If the class's whole point is to murder, then it should have an evil alignment restriction. Doesn't matter who they're murdering for. Murder for Country is still murder.
Hey. Just want to point out that murder is defined as the "unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought" and as such killing for Country is not murder. Depending on circumstances it may be a war crime, but never murder.
Now many consider murder Malum in se, or "evil in itself", but if Pathfinder shared this view than all heroes would be evil. By this definition the very act of killing is evil, even if in self-defense or defense of another. As basically all that a character does in Pathfinder (or any game for that mater) is kill things then this becomes a problem. Especially if you consider murder the killing of any intelligent creature.
As such I would consider "any non-good" to be the best alignment for Ninjas and Assassins. I will withhold my own views on whether or not murder is evil.
You make a compelling case, and I revise my earlier statements. Non-good should be the limitation.
I do think "any evil" should still be the prereq for assassin due to the initiation ceremony though. Because if you weren't evil before you did it, a good GM will make you evil afterward.
|
I do think "any evil" should still be the prereq for assassin due to the initiation ceremony though. Because if you weren't evil before you did it, a good GM will make you evil afterward.
I think non-Good is a better prereq, and the character should only turn Evil if the act deserves it. My player's halfling rogue calmly knifing his target as soon as he got positive ID? Evil. The human fighter who arranges the body respectfully with a word of apology and payment for the ferryman? Neutral.
|
|
I do think "any evil" should still be the prereq for assassin due to the initiation ceremony though. Because if you weren't evil before you did it, a good GM will make you evil afterward.I think non-Good is a better prereq, and the character should only turn Evil if the act deserves it. My player's halfling rogue calmly knifing his target as soon as he got positive ID? Evil. The human fighter who arranges the body respectfully with a word of apology and payment for the ferryman? Neutral.
Actually I think that borders on the psychotic/serial killer side of things. MO anyone?
I do think "any evil" should still be the prereq for assassin due to the initiation ceremony though. Because if you weren't evil before you did it, a good GM will make you evil afterward.I think non-Good is a better prereq, and the character should only turn Evil if the act deserves it. My player's halfling rogue calmly knifing his target as soon as he got positive ID? Evil. The human fighter who arranges the body respectfully with a word of apology and payment for the ferryman? Neutral.
"Sorry I had to murder you to get my prestige class, here's some last rites" counts as neutral in your game?
/shrug
To each his own I guess.
|
|
I do think "any evil" should still be the prereq for assassin due to the initiation ceremony though. Because if you weren't evil before you did it, a good GM will make you evil afterward.I think non-Good is a better prereq, and the character should only turn Evil if the act deserves it. My player's halfling rogue calmly knifing his target as soon as he got positive ID? Evil. The human fighter who arranges the body respectfully with a word of apology and payment for the ferryman? Neutral."Sorry I had to murder you to get my prestige class, here's some last rites" counts as neutral in your game?
/shrug
To each his own I guess.
One act does not evil make.
Also, no character I ever run will even know what a 'prestige class' is.
Of course, no character of mine will ever need an 'assassin' class to be an assassin.
A Ranger is basicly an assassin against monsters for revenge.
I could see a Ranger getting a death attack against their favored enemy. Yes, technically you could have a death attack against an undead, but it would be called a destruction attack.
Signature
Warning, my spelling is very bad.
Leave no pun behind.
Counterpoint: Rangers are not required to hate/be out for revenge against their Favored Enemies.
Example: I played a dwarven ranger with FE: Humans to represent his study of their culture in preparation to be an ambassador from the dwarven kingdoms to the human kingdoms.
...and you know, when dipolmacy broke down, you'd be da bomb at killing humans yo!
I think you invented a variant class of Ranger.
Ambassador.
Ninja is still a variant assassin that fights for honor.
See The Hidden Blade. That guy was like the first Ninja.
Signature
Warning, my spelling is very bad.
Leave no pun behind.
|
|
I think you invented a variant class of Ranger.
Ambassador.
Can you really call it a variant class if you change none of the rules it uses? I don't believe changing the fluff makes it a different class, nor do I believe changing a character's class makes him a different character.
...and you know, when dipolmacy broke down, you'd be da bomb at killing humans yo!
Just as a surgeon would be excellent at torturing a man without killing him.
One act does not evil make.
One senseless murder does.
Or so I'd think.
I think you invented a variant class of Ranger.
Ambassador.Can you really call it a variant class if you change none of the rules it uses? I don't believe changing the fluff makes it a different class, nor do I believe changing a character's class makes him a different character.
...and you know, when dipolmacy broke down, you'd be da bomb at killing humans yo!Just as a surgeon would be excellent at torturing a man without killing him.
While I was joking around about the extreme nitpicking of the topic, an Ambassador could have no favored enemy bonus to hit and damage, and double the favored nation bonus to skills. :)