Now, I'm hoping to keep this argument out of the 'Evil' argument sea of chaos, flames and randy Trolls, but it's inevitable that we'll at least dip our toes into that unholy maelstrom at least once.
That out of the way, why was the Assassin kept as Evil, when one of the main complaints of the Players all through the PrC's existence (in 3.5, at least) was that the Assassin wasn't a welcome addition to most gaming tables, as most PCs and/or Parties tended to end up North of Neutral more often than not.
So, why was the Assassin kept as a purely Evil Prestige Class? Why not Neutral and Evil Alignment (and obviously not good, making a living off killing other people just ... does not match the PrC!)? Even the text on page 378, seems to suggest that even a Neutral Character can become an Assassin, but the 'job' of killing people for money will almost always (99.999999%, repeating of course) end up with your soul heading towards Hell, the Abyss or somewhere in between.
None of the PrC's class-abilities scream "EVIL!!!!!!!" at me, like the Anti-Paladin, or arguably the Shadowdancer's Undead Shadow Companion (which is Undead, but not Evil. Hooray, Paizo!). Death Attack, while ominous and heavily dependant upon the target not noticing the Assassin and not *'recognizing' the Assassin as an enemy (Friendly Backstab Ahoy!), none of the other abilities are any more 'evil' than the average Rogue's. Or for that matter, most of the other Classes and Prestige Classes.
* Recognizing the Assassin as an enemy..... hmmmm. Would an Assassin that has engaged a target in combat, uses a Ring of Invisibility to hide, waits for 3 rounds, studying his target, be then able to use his Death Attack ability? I would rule 'yes', but the wording seems to be a bit strange. Knowing the big scary Half-Orc with a poisoned Shortsword is somewhere in the room and about to forcibly remove my kidneys doesn't seem to mean jack when he's invisible and I (theoretically) have no method of detecting his presence.
Now, I'm hoping to keep this argument out of the 'Evil' argument sea of chaos, flames and randy Trolls, but it's inevitable that we'll at least dip our toes into that unholy maelstrom at least once.
That out of the way, why was the Assassin kept as Evil, when one of the main complaints of the Players all through the PrC's existence (in 3.5, at least) was that the Assassin wasn't a welcome addition to most gaming tables, as most PCs and/or Parties tended to end up North of Neutral more often than not.
So, why was the Assassin kept as a purely Evil Prestige Class? Why not Neutral and Evil Alignment (and obviously not good, making a living off killing other people just ... does not match the PrC!)? Even the text on page 378, seems to suggest that even a Neutral Character can become an Assassin, but the 'job' of killing people for money will almost always (99.999999%, repeating of course) end up with your soul heading towards Hell, the Abyss or somewhere in between.
None of the PrC's class-abilities scream "EVIL!!!!!!!" at me, like the Anti-Paladin, or arguably the Shadowdancer's Undead Shadow Companion (which is Undead, but not Evil. Hooray, Paizo!). Death Attack, while ominous and heavily dependant upon the target not noticing the Assassin and not *'recognizing' the Assassin as an enemy (Friendly Backstab Ahoy!), none of the other abilities are any more 'evil' than the average Rogue's. Or for that matter, most of the other Classes and Prestige Classes.
* Recognizing the Assassin as an enemy..... hmmmm. Would an Assassin that has engaged a target in combat, uses a Ring of Invisibility to hide, waits for 3 rounds, studying his target, be then able to use his Death Attack ability? I would rule 'yes', but the wording seems to be a bit strange. Knowing the big scary...
Because a character who assassinates things for money are called EEEEEEEEEEVIL, but traveling hobos who murder things for experience, money, and magic items are called an adventuring party.
|
If the motivation of an adventuring party is killing things, gaining experience and looting, I wouldn't hesitate to call them evil, yet that doesn't seem to be the baseline in pathfinder, as far as published adventures are concerned, those give much better reasons to fight enemies.
As far as the assassin is concerned - the prestige class represents a professional killer, hardly what I would call good or even neutral. If you change the fluff of that class for your campaign, making them holy slayers, curseb but troubled souls or anything like that, the alignment restriction could possibly changed, but that is best left to the creator of that particular assassin variant [imo].
Good points
Oh, I agree, but the Class Abilities of the Assassin don't particularly strike me as 'evil'. The prestige class could have easily been called 'Just Stay Dead!' and functioned well.
