at every opportunity and getting a (mechanically definable) rush from killing them.

Yes, actually. I'm not saying that being Evil (with a capital 'E')doesn't make this feat much, much, easier to qualify for. - I maintain, simply, that it is both plausible and possible for a character of a non-evil alignment to qualify and complete.

I take it as a given that semantic discussions on the word "cause" are completely irrelevant, because trying to push this to extremes only serves to make it completely impossible to qualify for the feat, or makes it so everyone qualifies for the feat. (I went into more detail on this earlier)

I have to disagree with you on this. I already stated that it is quite possible for a non evil person to meet the prerequisites for this feat. What makes this feat evil is the 'goal' that I mentioned earlier. Goals aren't something you meet by happenstance. They are your ambitions. They are the thing you go to sleep thinking about at night. You have a quota to fill and you want to fill it.

The fact that this story feat does not require an evil alignment as a prerequisite is more of a design failure than an admission that lawful good characters can be murderhobos too.

1) If you're a Holy Paladim of Pharasma eradicating as many undead as you can come across, without exception, you're automatically Lawful Good. It maters not one whit whether or not the undead that you're destroying serve a benefical purpose in society, nor does it matter whether or not they become undead willingly or not. They all must die.

You are a lawful good paladin of Pharasma. You serve a higher purpose and are slaying these undead because you are sworn to. Does not count as 'for personal gain or no reason at all.'

Now there is no one left to check the wizard from going on a murder spree of his own in bloodlust. The villages that bear the brunt of this seek their revenge against the paladin, because the grief stricken wizard would never have gone on his rampage if not for his wife's second death. (Again kind of trite, but plausible in an RPG setting)

At which point the villagers are no longer 'noncombatants' as they are now seeking to do the Paladin harm. Again, this will not fill the quota.

Or, a slightly more M. Night Shyamalan approach - The surrounding village is some sort of blited place where grieving family members have taken to placing their dead in order that they're guaranteed to come back as some form of undead, with the aggrieved family members reaminin there to monitor, and keep them from becoming harmful.

Could not one see a Paladin of Pharasma absolutely destroying such a heinous affront against the nature of things? This is a lawful good act, and completely in keeping with the Paladin code... technically. Or wait..., is it evil? You just murdered a bunch of innocents who hadn't actually harmed anyone. Hmm... - Could it just be possible for a Lawful Good character to kill a bunch of non-combatants too, and find people who want to see justifiable revenge as much?

And again, as a Paladin that is sworn to destroy undead in order to serve a higher purpose, you are not destroying these creatures 'for personal gain or for no reason at all'.

2) You're an adventurer hired by a group of townsfolk to eradicate the local goblin menace in order to prevent them from raiding and being a general nuisance. So far, none of the villagers have actually ever been harmed in the raids, except financially, but it is significant to them because this particular tribe is larger than normal.

You go ahead and kill off the goblins, accept your payment, and shove off. You return to the village a month latter for friendly R&R, and you find the village devoid of all life. - Little did you know, the goblins had been busily eating of a very poisonous and fast growing fungus, preventing it from spreading into the countryside. Your actions directly caused the death and dissolution of the village.

You are trying to blur the line between directly and indirectly. To quote common rules in the Story Feats section of the PFSRD:

"Slay: Slaying a foe includes killing it, destroying it, turning it to stone, banishing it to the Abyss, or otherwise eliminating it in a fashion reversible only by powerful magic. Unless otherwise noted, you must deal the final blow yourself to slay a creature."

Your Goal: 'SLAY' 200 intelligent noncombatants.

You must be the one to deliver the killing blow. Not be the one that dealt with a problem that led to another unforeseen problem that led to people dying. This does not qualify.

Sooner or later relatives of the former villagers (from neighboring villages) find out how your action caused the death of loved ones, and they hire another adventurer to find you and bring you to justice.

See my response about aforementioned deaths not qualifying. Also an adventurer that comes to bring you to 'justice' would not count as a noncombatant. So unless the aforementioned 'relatives of former villagers' came and took up arms, this would have absolutely no bearing on this story feat.

Alternate scenario: A group of hobgoblins that have been relying on the local goblin tribe for tithes decide they don't like you killling off the breeding stock of their lesser cousins and send one of their best fighters after you.

Then a bounty has been placed on your head. This is neither someone trying to bring you to justice, nor someone trying to usurp your position. It is someone going after you because you hurt their business.

