| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assassins were in 1st edition.
As part of 2nd edition's attempt to "sanitize" the game, the assassin class was not included in the game at all.
With 3rd edition, they brought the assassin back. That was actually a pretty major thing—it was one of the big things that won WotC back a lot of lapsed players, along with restoring other old favorites (half-orcs, devils and demons, etc.) to the baseline game.
Did you not read Player's options back then? 2nd edition had a Assassin kit for Rogue.
You got higher backstab, poison use, etc. No alignment issues (or was it Non-good, been a while).You got less points for your %'s though. So you weren't as good as hiding/climbing/etc.
Assassins were in 1st edition.
As part of 2nd edition's attempt to "sanitize" the game, the assassin class was not included in the game at all.
With 3rd edition, they brought the assassin back. That was actually a pretty major thing—it was one of the big things that won WotC back a lot of lapsed players, along with restoring other old favorites (half-orcs, devils and demons, etc.) to the baseline game.
Did you not read Player's options back then? 2nd edition had a Assassin kit for Rogue.
You got higher backstab, poison use, etc. No alignment issues (or was it Non-good, been a while).
You got less points for your %'s though. So you weren't as good as hiding/climbing/etc.
I don't recall the P&P version having any restrictions, and I know that the Assassin Kit in BG-II which was to my knowledge ripped from the P&P had no alignment restriction other than non-lawful ('cause it was a Thief Kit and thieves had "any nonlawful"), while other kits and classes did.
Let's stay on the subject about what the assassin class means to the game instead of d20 history.
No, I'd prefer a game that is its own game and not the past revisited but with new fluff.I don't mean any insult here...but the reason why I play Pathfinder over 4th ed(well one of the major reasons) is because Pathfinder stayed true to the previous editions lore.How could it stay true to previous editions' lore if it is a different game world?
No insult is meant here I really just get the feeling that you either don't play the game...or don't get to play any RPG...or if you do you are a player primary.And your point in this character assassination is what? "You don't play RPGs/don't DM games so your assessment of Nostalgiafinder is irrelevant." No, it isn't. Unlike 4e, Pathfinder IS a different game, but the whole game is practically bent on trying to include as much nostalgia in it as possible. For every design flaw fixed from 3.5, another 2 are kept as sacred cows of EARLIER editions.
This isn't even touching on other tangential actions taken by Paizo I'm not terribly fond of.
Ok than don't play it. You obvious hate it...it is ok. People are entitled to their opinions.
What you call sacred cows is what I call D&D. Sorry but it has always been the same lore...D&D was never written as a generic fantasy game...you could use it as such with tweaking...but if you want a more generic system maybe you should look into other games. I don't mean this as a insult but why play something you clearly hate? Or why hang around here to express your hate? Move on...you'll probably be alot happier person.
D&D isn't Pathfinder. If D&D was never a generic fantasy game then it is DEFINITELY not the same lore because Pathfinder ONLY takes place in Golarion and that effects all decisions made.
Let's stay on the subject about what the assassin class means to the game instead of d20 history.
Technically impossible because the Creative Director admitted it exists like that because of d20 history.
D&D isn't Pathfinder. If D&D was never a generic fantasy game then it is DEFINITELY not the same lore because Pathfinder ONLY takes place in Golarion and that effects all decisions made.
Golarion is a D&D world. Just like the FR...just like Greyhawk...just like Darksun...just like the world of Brithright(can't remember the name)...just like Krynn.
Sure there are some variences to them...but basicaly it is the same lore(which till middle of 3rd ed they even share the same cosmology...and still doi in my game) and I put Golarion in the same universe as these other worlds with no problems.
I have no issue what so ever about using Pathfinder in any previous campaign settings that are D&D worlds...so I really just seeing here somebody beating a dead horse here.
So I'll ask again why can't you just change the lore to something you like better? Why must the game reflect what you want?
|
D&D isn't Pathfinder. If D&D was never a generic fantasy game then it is DEFINITELY not the same lore because Pathfinder ONLY takes place in Golarion and that effects all decisions made.
Funny, because you can use the Pathfinder RPG to play in:
Golarion
Al-Qadim
Birthright
Blackmoor
Castlemourn
Dark Sun
Dragonlance
Eberron
Forgotten Realms
Greyhawk
Iron Kingdoms
Kara-Tur
Kingdoms of Kalamar
Obsidian Twilight
Planescape
Ptolus
Ravenloft
Rokugan
Scarred Lands
Spelljammer
And plenty of others that didn't come to the top of my mind. And that's not even counting the fact that there are still plenty of DMs out there who basically design their own worlds.