It just seems slightly strange to me. To me, the Assassin seems to be a Rogue focused upon dealing Sneak Attack damage in a unique fashion (although no longer, there is the PrC Master Spy who can also use the ability 'Death Attack'.) and has the ability to make it damn hard to revive a fallen minion or ally.
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well. When I look at the Assassin Prestige Class, I'm not seeing "I will kill anyone for the right price" in the class abilities. I'm seeing "I will kill you so badly you'll need to be God-Touched to come back from this."
As for your quote, I could take that to say that people start being assassins before taking the class because it refrences the job. The implication though is that you have to be evil to do this job because it will make you evil because it is evil.
Some quick thoughts.
Detect Evil to make the assassination more preventable.
Making the players not want to join the assassin's guild.
Objective morality in D&D not caring why you do things, only what you do.
Generally you need to not care about innocent life. Evil in D&D without argument because of alignment wording.
As for death attack, not morally wrong and yeah, invisibility should work. It is mostly there to prevent flanking sneak attacks and other things like that me thinks.
Essentially because an assassin, a professional who kills for money, does so no matter whether the target is an evil-doer or an innocent shopowner. Killing without caring who the target is is remorseless and...evil.
That's a character concept though, not a class concept. Assassins kill people. Fine. Their motivations for doing so shouldn't be baked into the class, though.
Especially not in a game that is all about killing things and taking their stuff.
That said, the 'can't be brought back' feature could point to something otherworldly evilness on the level of animating dead and whatnot. It's just not very obvious from the class itself, and is really more about me possibly reading too much into it.
Essentially because an assassin, a professional who kills for money, does so no matter whether the target is an evil-doer or an innocent shopowner. Killing without caring who the target is is remorseless and...evil.
That's a character concept though, not a class concept. Assassins kill people. Fine. Their motivations for doing so shouldn't be baked into the class, though.
Especially not in a game that is all about killing things and taking their stuff.
That said, the 'can't be brought back' feature could point to something otherworldly evilness on the level of animating dead and whatnot. It's just not very obvious from the class itself, and is really more about me possibly reading too much into it.
That's my point, Slaunyeh. Seems to be a bit of Sacred Cow got dragged into the Pathfinder, but we all love a bit of beef, I guess, even one that's been marinating for a while.
That said, you do raise a very, very valid point about the True Death and Angel of Death abilities. In the case of True Death, the Reviving Spellcaster must beat a DC equal to 15 + the Assassin's PrC Level or the spell fails. Casting Remove Curse breaks this ability, with a DC 10 + Assassin's PrC Level.
Angel of Death, on the other hand. Basically it's a 1/day ability, disintergrating the Target's body and meaning only a 17th level Cleric has any chance of bringing the Target back to life.
On one hand, that's 'Disintergration in my Dagger', which can easily be reproduced by a Dagger that can be used to cast Disintergration on one target per day. On the other hand, that's some serious dedication to snuffing, and definitely something that most Good Aligned people would object to, falling under a very ambiguous umbrella of 'desecrating the dead' (in this case, turning them into powder).
|
...
That out of the way, why was the Assassin kept as Evil,
...None of the PrC's class-abilities scream "EVIL!!!!!!!" at me, like the Anti-Paladin, or arguably the Shadowdancer's Undead Shadow Companion (which is Undead, but not Evil. Hooray, Paizo!)
....
1) killing sentient beings for money without any consideration for what they have done scream Evil
2) there are several undead that aren't evil. The "ghost that linger in this world to right what he did wrong" is a common theme, for example.
That's a character concept though, not a class concept. Assassins kill people. Fine. Their motivations for doing so shouldn't be baked into the class, though.
Paladinood is a character concept, nor a lass concept.
It can be applied to most of the classes.
No Ranger - he is a fighter with a man of the wood concept.
No Barbarian - fighter with a berserker warrior concept
and so on.
Killing is evil.
Except if you want to suggest that good people not kill so much, in which case you're crazy. :)
Good people are evil.
1) killing sentient beings for money without any consideration for what they have done scream Evil
This has nothing to do with the Assassin class. Yes, it's one character concept you can build onto an Assassin, but you can do that with a plain rogue too. Or a fighter. Or just about anyone.
And even if you have to fully build your character concept around the fluff description of a prestige class, this is what the assassin has to say:
"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."
While I can absolutely see this kind of job description mostly attracting people who enjoy wanton murder, I don't think it should be a requirement (based on that description).