3)You're a knight (or mercenary if that makes you feel better) besieging the castle of an enemy king. The dastardly coward decides to relocate entire families to the walls in order to discourage the use of trebuchet, catapults, and ballistae. - You're a knight (realistically) only because this is what you had to be in order to be prosperous, and actually own land in your kingdom (feudal system at work), and lay siege to the castle at the expense of the innocents at the walls.

You're found to have been the major reason for the success of the battle, and the besieged king seeks you out for it. (Or family members of the deceased if that makes you feel better, because how could an "Evil" person what to punish others for the violation of his laws?)

The king that put families on a wall being besieged by siege weapons is just as responsible for the deaths of these people. Also, you are in the service of a king, you are attacking those walls because the king ordered you to. You are serving a higher authority. Does not meet the 'for personal gain or no reason at all' quota requirement. There is a reason you are there, it is to take the castle in service of a king. And assuming the besieged king seeks you out for any reason, it will be because you brought down his walls, not because you mercilessly slaughtered the helpless people HE put there in the first place. As for family members of the deceased, I'd think they would be a little more angry at the king who put their loved ones in a war zone where they were guaranteed to die.

(EDIT) It's really, really, easy to come up with plausible reasons for this feat to apply to all sorts of situations if you think on it. The very, very, funny thing about trying to take a position of moral superiority here is that the more you try to be absolute, the more credence you lend to the argument I propose simply because of alignment as it is applied in Pathfinder.

It's very funny that you would accuse me of taking a position of 'moral superiority' when all I have done is used sound reasoning to analyze this story feat and address contrived scenarios that try to rationalize a character's life long goal of wholesale slaughter. This character is the very definition of a Psychopath. Psychology 101 bro.

Is killing noncombatants always evil? Nope. It's OK as long as the noncombatants are Orc or Goblin.

GR8B8M8

What about the Lawful Good Paladin killing a bunch of noncombatant villagers because they were complicit in a mass "animate dead" ceremony to bring back loved ones? That's absolutely good, because after all a Paladin must be lawful good in order to be a paladin.

GR8RB8M8

Are laws always written by good people? Could not an evil society also have its own laws? Ravenloft? Anyone?

How is this relevant? I still have yet to see a credible scenario of non evil character personally slaying 200 noncombatants for simply 'personal gain or no reason at all'. No use in skipping to the endgame, right?

Seriously, whether or not the predominat majority of characters would be evil in order to take this feat is not at issue. - What is at issue is the fact that characters of any alignment could manage to take, and complete this feat- even if the road is a little bit more interesting than the stock answer of: "He's got to be evil, and just love killing people"

You are right about the first part. Non evil characters can indeed qualify for this feat. But taking this STORY feat means accepting that your characters goal in life involves seeking out those who would do you no harm and ending their lives. Not because they were ordered to. Not because circumstances led to it. Because they want to. Because they choose to. Unlike normal feats, the very mechanics of the feat dictate your characters motivation for filling this quota. "Personal gain or no reason at all." This isn't 'power attack' or 'dodge' where your mechanical bonuses don't imply a moral standpoint. This story feat dictates things about your character whether you want It to or not. It gives you a background and a goal. Kill people who don't or can't fight back because you get mechanical bonuses from it and if you do it enough, get even BIGGER mechanical bonuses from it. Don't do it to serve a higher purpose, do it because you want to do it. Do it because you personally benefit from it or just because you feel like it. Despite people disagreeing with me, I fail to see anyone other than an evil character having this mindset.

(EDIT) - If it helps, I can think of a probably one of the best examples from popular culture:

Sam & Dean Winchester - How many innocents do you think that these chuckleheads managed to kill? (both on purpose and not) Which of them hasn't made the requisite kill tally in spades by alternating selfish-bouts of getting the other brother resurrected at great cost to the rest of the world? Who here wants to make the argument that they are outright evil? (Discounting the odd bout of slumming it with the demons, depending on the season) Think someone, somewhere want's revenge? (Oops. Forgot. That plot-point was overdone by the time the 11th season rolled around)

SUPERNATURAL! Having seen just about every episode of this show, I can pretty much say without a doubt that these two characters wouldn't fit the bill for this feat. Neither of them seem to go after innocent people who can't fight back and personally slay them in order to get a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls and caster level checks for 1 minute. And I highly doubt either of them wake up in the morning thinking about confronting those 'evil noncombatants who are plaguing nobody'. Yes, their actions have collateral damage. But the story feat being discussed has more specific requirements.