D&D isn't Pathfinder. If D&D was never a generic fantasy game then it is DEFINITELY not the same lore because Pathfinder ONLY takes place in Golarion and that effects all decisions made.Funny, because you can use the Pathfinder RPG to play in:
Golarion
Al-Qadim
Birthright
Blackmoor
Castlemourn
Dark Sun
Dragonlance
Eberron
Forgotten Realms
Greyhawk
Iron Kingdoms
Kara-Tur
Kingdoms of Kalamar
Obsidian Twilight
Planescape
Ptolus
Ravenloft
Rokugan
Scarred Lands
SpelljammerAnd plenty of others that didn't come to the top of my mind. And that's not even counting the fact that there are still plenty of DMs out there who basically design their own worlds.
You can use HERO to play in all those places too, you have made no point. Pathfinder is designed for Golarion. If Golarion is a limiting factor in design decisions, you can't decouple one from the other in a RAW game.
Considering that the arcane archer lost the "elves only" prerequisite, I see no reason why the assassin might lose the "any evil" prerequisite. Although "non good" would certainly be a reasonable alternative.
In terms of the Pathfinder alignment mechanics, is using poison still officially considered an Evil act? I believe it used to be back in D&D.
It stopped being so in 3rd ed I believe.
You can use HERO to play in all those places too, you have made no point. Pathfinder is designed for Golarion. If Golarion is a limiting factor in design decisions, you can't decouple one from the other in a RAW game.
Of course you can...HERO is a generic system...(though not very well IMO). You can play Carebears the RPG with HERO also.
Golarion is a D&D world. It share many of the same lore in common with other D&D worlds...while it is different...it differences are minor.
Also...the assassin's PrC is evil not due to any reason of Golarion at all. So I don't see how it is Golarion being responsible for it?
The awesome part of Rule 0, is that you get to customize stuff for your game.
I agree, the alignment system is archaic and outdated. That said, a hired hitman (what the assassin is) is evil. Someone who is willing to kill any person for the sole purposes of financial gain is evil.
Killing a monster to take it's stuff is normally amoral. Any person of any alignment can justify it how they like. Killing a good-aligned single mother so you can kidnap her child and sell it into slavery is immoral and defined as evil in this game.
All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. If murder is defined as an evil act, than the professional work of an assassin (murder for hire) is going to an evil act. Even a neutral person who does this enough is going to become evil.
Also note, the assassin doesn't lose his powers if his alignment changes.
It stopped being so in 3rd ed I believe.
Nope. As of Book of Exalted Deeds, poison is evil because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering. So they introduced ravages, which are substances you can apply to your weapons to cause ability damage to Evil creatures. They're described as being excruciating.
Yeah, there are reasons why I only use alignment for priests and outsiders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread and its vitriolic tone confuses me… well, half confuses me considering those involved. O_O
At the end of the day, the assassin class is built the way it is for all the reasons noted and for reasons not noted. (If you really, really, really want to hit us up for the meta details behind all this, come on out to Paizocon and we’ll talk all about RPG history and crazy times in cramped offices over cleverly named Golarion-themed booze.)
That said, if you’ve spent the last few months playing Assassin’s Creed and really want to play a dashing good guy assassin, feel free to file the alignment restriction off for your game or ask your GM if that’s okay with him. I PROMISE you no one from Paizo is going to come and tell you that you’re having badwrongfun.
Sorry mate, it was not my intent to create and Acid Bath of a Thread. Unfortunately, we seem to have started to skinny-dip in the sea of chaos, flames and randy trolls...again, my apologies.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
It stopped being so in 3rd ed I believe.Nope. As of Book of Exalted Deeds, poison is evil because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering. So they introduced ravages, which are substances you can apply to your weapons to cause ability damage to Evil creatures. They're described as being excruciating.
Yeah, there are reasons why I only use alignment for priests and outsiders.
While it was definitely evil to use poison in 3.0/3.5, I'm fairly certain they removed that in Pathfinder. No mention of being evil in the poison section, and the alchemist gets poison-use without an alignment requirement.
Paladins can't use poison because it's dishonorable or somesuch, but that's about it.
Sorry mate, it was not my intent to create and Acid Bath of a Thread. Unfortunately, we seem to have started to skinny-dip in the sea of chaos, flames and randy trolls...again, my apologies.
We can't have nice things!!!
No worries. Not your fault, man.
You never know what topics might turn the natives restless. :P
The awesome part of Rule 0, is that you get to customize stuff for your game.
I agree, the alignment system is archaic and outdated. That said, a hired hitman (what the assassin is) is evil. Someone who is willing to kill any person for the sole purposes of financial gain is evil.