Then there is this:
Alignment: Due to its necessary selfishness and callous indifference toward taking lives, the assassin class attracts those with evil alignments more than any others. Because the profession requires a degree of self-discipline, chaotic characters are ill suited to becoming these shadowy killers. Neutral characters sometimes become assassins, frequently thinking of themselves as simple professionals performing a job, yet the nature of their duties inevitably pushes them toward an evil alignment.
The first sentence describes most PCs. ;) After that, it is strongly implied (at least to me) that non-evil characters could easily become assassins, though staying non-evil would be a challenge. But that's not a prerequisite. That's a RP consideration.
That's a character concept though, not a class concept. Assassins kill people. Fine. Their motivations for doing so shouldn't be baked into the class, though.
Paladinood is a character concept, nor a lass concept.
It can be applied to most of the classes.
No Ranger - he is a fighter with a man of the wood concept.
No Barbarian - fighter with a berserker warrior conceptand so on.
You have to also read what I was replying to. No where in the assassin description is it implied that your character HAS to murder evildoers and innocents alike. Or that you murder for money.
There are plenty of assassin concepts that doesn't involve an exchange of money or randomly killing everything in sight. If you want to play an assassin who happily murder innocent people, fine. But it's not a requirement (even with the evil alignment in place).
Is the original requirement for the aspiring assassin to kill a target designated by the guild for the sole reason to be admitted still enforced?
Because that's evil.
+1, I'd like to see that prequisite removed. Furthermore, I want ALL alignments prequisites removed. I know how to play my character on my own, no need for rules here. Well, paladin LG prequisite can stay but free monks and druids.
Also I dislike the elf/half-elf prequisite of the AA
1) killing sentient beings for money without any consideration for what they have done scream Evil
Who says the assassin doesn't considerate? He will surely consider how risky a kill is, why shouldn't he consider the motives?
For example: in Dune, the house Atreides has some very skilled assassins, led by the loyal mentat Thufir Hawat who is considered to be a master assassin. He can be quite sure, that everyone he kills is guilty since most people he kills are high ranking members of house Harkonnen (which is considered as being evil to the roots)Killing is evil.
In modern ethics, yeah, but it's a fantasy world with a society comparable to medieval culture (see it that way: the apokryph scripts tell the story about Jesus as a child who kills another child just for being in his way - no wonder modern christians despise the apokryph scripts)
The Evil Alignment pre-requisite seems to be, as mentioned before, the residue of Sacred Cow that lurks in most games, be they pen and paper or digital, as we all base our ideas off a foundation of other things we have seen, heard, felt or otherwise experienced.
The Assassin could just as easily be renamed as the 'Relentless Blade' and be required to the dedication of seeing slain foes stay dead, or even be some sort of Pharasma-worshipper, drawing their 'Death' Abilities from a dedication to the Goddess of Death and Prophecy.
Sneak Attack works fine on Undead, but Death Attack should be changed slightly to affect Undead as per a Disruption+Bane (undead) attack.
Alternatively, an Assassin doesn't always kill for money. For king, for country, for the Gods or even for plain and simple revenge. Making the Assassin swear to some powerful force and be bound to obey that force, be it a King, a God(dess), a powerful Dragon or some other 'powerful' entity, and to act as it's eyes, and sword, in delicate situations.
Is the original requirement for the aspiring assassin to kill a target designated by the guild for the sole reason to be admitted still enforced?
Because that's evil.
It states in Special that the would-be Assassin must kill someone for no other reason that to become an assassin.
Now, again, that's left up in the air, and seems to be that I could make a Rogue, and 'assassinate' a Goblin Shaman preaching for war against the nearby, and defenceless, community of Halflings just over the river. So how is this different from a Rogue sneaking up and sneak-attacking the Shaman in the neck, or any other class for that example?
Now, to go for the Devil's Advocate side of things, the Assassin as a non-alignment restricted character would definitely be walking a razor's edge between good and evil alignments, but as things are written, I'm not sure that the Assassin deserves an Evil Only tick against it's name, and while it would definitely be a Stretchy Cheese moment to call any Assassin 'Good', someone with the right dedication could easily be a 'neutral' Assassin.
The Assassin who only targets Political Targets from a rival county is something I can point to for another reason for my annoyance with the pre-requisites. Say the PCs are tasked with providing support for an Assassin targeting members of the Quaidran/Keleshite Satraps who are agitating for a full invasion of Taldan territory. How is the Assassin evil for striking down the Satraps?