Point is: Evil people don't have a monopoly on evil acts.

They most certainly do by definition.

You're not getting it. The people that disagree with you mostly care about rules, not descriptive text. The feat could be called Supreme Evil Overlord, but if there was no evil alignment requirement, they'd make the case that you don't have to be evil.

If you want to try to see it from their eyes, imagine that you are a lawyer and your client is charged with not following the rules. Your job is to defend your client. With that mindset, read the feat again.

You are wrong. I totally get it. I care about rules too. You act as if I have solely addressed the fluff of this feat when I have in fact addressed the mechanics of it as well. There are rules about alignment and what it means to be good and evil.

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

Good Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil 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.

Neutral 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.

OP made this post because they had reservations about what it would lead to. If you disagree with me after I have made my case, that is totally fine. That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. It just means that perhaps we have different ideas of what a story feat (that makes you look at innocent life as just another notch in your murderhobo quota) will lead to.

Okay I know I gave my viewpoint a bit more succinctly earlier on in this thread. Counter points have arisen and I feel the need to break this feat down and explain exactly why I view this as 'evil' only.

(Story)

With their deaths, the pitiful wretches that inhabit this world open your path to greatness.

Right off the bat, the theme of this story feat suggests using the lives of others as a stepping stone to your own personal glory. Do you think of LG or even TN characters when you read this? I do not.

You must slay at least 50 intelligent noncombatants for either your own personal gain or for no cause at all, or have the Bloodthirsty, First Kill, or The Kill background.

Obviously the original prereq seems morally questionable. You are seeking out people who mean you no harm and taking their lives. This is a vital part of your character's narrative. How many neutral or good aligned characters do you know of that go out of their way to take the lives of this many noncombatants during the course of a campaign? How many DM's do you know that would allow that character to maintain a neutral or good alignment while doing so?

Then we come across some alternative prereqs: Bloodthirsty, First Kill, and The Kill Background. Lets take a look at those!

The first time you spilled a deserving foe's blood and watched the thing's life ebb out onto the hard ground, you found yourself filled with a mad, euphoric ecstasy like none other. The memory of this visceral experience returns to you in every battle, like an insatiable addiction that can only be abated with further bloodshed. You gain access to the Bloodthirsty combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.

Okay so you don't have to kill 50 noncombatants to qualify for this feat. The initial victim may have even been deserving. But the very description states that taking a life is the one thing that fulfills you more than anything else. Killing is your drug. Sound like a Lawful good character? Sound like a Neutral character? My vote goes no.

You killed someone when you were relatively young. You might have done it in self-defense, in anger, or as part of an initiation ritual, and it was easier than you suspected. Afterward, some individuals or groups started paying you to kill for them, and you made a lucrative career of assassination. You gain access to the Killer combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.

Okay so you only killed one person. And you liked it! So much so that you made a career out of it. You are an Assassin for hire. Evil by definition. Not much more to say.

You've had blood on your hands since your youth, when you first took the life of another creature. Whether this act repulsed you or gave you pleasure, it was a formative experience. You gain access to the Killer combat trait and the Innocent Blood story feat.

Okay so here is at least ONE possible prerequisite that doesn't require you to be a murderhobo right off the bat! One concrete background that leaves the door open to the possibility that you may be repentant for what you've done! I call this Progress! (With a capital P for some reason)

Now on to the Benefit...

You gain a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in Intimidate, this bonus increases to +4. Each time you slay an intelligent creature, you gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls and caster level checks for 1 minute (this bonus does not stack with itself).

You are a scary guy.. This doesn't necessarily make you evil. You could generally flavor the 'getting a rush from defeating a foe' part as the adrenaline that any warrior could experience. However, since the 'intelligent creature' definition does not discriminate between a CR 20 Balor or a CR 0 newborn baby in a crib, a character can benefit from this from killing either. Taking lives gives you bonuses. Pretty straight forward.

Slay at least 200 more intelligent noncombatants, then slay a challenging foe that seeks to either bring you to justice for your crimes or usurp your position.

Here, we come to another problem. Even assuming you took the ONE character background that allowed you to avoid the initial murder spree, you now have incentive to similarly kill TWO HUNDRED noncombatants. This means you are actively seeking out people who mean you no legitimate harm and ending their lives either just for the sake of doing so, or because you benefit directly from their deaths (Kill and take their stuff, kill them because they inconvenienced you in some way). You are taking the lives of people who would either not take up arms against you, or lack the means or doing so.