Killing a monster to take it's stuff is normally amoral. Any person of any alignment can justify it how they like. Killing a good-aligned single mother so you can kidnap her child and sell it into slavery is immoral and defined as evil in this game.
All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. If murder is defined as an evil act, than the professional work of an assassin (murder for hire) is going to an evil act. Even a neutral person who does this enough is going to become evil.
Also note, the assassin doesn't lose his powers if his alignment changes.
Context is a big part of this. Adventurers kill lots of monsters, take their stuff, often
taking over their lairs, all because these monsters "pose a threat" in the context of the story. Yet very few of them have any sure sign as to their "alignments". Generally the villains are easy to spot and the moral implications are black and white.Enter the assassin. In a game of easily identifiable good and evil, a character who targets "anyone" breaks those rules is branded villainous. But there are also stories that examine "good" and "evil" and the lines between them, crime stories, political stories, stories that bend the archetypes and make traditionally good characters flawed and in these stories, an assassin can be a very interesting complex character. In these kinds of stories alignment restriction mean less, because everyone in these games is capable of evil or acts selflessness. So really, whether or not an assassin should have "evil only" on them depends a great deal on the type of game.
It stopped being so in 3rd ed I believe.Nope. As of Book of Exalted Deeds, poison is evil because it causes unnecessary pain and suffering. So they introduced ravages, which are substances you can apply to your weapons to cause ability damage to Evil creatures. They're described as being excruciating.
Yeah, there are reasons why I only use alignment for priests and outsiders.
For exalted characters yes it was a no no...though I agree the Ravages never made in sense(I just ignored they existence)....but those characters were held to a higher standard of idealism. Saying this because there were a lot of PrCs that got poison use with out it being required to be evil...like the Deepwood Sniper just off the top of my head.
But I don't think posions were EVIL....I'll double check though as it has been a while.
|
|
You can use HERO to play in all those places too, you have made no point. Pathfinder is designed for Golarion. If Golarion is a limiting factor in design decisions, you can't decouple one from the other in a RAW game.
Given this logic, Dungeons & Dragons 3.X was designed for Greyhawk. Which is really ironic, given that Greyhawk was all but abandoned in the 3.X years.
Back in 3.0e, Prestige Classes were a "suggestion" on how to give DMs a method of including some unique, campaign specific, classes to his game. The Assassin was added as one of those suggestions.
For the same reason, we had Dwarven Defenders needing to be dwarves (for no good mechanical reason), and Arcane Archers needing to be elves (for no good mechanical reasons).
This is the why of the Assassin class have the requirements it had.
.
Flash forward a decade.
The cash cow of PrCs for selling books, and mechanical benefits of having a partial class, has completely changed their purpose.
Now they are used to fix bad game mechanics, and players have a sense of entitlement regarding picking them.
What used to be a suggested tool to spice up a campaign setting, is now an ingrained mechanic of the entire system.
And yet, the Assassin class remains largely unchanged.
Vitriol aside, I'm in agreement with Cartigan. We dropped racial requirements from the old PrCs. This alignment requirement being kept makes no sense anymore.
PrCs are being designed similar to classes: as broad concept devices to allow a wide selection of character concepts.
To leave the Assassin as "evil only" makes it the only class that is held to old standards in a new world.
Someone who kills for money is not necessarily evil, as long as he's distinguishing of who he kills. Motivation is everything. He likely can't be "Good", because being paid even to kill evil people is likely not being "selfless" (he's getting something out of it). However it can certainly be Neutral, as long as refuses to kill the innocent and undeserving.
To quote Hunter Gathers: "No women, no children!"
Killing someone in a sneaky way isn't evil. Being sneaky is about honor, and the ONLY class that cares about that is the Paladin (and maybe the Samurai from some splatbook content).
And that's beyond the fact that the idea of "one hit, one kill" concept can go far, far beyond the "murder for hire" idea. An assassin for god can sneak in, and cut off the head of the evil cult, and never do even a non-good act.
This arbitrary kept restriction hinders character concepts unnecessarily. It feels very anathema to the current design philosophies of 3.5e and Pathfinder.
*EDIT*
Quite frankly, I feel that the Assassin the core rules was hideously castrated with the loss of magical abilities. Getting slightly more insta-death options does not make up for the utter loss of utility options.
A purely non-magical (even non-supernatural) Assassin is laudable, but needs more utility than the few extra isnt death abilities he got.
Creative Director
|
Let's stay on the subject about what the assassin class means to the game instead of d20 history.Technically impossible because the Creative Director admitted it exists like that because of d20 history.
If the Creative Director's decisions were bad ones, I doubt these boards would be here today for you to argue with him.
In any event... you've convinced me that this thread's had all it has to say, so I'm locking it.