If the Satraps were Hobgoblin Warlords marshalling their tribes to lay waste to Taldan, I doubt anyone would hesitate to go in and carpet-bomb their villages with Fireballs. Both forces are going to cause widespread chaos, suffering and death, both are moving for ultimately selfish goals, namely the spread of their own people and their own spheres of power, and both are threatening normal, innocent people.
The Assassin specialised in killing people. So does the Fighter. So does the Monk, the Rogue, the Ranger, the Barbarian and most other classes. Any class can turn around and do something productive with their lives that does not involve shanking the nearest creature, but as yet few classes have Class abilities suited for a lifetime of community service (and yes, I am looking at our Spellcasting Comrades ... you and your bloody reality-shaping spells can go away for a little while, please and thank you.)
Is the original requirement for the aspiring assassin to kill a target designated by the guild for the sole reason to be admitted still enforced?
Because that's evil.
I was just thinking of that, yeah. I don't think that's a requirement now. The 3.5 Assassin was a particular member of a particular assassin's guild.
You still have to kill someone to become an assassin, but there's no forced guild membership involved and nothing that say you have to pick an innocent shopowner as your target.
It's still not nice, I'll grant you that. But it kinda pales next to everything else PCs get up to. :)
+1, I'd like to see that prequisite removed. Furthermore, I want ALL alignments prequisites removed. I know how to play my character on my own, no need for rules here. Well, paladin LG prequisite can stay but free monks and druids.
Also I dislike the elf/half-elf prequisite of the AA
It has been officially stated unofficially that the AA racial prereqs are a mistake.
The system is outdated.. But fun to play, it is a game!!! If you want to play a assassin who is not evil, then try the new GURPS 4ed...
Or play a rogue :p
We have a CE assassin in our local TT game. I think it's kinda lame, but he's a cleric/rogue/assassin (trying to mimic a blackflame zealot with PF core) so he's pretty harmless.
|
It always amused me that the various other classes, from Paladins to Rogues, can take a job to wipe out an entire horde of bandits, orcs, whatevers that are attacking the town/village/queen's virtue, and they can all get paid for it, but the lone assassin who might be targeting the evil lich, can't be Non-evil.
Really, it's just as asinine restriction, and as the 4e Avenger and other classes show, just because you're a disciplined killer for hire doesn't (shouldn't) necessarily mean that you're inherently evil--or at least no more so than the 99% of adventurers that murder dungeon loads of sentient beings (for money/loot and XP) every time they venture out.
It's borderline hypocritical to think that *only* Assassins are evil (even if they can supposedly start as Neutral--though that's only in the fluff text and not in the Reqs).
I realize it's probably largely to keep Players from having Assassin PCs who gank the entire rest of the party, but really, that's no more or less likely than any other Evil character (regardless of class) doing it.
If it's the "kills for money" aspect, then that's really an unbelievably naive position to take in a game that's all about everyone killing things for money and items (and XP). Even the latest Bestiary 2 poster is "gotta kill em all", so clearly, this is not a no-kill game.
And, again, if you have a pinpoint assassin, who only goes after evil characters, and does so without killing everyone else on the way in, how is that more "evil" than the Paladin who kicks in the door, kills all the (neutral) bodyguards and slays the Evil warlord?
Is it because the Paladin did it as a means to some "greater good"--well, what if that greater good was just killing the Evil warlord? Isn't that then the same result?
Really, to get an idea of why the Assassin is Evil-only, you have to delve way deeper into Kantian versus Utilitarian Ethics, and for a role-playing game, that's way too much effort just to justify why one class (PrC) is singled out for the actions it takes while none of the others are.
It used to be that only Evil Rangers could take their own race as a Favored Enemy, but that's gone, so you can have a very Assassin-like Ranger, who spends his entire career tracking, hunting and killing his own kind for money (or possibly money + "some greater good") and that's fine--but you can't have a Neutral Assassin who goes out of his way to only kill Evil people be non-evil.
Nor can you have a divinely-inspired agent of the (LG) church who's acting on orders to go and eliminate (go in quietly, kill only the target) Evil Person 'X' (who is true, Detect Alignment'd Pure Evil) *even when* it's OK to send the Paladin and his gaggle of followers to do the exact same deed for the exact same reasons but by different (kick in the door & kill everyone) means.