As if Fifty people wasn't bad enough... Can you honestly say that you remember a non evil character that went out of their way to kill TWO HUNDRED noncombatants over the course of a campaign? It's a real stretch. This is a feat that rewards you for looking for fights where there would be none, otherwise. Causing undue suffering and death. That is evil.

As for those who make the 'executioner' argument seem to have a good point. Although executioners generally kill to serve a justice system. Even if this justice system is corrupt and vile, you are serving a cause other than your own by performing the killings in this manner. Or you could say the guy just took the job for the money. "Nothing personal guy. But my wallet gets fatter when your head rolls." Remind you of anyone? (looking at you Assassin)

This leads me back to the feat description: "With their deaths, the pitiful wretches that inhabit this world open your path to greatness." You are using the deaths of noncombatants as a stepping stone for your personal benefit and for no other reason. You do not value the life of another person enough to even come close to regretting your actions. This is something you could do TWO HUNDRED TIMES and never bat an eye. In fact this is something you WANT to do TWO HUNDRED TIMES. It is your personal goal to take the lives of two hundred people who would have otherwise done real harm to you.

And for this murderhobo achievement, you get:

Any shaken creature takes double the normal penalties when attacking you, making saves against your abilities, or resolving skill checks with you as a target.

Assuming you fulfilled the ONE entry requirement that would leave the door open for you initially being non-evil aligned.. Can you honestly say that non evil alignment would even be a remote possibility after you have acquired this 'Completion Benefit'? I would say certainly not.

In that case, you don't really have to rely on strength to do damage at all. You can leave it at 12 and boost dex and charisma as much as you can. Painful stare will keep your damage at reasonable levels.

Level 1 Feat: Intimidating Glance

Swift action intimidate will do wonders for debuffing everything about a more dangerous opponent. Every single one of your allies, be they spellcasters or melee bruisers will benefit from this.

Level 3 Feat: Weapon Finesse.

This helps your accuracy greatly. And it helps synergize offense and defense more importantly. At this point you don't need to worry about more damage because you're dealing an extra 1d6+1 precision damage with your painful stare. That means even your sword cane will be dealing around 2d6+2 damage at this point. Pretty damned decent.

Level 5 Feat: Battle Cry

A swift action to give everyone within 30ft a +1 morale bonus to attack rolls and a +4 morale bonus on will saves vs Fear. That's not even the best part. Any time during this minute, anyone under this effect can re-roll a failed save (ANY SAVE). This is priceless. Your charisma will be high enough that you'll easily be able to use it 3-4 times per day. It's great support that helps keep your team in one piece. It requires 5 ranks in perform or some nonsense.. Easily worth the price.

As for spells:

I would recommend Grease, Ill Omen, Ray of Enfeeblement or Silent Image.

All of them are extremely helpful in situations. Ray of Enfeeblement can really ruin a bosses day, even if they succeed at the save. And higher dex means you hit more often. Ill Omen for when you wanna SUPER debuff someone's will save and open them up to another spell from a friendly spellcaster. Grease cause grease is fun and hilarious. Silent Image because there are so many fun and creative uses for it.

I hope you find this advice useful.

EDIT: I JUST noticed the saves on your sheet are wrong. Your Base Reflex save bonus should be 2, not Zero.

I love the Mesmerist class. It can excel in melee combat and debuff people into oblivion. Having said that, I strongly recommend focusing on dexterity based combat. Yes, it is more feat intensive. But a caster class needs dexterity far more than it needs strength. Keep Dexterity and Charisma high and your saves will be grand. You will need higher AC if you are going into melee combat regularly. And dexterity meshes much better with the Mesmerist's skillset.

As for first level feats: Intimidating Glance is a great first step towards your debuffing spree. Swift action intimidation towards your Hypnotic Stare target. And it'll help the entire party. Power Attack won't benefit you much.

Regardless of if you take my advice, I do hope you have fun with this character. I really had fun with my Mesmerist.

A feat that motivates you to kill for personal gain or for no reason whatsoever can never be justified as anything but evil. Even neutral characters have problems with killing innocent people. You'd have to go out of your way to slaughter 50 noncombatants. Doesn't matter what alignment they are. Noncombatant means they aren't trying to kill you or otherwise pose no threat to you at all.