It doesn't make sense, it's not going to, it never will since it relies upon certain "blinders" that have to be worn whenever you're dealing with notions of "Alignment" and morality--which may or may not be the same thing.
If it's a Home Game, play a non-Evil assassin, if it's PFS, you're out of luck. So play a Neutral Rogue that gets paid to kill people and you'll be fine...
|
In modern ethics, yeah, but it's a fantasy world with a society comparable to medieval culture (see it that way: the apokryph scripts tell the story about Jesus as a child who kills another child just for being in his way - no wonder modern christians despise the apokryph scripts)
For the record christians don't despise them, we consider them the same way liberals consider websites and literature that claim Obama is the anti-christ or wasn't born in the US.
*etc etc*
The ONLY thing Evil about the assassin is the semi-fluff requirement to get into the class and the name.
Remove the "You must kill some one JUST to become an assassin" and change the name to "Bounty Hunter" or "Avenger" or something and the class is no longer evil, at all.
It's stupid that it is still Evil only.
Of course we also have the Ninja class now with a "death attack" but no evil requirement. So, i'd say the assassin PrC should have that requirement removed as well...
Of course we also have the Ninja class now with a "death attack" but no evil requirement. So, i'd say the assassin PrC should have that requirement removed as well...
While I can understand your argument, I have a hard time picturing someone who kills indiscriminately for money to be anything other than evil. He may have a code i.e. Lawful Evil, but he is still evil none the less. Those who kill certain individuals for a cause regardless or whether they agree or not are called soldiers. There is plenty of distinction between the two.
Do assassinations in and of themselves have to be motivated by money?
I requested to be allowed the Assassin prestige class as a good character influenced by the Dexter character. Dexter isn't inherently evil, and assassinates only evil characters to fulfill his need to kill.
By being selective of their victims, any good character should be able to 'assassinate' evil.
The DM didn't allow this, though I would in my campaign.
Do assassinations in and of themselves have to be motivated by money?
I requested to be allowed the Assassin prestige class as a good character influenced by the Dexter character. Dexter isn't inherently evil, and assassinates only evil characters to fulfill his need to kill.
By being selective of their victims, any good character should be able to 'assassinate' evil.
The DM didn't allow this, though I would in my campaign.
A serial killer whose 'favored enemy' is "OTHER serial killers" is still a serial killer.
Granted D&D PCs are just a bunch of glorified murderers and thieves running around "doing good."
While I can understand your argument, I have a hard time picturing someone who kills indiscriminately for money to be anything other than evil. He may have a code i.e. Lawful Evil, but he is still evil none the less. Those who kill certain individuals for a cause regardless or whether they agree or not are called soldiers. There is plenty of distinction between the two.
But that's the whole argument! The Assassin has no 'code' beyond the joining pre-requisites to be 'evil'. No-where but the fluff does it say that an Assassin runs around snuffing people out for coin. Some people have made the argument that the Assassin is as Evil as the Paladin is Good, but that falls flat on it's face as no-where in the Assassin PrC does it mention that an Assassin must remain Evil to continue progression, unlike a Paladin must remain both Lawful and Good to continue their Progression.
Looking at it from another way (and I do apologise for the terminology I'm using, I'm probably not using the right words .... again!) the Assassin is Evil because of the Sacred Cow dripping liberally splashed over it, and that stinks in more ways than one. By reading the fluff, do we take the fluff of every other class and PrC and go 'okay, so you play like this. Go.' ?
People keep saying that the Assassin kills people for money, but so does nearly every other gorram PC that has ever existed. Show me a Class Ability of the Assassin PrC that says they must be paid to keep on doing their job? An Assassin, as written, is a Sneak-Attack Focused Rogue with a penchant for ensuring his enemies stay dead and has a fetish for poison. At no point in the Prestige Class's write-up does there pop up one single piece of evidence that every Assassin goes out and butchers whole orphanages while waiting for that pie in the oven to bake on a slow night, as seems to be the situation in some takes on the Prestige Class.
and believes that killing is Evil, and killing just to become an Assassin automatically shifts you to Evil
AKA "Assassins are Evil because it is fluffed like that and we say so." It's stupid and pointless and another arbitrary decision.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assassins have always been evil in the game, so on one level, we kept it that way due to tradition.
But also, the concept of being paid money to kill someone is, in my opinion (and in the opinion of pretty much all of us at Paizo) is evil.
A non-evil assassin would need different flavor text going along with it. They'd need another motivation to kill than greed or a desire to turn murder into an art form, for one thing. We might build a prestige class to fill this niche some day, but it won't be called an "assassin."
I wouldn't say becoming an assassin automatically makes you an NPC though. If a GM's cool with running evil characters, then no problem. If a GM doesn't want to run evil characters, then don't let a PC become assassin in the first place.
OR: Just drop the evil requirement. The class still works fine without that, it just doesn't match our design philosophy. But our design philosophy doesn't have to match anyone else's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assassins have always been evil in the game, so on one level, we kept it that way due to tradition.
If I had a nickel for every idiotic sacred cow in Pathfinder...
Moreover, if I had a nickel for every idiotic sacred cow left in Pathfinder while another idiotic sacred cow was actually butchered...But also, the concept of being paid money to kill someone is, in my opinion (and in the opinion of pretty much all of us at Paizo) is evil.
Which is not something restricted to that class nor is something required for the class other than fluff reasons.
A non-evil assassin would need different flavor text going along with it. They'd need another motivation to kill than greed or a desire to turn murder into an art form,
Their adventurers!
And what do Assassins get that Ninjas don't? Let's just pretend Assassins are Asian-inspired and give them no alignment restriction.
and believes that killing is Evil, and killing just to become an Assassin automatically shifts you to EvilAKA "Assassins are Evil because it is fluffed like that and we say so." It's stupid and pointless and another arbitrary decision.
One you can ignore in your game, if you want. Assassins can have a variety of motivations. They don't have to be purely mercenary.
Do modern assassins consider themselves evil? I would imagine that at least some are driven by political or religious motivations which they consider good, and believe that killing certain people will advance their cause, be it "democracy," "the greater good," "God," "Allah," or what have you.
If Gadaffi were assassinated today, for example, many people would be elated, and consider the killer a hero, of sorts. Others wouldn't. Which side is "evil?"
|
|
As for your quote, I could take that to say that people start being assassins before taking the class because it refrences the job. The implication though is that you have to be evil to do this job because it will make you evil because it is evil.
Some quick thoughts.
Detect Evil to make the assassination more preventable.
Making the players not want to join the assassin's guild.
Objective morality in D&D not caring why you do things, only what you do.
Generally you need to not care about innocent life. Evil in D&D without argument because of alignment wording.
As for death attack, not morally wrong and yeah, invisibility should work. It is mostly there to prevent flanking sneak attacks and other things like that me thinks.
^^^ Slayer of Domiel
Hey. Thread is getting kinda long, so I skipped parts. I say this so that, if I am repeating things already stated by someone else, I wont get too much flak.
Anyway, I have never run the Assassin as strictly evil. I usually go with the "any non-Good" option. The act of killing isn't always evil, otherwise no one could play a Paladin. It's always a matter of wether or not the person deserves to die. The whole "greater good" angle if you will.
Nowhere in the description of the class does it say you have to accept money for killing people. Even if you aren't looking at "holy assassins" like the Hashshashin there are assorted reasons to assassinate people. Ideology, politics, revenge, or my personal favorite military contracts. All an assassin is required to have is a willingness to kill when given reason to. As such I can see why they aren't good, but I don't think they are necessarily evil.
As for their class abilities being evil I will point out that other classes also have Death Attack (the Master Spy and upcoming Ninja class) but are not required to be evil.
Especially not in a game that is all about killing things and taking their stuff.
If it's the "kills for money" aspect, then that's really an unbelievably naive position to take in a game that's all about everyone killing things for money and items (and XP).
What if I don't play this game that's "all about" killing for personal profit? What if, for example, I play Pathfinder? :p
Especially not in a game that is all about killing things and taking their stuff.If it's the "kills for money" aspect, then that's really an unbelievably naive position to take in a game that's all about everyone killing things for money and items (and XP).What if I don't play this game that's "all about" killing for personal profit? What if, for example, I play Pathfinder? :p
You proceed to kill things and take their stuff?
But also, the concept of being paid money to kill someone is, in my opinion (and in the opinion of pretty much all of us at Paizo) is evil.A non-evil assassin would need different flavor text going along with it. They'd need another motivation to kill than greed or a desire to turn murder into an art form, for one thing. We might build a prestige class to fill this niche some day, but it won't be called an "assassin."