This feat encourages the murder hobo lifestyle. Yes it might be fun for a little bit like the first chapter of Baldur's Gate where I snuck around and backstabbed everyone except Gorion just to see if I could.

But, you are fooling yourself if you think this feat is going on anything other than an evil character. In fact I would outright ban this feat if someone tried to justify its use as non evil at my table.

I do have fond memories of using this with my first Pathfinder Half-Orc Barbarian. Started out at level 4. The DM had randomly generated a +1 Mighty Cleaving Earthbreaker from a high level encounter. I managed to snag the Cleave feat by the very next level and the next couple of games were GLORIOUS.

It's very fun at low levels in tight quarters where you can control the flow of mooks more easily. And to be fair, I DID end up lucking out on random treasure, which helped immensely.

Another tactical advantage to this feat (And by extension, great cleave) is that I was able to keep enemies from swarming me, or at least influence the positions they attack from if they knew that I'd be able to wipe the floor with all of them with a single standard action. Especially useful for a barbarian with lower AC and much higher than normal damage output. It either made enemy mooks that were overly aggressive die much more quickly. OR it made them too timid and gave my allies time to rally and push into the battlefield, attacking higher value targets.

I won't argue that it's usefulness does dwindle a little bit during higher levels. Still, my first Pathfinder experience was that much more enjoyable because of it. If a feat can do that for a first time player. Then I say it's okay in my book.

I just found a new side business for Magic Mart, owner and proprietor of Magic Mart: zookeeper of exotic beasts and monsters. He rents out good polymorph choices to Druids and other polymorph school specialists so that they may get the required "familiarity" with the creature.

While I love the idea. I'm pretty sure Druids would come from all over the globe to see this business for a completely different reason. They'd probably bust up the owners business for keeping the animals in captivity and then spend some time with the animals for freeeee!

This is exactly why I find the idea so laughable. I understand you are trying to describe a character with a neutral alignment. And to your credit you do a wonderful job of that. At this point, you could replace the word 'paladin' with the word 'brigand' and it would fit almost perfectly.

This is simply someone wanting to use a Paladin class and wipe away all the uniqueness of the character, looking for excuses to play a character that is apathetic towards the plight of most other people, yet still somehow gets divine powers of.. could we even call it righteousness at this point? Nah I think not.. Divine powers of.. Detachment! That defines this character quite well. Who is this character going to smite? Someone that actually gives a crap?

"Hey guy you care too much. *smite*"

It's like someone wanting to play a druid that doesn't give two monkey droppings about nature, yet somehow is able to wield the full arsenal of nature against his foes. Just doesn't fit.

memorax wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

I can tell you exactly why most GMs don't reposition players off the tower. It's against the rules.

Reposition Rules: APG Page 322 wrote:

You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire.

You learn something new everyday. I thought one could reposition enemies. Surprise surprise it requires a feat with a feat tax to actually do it.

What's even worse is it doesn't matter whether or not the characters KNOW the space is intrinsically dangerous.

There could be a pitfall trap placed in the space by a third party and the rules technically forbid it because that space is 'intrinsically dangerous.'

Wait wait.... Are you saying that we've discovered a fullproof substitute for trapfinding? Are you telling me that a two man team can reposition themselves across a dungeon and insta fail the moment they come across a dangerous space they didn't know was dangerous, then BAM trap discovered?

Trying to reinforce an argument by summoning the imaginary opinion of casual players who don't even take the time to analyze an issue does not help said argument.

Furthermore, if there is a message board full of people who DO take the time to analyze said argument in a thoughtful way from many angles as has been done on this and many other boards, their argument is the one I will pay mind to.

Saying stuff like... "Casual players aren't going to notice X and Y" is an insult to their poor imaginary intellect. Imaginary people are smarter than you give them credit for. Give them some time spent using a system and they will start to notice that Class Y is growing to meet appropriate challenges while Class X is relegated to doing the same thing it's been doing since level 1, only with marginally bigger numbers.

With each new level, they will notice Class Y's options are growing exponentially while Class X can swing/shoot a weapon a little better.

They will notice Class Y is laughing at the 'Wealth By Level' system while they casually craft magical gear at half price WITH NO DRAWBACKS while Class X has to struggle to find and afford the equipment they need to stay effective at the one thing they are doing competently.

They will notice that Class Y's methods of travel expand to include 3-4 new movement modes INCLUDING TELEPORTATION while Class X is stuck with the same movement modes it had at level 1, maybe gaining a faster land speed through Boots of Springing and Striding if they can manage to fit such an expensive item into their budget.