See, it's not like if the guys here who vote against the prequisite think that they should run around with a character who kills whoever he is paid for and still call himself good (or neutral). It's about a class which is build for sneaking into buildings and kill a target in there - without a general reason every member of that class shares, the reason is an individual one. If he is killing anyone just for money, yeah, that's evil as can be, that's not only the opinion of Paizo, I guess everyone here agrees. But again, take Thufir Hawat as an iconic example for a non-evil assassin.
But you're right, the flavor text of the assassin class does not fit that concept.On the other hand, ninjas are nothing else but the japanese version of a professional killer...
While I roll with "drop stuff and homebrew when you're content with", something being "official" is still nice
The reason the Assassin PrC requires an Evil alignment is not because accepting rewards, monetary or otherwise, to kill something is necessarily Evil (e.g., "Go kill the dragon terrorizing my villages, and I'll give you 1,000,000 gp!" is a pretty common heroic quest), but because the Assassin PrC does not represent a generic assassin.
Anyone can go out and kill someone and get paid for it.
The Assassin PrC, though, represents a member of a stereotypical, moustache-twirling, dark-god-serving, dark-magic-employing fantasy assassin's guild.
Might be true but the death attack is still the most iconic thing about the assassin and while anyone can call himself assassin, they are not as well build for sneaking and killing from the dark as a member of the assassin class.
That "fantasy assassin's guild" stuff, yeah, I agree, but there are many "dark" heroes out there like Kai from Lexx or Teppic from Discworld which fit into that theme but are not necessarily evil
The PrC is all about the dedication to killing, sure neutral and good characters kill too but they do not take the killing in itself to obsession.
It is conceivable that neutral characters function as assassins, but really this PrC is focused entirely on the dark side of killing and keeping the target dead. Any character can do that once or twice, but making your career out off it should lead to evil. The fact that the PrC says you have to be evil means to me that the overwhelming majority of assassins is evil and the trade is considered unwholesome.
A pc making a character focused to such an extend on killing should have a very good reason not to be evil otherwise it is better to look at the spymaster for example. Redeemed assassin NPC/PC's can be quite interesting, a bit of an anti-hero with a dark past using the tricks of the trade to 'good' ends i.e. vigilante or holy slayer style, even then the character should be neutral and unable to gain more assassin levels while non-evil.
The above just my impressions of the PrC as written, opening it to other alignments blurs the already somewhat obscure alignment boundaries a bit too far. You get alot of 'non-evil', 'I am not evil, I am chaotic' neutral assassin types.. basically if you want to play a contract killer, have the balls to make it evil and actually play it well or stop advancing in the class.
|
|
The Evil Alignment pre-requisite seems to be, as mentioned before, the residue of Sacred Cow that lurks in most games, be they pen and paper or digital, as we all base our ideas off a foundation of other things we have seen, heard, felt or otherwise experienced.
The Assassin could just as easily be renamed as ...
The point is that it is not the "relentless blade", the "holy slayer" or whatever.
The prestige class depicted in the Core Rulebook is the guy that kill for money.
If you want a prestige class based on the holy killer of XX god you want a different prestige class.
Probably that class spells would be based on wisdom instead of intelligence, the choice of spells and powers will be a little different and so on.
If you want a James Bond look alike spy with the licence to kill there is the Master spy.
In the 3.5 version there were multiple classes of that kind.
In Pathfinder we have the Red mantis (still evil, but with a religious order bent).
You can create the customised class that you want, it there is reason in your game to create it. Even the paladin originally was a player customised class when it first appeared in a number of Dragon.
So go, build your custom class and put in the forum.
Problem solved.
But that's the whole argument! The Assassin has no 'code' beyond the joining pre-requisites to be 'evil'. No-where but the fluff does it say that an Assassin runs around snuffing people out for coin. Some people have made the argument that the Assassin is as Evil as the Paladin is Good, but that falls flat on it's face as no-where in the Assassin PrC does it mention that an Assassin must remain Evil to continue progression, unlike a Paladin must remain both Lawful and Good to continue their Progression.
Wrong.
Being Evil is a prerequisite for the class.When you fail to satisfy the perquisite you can't gain other levels in a class.
You don't lose what you have already gained but until you satisfy the prerequisites again you can't continue to add levels in the class.
Paladinood is a character concept, nor a lass concept.
Darn those vows of celibacy :(
LOL
I hadn't noticed the c disappearing.