They will notice Class Y does not have to adhere to the 'Big 6' rule as heavily as Class X due to the ability of Class Y to emulate such effects through a tiny fraction of class features or the ability to bypass certain threats completely using another tiny fraction of said class features. Meanwhile, Class X needs to shore up their defenses as much as possible due to the fact that the only way they can solve a problem is by getting up close and personal with a threat. The big 6 are absolute necessity for Class X.

I could go on but alas it is time for lunch.

~BHoF

To be fair... Elves DO have a pretty sweet favored class bonus for druids... +1/3 natural armor bonus in wild shape. That can amount to a pretty decent bonus.

Motherf*#%er we're back folks.

Time to get to work on another thread titled: "Do Martials need nice things, or better things?"

1 Ki point gives you +4 AC for 1 round

1 first level spell gives you +4 AC for 1 hour/level

This is the scope of the disparity even when martials are given a resource pool. Granted potions of mage armor exist. But that just leads back to the fact that martials have to pay for what casters get for using a tiny fraction of their daily resources.

Casters can even get bracers of armor half price with a single feat. That's an extra 12.5k gold of effective character wealth saved by 10th level (for +5 bracers of armor). That's not even counting the other wondrous items crafted like a Cloak of Resistance or headband/belt.

That right there is probably a 40% increase in effective wealth AND there are SIX other magic items slots that can be filled at half price with a crafting feat.

Just for an example:

+2 Amulet of natural armor... add another 4k to the savings..
Robe of Components... another 2.5k saved
Spectacles of Understanding 1.5k saved
BOOTS OF SPEED BECAUSE YOU GOTTA GO FAST 6k saved
Gloves of Storing because you need to hide your feminine beauty products somewhere 5k saved

That's going to amount to an approximate 80% increase in wealth by 10th level, easily leaving you enough funds for scrolls, wands, metamagic rods, rings and whatever else you need.

And to add insult to injury, Hedge Magician is a trait that shaves off an extra 5% off the cost of creating wondrous items. No feat/trait combo available to martials delivers that kind of raw power increase. This is just one aspect of what makes non-casters inferior to casters. YES they need better things.

This is Rant-Man signing off

I just need 5 things a martial can do that's necessary to a group that's not easily filled by the spell casters.

Challenge accepted:

1. You need a Martial in your Party to make you feel better about yourself in comparison. They improve party morale by setting an example of mediocrity.

2. You need a Martial in your Party so that you help this downtrodden soul with magical support and thus feel better about yourself even more. They improve party morale by encouraging charity.

3. You need a Martial in your Party because there has to be at least ONE person in your party who you can prank with impunity because they don't have ranks in spellcraft or access to detect magic.

4. You need a Martial in your Party because they save you a 'Summon Monster I-X' spell slot every now and then.

5. You need a Martial in your Party to remind you why you don't play a martial.

Yes, martials really do need better things. Wow this was a little too easy. If only someone would create a thread that posed the question of WHY martials need better things.. Then we'll really be cooking with gas.

I have seen eidolons outperform purely martial classes in combat situations and they even get more skillpoints per level than a fighter. Evolutions alone bring more benefit to combat and flexibility than the entire pool of fighter bonus feats. The fighter gets shown up by a class feature of a class feature. If that doesn't indicate poor class design then i don't know what does.

Instead of debating an obvious trap scenario, I instead pose this question:

If a paladin falls in the forest and there's no-one around... Then how the hell did he fall in the first place?

Calling all Ackbars.. Repeat... Calling all Ackbars. A paladin thread has been detected in this quadrant. Sound the alarm!

Aside from the Kineticist.. I think the other 1/3rd of the book is pretty easy to follow.

When dealing with a truly horrific, evil enemy, whom is vastly powerful, and a threat to the world- I don't see the problem with bringing him or her to heel. It's not as 'honorable' as just killing this villain, but some would see it as justice for a tyrant, by making use of their powers to help destroy other evils in the world. Of course it could eventually backfire if control is broken.

That's just one take. I can totally see where you're coming from though.

A good Mesmerist is a challenging character to roleplay, but in my opinion it's a very interesting and fun challenge.

I'm currently playing a Chaotic Good Mesmerist who is a healer (without the Cure spells, yeah I know..) But he's going to be more focused on rehabilitation and therapeutic treatment. He makes use of hypnosis, mindscapes, touch treatments and all that good stuff to help people work through their issues and he's got a killer bonus to bluff/diplomacy/intimidate. He's also a quasi-follower of Sarenrae and wields a scimitar (heirloom weapon trait). Having a blast so far.

I do kind of find the whole 'permanent thrall' thing a bit much for a good aligned character. Especially for a chaotic good character. I'll be exploring alternatives further down the road.

I like the game as a whole just fine.

What I don't like is when a viable option for play gets errata'd to the point where it's no longer worth taking under any circumstance.

Take for example Arcane Deed. The ruling that a Magus no longer counts as having panache means Arcane Deed has no options to choose from:

Kip Up: Doesn't work

Menacing Swordplay: Doesn't work

Precise Strike: Doesn't work

Swashbuckler Initiative: Doesn't work

Swashbuckler's Grace: Doesn't work

Superior Feint: Doesn't work

Targeted Strike: Works.. But what Magus in their right mind would spend an arcane pool point to use this?

Bleeding Wound: Works.. But again why? Also... why waste a level 12+ arcana on this?

Evasive: Doesn't work

Subtle Blade: Doesn't work and it's a damn shame it doesn't...

Dizzying Defense: Works.. But who in their right mind would take this for a 15+ arcana?

Perfect Thrust: Doesn't work

Swashbucklers Edge: Doesn't work

Cheat Death: Works.. But takes all your pool points to work. And to add insult to injury, you can't even take it as your 18th level arcana because it requires 19th level! You have to blow a feat on extra arcana to get this..

Deadly Stab: Works.. But if you're a 19th level Magus and have to rely on save or die effects to put foes in the ground and not your mind blowing crits... then you have failed at life. Also 19+ required.

Stunning Stab: Works... See Deadly Stab only you somehow failed even more.

All of these deeds could previously be utilized by a Magus. Now the ones that remain are beyond pitiful and to add insult to injury, require a previous arcana just to select. It bothers me when options are given then taken away. It is the reason I always try to ignore errata unless it is actually helpful to the game.

It's a lot easier to houserule away a particular game mechanic I don't like.

Just a tad more difficult to deal with an unplesant player.

Ten years from now, you will all look back fondly on the days when the Dodge Feat provided a flat +1 dodge bonus to AC instead of the newly revised Dodge feat that now gives you a +1 bonus to reflex saves during a full moon and has 'Skill Focus(Profession: Baker)' as a prerequisite... And also requires you to be a Gnome.

First off.. Loving the Mesmerist class.

Now, I had started my Mesmerist out at 3rd level and had just leveled him up to 7th level. I had my eye on Butterfly Sting (A feat that lets you pass a crit to the next lucky S.O.B. that hits a guy.) because one of his friends happens to be a beefed up Scythe Wielding Half-Orc Fighter. Lo and behold, a prerequisite for this feat is COMBAT EXPERTISE. I found myself having to take this feat so I could get Butterfly Sting at 9th level. Seemed like a bit of a drag at the time. But it'd be well worth getting to see my team-mate suddenly critting like a boss. Then, the finished product hits the shelves almost immediately afterwards.

It has a lot of what I was hoping to find and I have used the playtest version (with the updated revisions) to great effect.

The spells are great.
Hypnotic/Painful stare is an awesome debuff/damage combo.
The Mesmerist tricks are a lot of fun.
Touch Treatment is friggin sweet. Oh, did you fail that will save vs fear/confusion/dazing? *Boop!* All better.
They even added a debilitating stare option that lowers DC's of Spells and SLA's AS WELL AS SR of opponents you stare down. Say HWAT?

I don't even care that the "Glib Lie" Class feature was pushed back from 9th level to 11th. The class is just so awesome.

Then I come to read the new version of Consummate Liar... This revised version of the class feature now allows you to ignore COMBAT EXPERTISE AND INT 13 as prerequisites... (oh boy we're really cooking with gas, now) ... BUT only for the feats Improved/Greater Feint and other feats in that chain.

Okay... okay it's a step in the right direction. (A small step) The designers seem to be slowly recognizing what a waste of space Combat Expertise is as a feat. Feinting isn't a horrible option for that class, especially when there are now feats that let you feint against mindless opponents! That's pretty awesome.

Still... If that wasn't the path I wanted to take my Mesmerist down, I am forced to take Combat Expertise despite having a class feature that says you can ignore it for certain things. That's like getting a surprise birthday party in your honor and then having someone walk up to you and stick their finger in your birthday cake. It's the ONE thing that kept the Mesmerist from being the perfect class for me. And it was an UPGRADE from the playtested version!