Essentially because an assassin, a professional who kills for money, does so no matter whether the target is an evil-doer or an innocent shopowner. Killing without caring who the target is is remorseless and...evil.
Now, I wouldn't have a problem with setting specific exceptions to the evil only assassins. Al-Qadim had Holy Slayers who only killed enemies of their religion, for instance. That might make them non-evil, depending on who those enemies were.
There are plenty of examples of adventures who commit acts of mass murder, for little reason other than the creatures are 'evil'. I say 'evil' because acts that are the supposed source of many monsterous humanoids evilness is almost functionally identical to that of humanity; i.e. aggressively expanding their territory, with little or no respect for the rights/well being of other species.
But acts which if undertaken against caravan of scarnazi(even one which contained fairly vicous members) might be accurately be described as genocide, are perfectly okay if the creatures are evil, have a different skin colour and arn't human. (All excuses we as a species have used to justify genocide against other human)
Essentially because an assassin, a professional who kills for money, does so no matter whether the target is an evil-doer or an innocent shopowner. Killing without caring who the target is is remorseless and...evil.
Now, I wouldn't have a problem with setting specific exceptions to the evil only assassins. Al-Qadim had Holy Slayers who only killed enemies of their religion, for instance. That might make them non-evil, depending on who those enemies were.
There are plenty of examples of adventures who commit acts of mass murder, for little reason other than the creatures are 'evil'. I say 'evil' because acts that are the supposed source of many monsterous humanoids evilness is almost functionally identical to that of humanity; i.e. aggressively expanding their territory, with little or no respect for the rights/well being of other species.
But acts which if undertaken against caravan of scarnazi(even one which contained fairly vicous members) might be accurately be described as genocide, are perfectly okay if the creatures are evil, have a different skin colour and arn't human. (All excuses we as a species have used to justify genocide against other human)
I am also convinced most adventures do not make it very high up the alignment ladder either, barely past evil and a good deal short on good typically. The mass killing is not a good act unless it is done to avoid a greater evil, if it is just kill and loot it is just an evil act. Mind you that good is all about respect for life, but some creatures do make it very hard to respect despite being alive. A respect for life doesnt mean you actually have to respect everyone just because they are alive.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've ditched the "always evil" tag since 3.x started, specifically so characters that were highly trained in the art of stealth and killing but focused only on tyrants and absolutely monstrous people wouldn't be shut out. No killing for money for them, it was all about preventing genocide, mass murder, war-mongering, unholy catastrophes, etc.
There are plenty of examples of adventures who commit acts of mass murder, for little reason other than the creatures are 'evil'. I say 'evil' because acts that are the supposed source of many monsterous humanoids evilness is almost functionally identical to that of humanity; i.e. aggressively expanding their territory, with little or no respect for the rights/well being of other species.
But acts which if undertaken against caravan of scarnazi(even one which contained fairly vicous members) might be accurately be described as genocide, are perfectly okay if the creatures are evil, have a different skin colour and arn't human. (All excuses we as a species have used to justify genocide against other human)
Easily one of my most hated D&D-isms. That notion brutally murde...assassinated in each and every one of our games. If it's wrong to do to humans, it's wrong to do to orcs or medusas or kobolds or etc.
Never been a fan of the human/human-like ubermensch versus the "not like us" untermensch vibe. "Welp, sorry you had the bad luck to be born a goblin, but that means I can burn you and your whole family down and not feel bad about it at all!" No thanks.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
James has provided the approach Paizo takes in regards to this, so I'm not sure how much else can be said on the topic. He didn't say it was due to game balance, so it seems like a pretty easy fix to run the class the way you want it if you don't agree with his reasoning for the decision.
If pressed, I'd point out that the evil alignment for the assassin possibly serves two additional functions:
1. It draws a bright line on what constitutes evil. That can be somewhat helpful in having a conversation at your table about what alignment means and what types of limitations it should impose on the game world.
2. Forcing assassins to be evil bypasses the need to have the paladin in the party complain that "I can't travel with that guy, he kills people for money," which would lead to the discussion that will be documented in excrutiating detail here about whether or not that character really is evil.
Hmm...I guess 2 is really a subset of 1...
In any event, the committe on Objective Criteria for Alignments will be holding its annual flamewar on the topic of alignment this summer. I'm certain the committee will provide an objective theory of moral reasoning and D&D alignment that everyone can agree upon, thus resolving alignment based debates for generations to come.