I have decided. From now on, any game I take part in, I will push for feat taxes like this to be wiped from existence and just made into vanilla combat options. It's not that Combat Expertise is the WORST feat I've seen in the game. But it's EVERYWHERE. Taking a look at the PFSRD Feat Tree, I count FOURTY feats that have Combat Expertise as a prerequisite. To me, that is inexcusable. Getting rid of this ONE feat would allow players to have far greater diversity in the characters they make.

The real insult of Combat Expertise is that you either have to take it early on (at 1st level) so that you can access better stuff as you level, at which point it provides a pitiful tradeoff which makes even DODGE look better by comparison. Or you wait until higher level and have to suck it up and take it (for what I would still compare a pitiful tradeoff) while ignoring much better options for that level. There's just no winning with this feat. It pigeonholes every character that wants to be good at maneuvers and forces them to be smarter than the average beatstick. Seems to me that more intelligent characters should be able to get a better trade than -1/+1 when fighting defensively.

There's my two cents on the matter.. okay eighty three cents. I am curious to hear what others think of this situation as well as the class as a whole.

Moral relativism does not undo the definitions of alignment that Pathfinder has laid out:

"Good Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil 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.

Neutral 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."

Even neutral characters take issue with killing the innocent. Depriving a child of the right to life because they are a certain race or because they might cause trouble for you later reflects the pettiness and sloth of an evil alignment.

This is all in-game. The fight was in an okd crypt, the party wandered right into an ambush I warned them about, and began to die. My CN pc, having only been with them a day, left. She assumed they would die in a cave full of undead, and so caved in the entrance to prevent the enemy from getting out. They survived, get back to the base-camp, and find out I told the npcs they probably died. Paladin challenges me to a fight to the death (with no choice to say no) and I win, but let him live. Still acts hostile at every opportunity since.

It sounds like your character acted reasonably. Survival instinct is not evil. Your PC warned the others about an ambush and they ignored him, walking into what would have otherwise been a TPK if not for DM intervening. They should not blame you for taking extra measures to contain a threat that they underestimated.

Too often Players don't think things through when approaching a situation, assuming they can outmelee or outcast whatever they run into. I believe it is unfair for other players to penalize yours for being the only one who recognized the actual scope of a threat and acted accordingly while they stood and fought blindly. Yours should be able to make the argument that they warned them it was extremely dangerous, and they should be reasonable enough to take you at your word, since PC's did die, afterall.

Paladin's may be the kind to meet a threat head on. But they should not expect everyone else to deal with a situation the same way. He knows the party rogue or mage won't stand toe to toe with threats like he does. A group needs to have a Plan B and maybe even Plan C when it comes to stuff like this.

If you want to continue to play this character in this group, you must talk to the player and more importantly, the DM. Remind the DM that it was his actions that saved the rest of the party from annihilation while it was your own actions that saved your own PC's life. It was his intervention that placed your PC in this situation.

See if you can work out a way for your character to redeem himself in the eyes of the party (keywords being 'in the eyes of the party' since, in my opinion, your character did nothing wrong at all). If you can do that, then great! If not, then time to roll another character up or find a new group.

I FOUND THEM.

Sandals of Quick Reaction! Gives you the ability to take a move and a standard action during a surprise round. I KNEW there was an item that did it.

I'm gonna have to ditto what K.B. said regarding the subject of X vs: Y. The purpose of this guide isn't to make the claim that the Assassin PrC is superior to other classes when it comes to doing whatever it is you want to do. We created this guide as an attempt to help people utilize this PrC more effectively if they should so choose.

The tiers of power have been well established for years. If you want to become a wizard and completely dominate reality, or a druid that wildshapes into "Celestial Blink Raptor Jesus", then more power to ya (literally and figuratively). Do whatever lets you and the people you play with have fun.

However, when you become accustomed to this level of power, you may lose sight of the satisfaction you can get out of rising to a challenge by using the road less traveled. Assassin is definitely NOT the most effective killing machine. It's a killing machine of a different sort. It is one that presents a challenge to a player that both requires and rewards careful planning and creativity. Will your target always fail their save vs death? Maybe not. Will some opponents be more difficult to hit than others? Most definitely. That doesn't mean you can't have fun trying.

PS: Thanks to everyone who gave suggestions.

~BHoF