|
The mechanics (resistance to poison, preventing the dead from rising) could go hand in hand with the neutral god Pharasma in keeping terrible people from rising unrightfully and putting down those who Pharasma has judged finished with their life; a sort of reaper flavor. It shares all the flavor minus the evil prereqs.
Interesting idea. I like this one... and it would thoroughly justify all those abilities, and use of those abilities, while still being neutral (then again, I never agreed with the "Assassins must be evil" faction.
Political Assassins work too. Flavor minus the evil prereqs. Mechanics make sense.
I'm pretty sure there are still people in Serbia who think Gavrilo Princip was a hero. Lots of people think Claus von Stauffenberg was a hero, even though he failed in his attempt. Good question what alignment someone in the game based on Princip would be, but there's a good argument for a Stauffenberg type being 'good'. Stauffenberg wasn't offered payment for his efforts, which is different from the class-fluff-- but in the normal, modern English use of the word 'Assassin' (separate from its Islamic roots), both these men were assassins.
Nice post, IR-- I'm with you on this issue.
By the nature of the word Paladin, you have Lawful Good. Use the word Holey Warrior and have any alignment you like. A Paladin is a Lawful Good Holey Warrior. You want Lawful Neutral you have a Justicar, Chaotic Evil and you have Anti Paladin which could be better named Knight Aberrant or some such.
Though you are absolutely right in that there is nothing stating you lose the abilities once gained, I'm pretty certain the developers have said in a number of places that if you no longer meet the prerequisites for a prestige class, you cannot continue taking levels in it.Actually, that part is false. You can totally be a good assassin. You gotta be any evil to take the 1st level of the class, but after that you can continue progressing in the class, and you do not lose any features of the class for becoming a good guy.Is it possible to commit an evil act and return to the side of "good?" Sure, but not while still enjoying the fruits of your evil act. If you are an assassin who wants to be good, then atone for your evil deeds and leave the club. Then you can be good. But then you can't be an assassin
Unlike the core classes, characters must meet specific requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before gaining any benefits of that level, that character cannot take that prestige class.
If a prestige class required you to be an Elf, such as Arcane Archer, and you took the 1st level of that prestige class, but then died and were reincarnated as a goblin, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to take levels in your arcane archer class, nor do you lose the benefits of being an arcane archer just because you no longer meet the prerequisites.
By the nature of the word Paladin, you have Lawful Good.The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is?
I'm a Christian, and even I have to laugh and say you have a point. Technically I could say my word is the word of God, and have just as much proof/evidence for it. :P
Though you are absolutely right in that there is nothing stating you lose the abilities once gained, I'm pretty certain the developers have said in a number of places that if you no longer meet the prerequisites for a prestige class, you cannot continue taking levels in it.Actually, that part is false. You can totally be a good assassin. You gotta be any evil to take the 1st level of the class, but after that you can continue progressing in the class, and you do not lose any features of the class for becoming a good guy.Is it possible to commit an evil act and return to the side of "good?" Sure, but not while still enjoying the fruits of your evil act. If you are an assassin who wants to be good, then atone for your evil deeds and leave the club. Then you can be good. But then you can't be an assassin
Unlike the core classes, characters must meet specific requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before gaining any benefits of that level, that character cannot take that prestige class.If a prestige class required you to be an Elf, such as Arcane Archer, and you took the 1st level of that prestige class, but then died and were reincarnated as a goblin, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to take levels in your arcane archer class, nor do you lose the benefits of being an arcane archer just because you no longer meet the prerequisites.
You don't have to be an elf to be an Arcane Archer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to be an elf to be an Arcane Archer.Though you are absolutely right in that there is nothing stating you lose the abilities once gained, I'm pretty certain the developers have said in a number of places that if you no longer meet the prerequisites for a prestige class, you cannot continue taking levels in it.Actually, that part is false. You can totally be a good assassin. You gotta be any evil to take the 1st level of the class, but after that you can continue progressing in the class, and you do not lose any features of the class for becoming a good guy.Is it possible to commit an evil act and return to the side of "good?" Sure, but not while still enjoying the fruits of your evil act. If you are an assassin who wants to be good, then atone for your evil deeds and leave the club. Then you can be good. But then you can't be an assassin
Unlike the core classes, characters must meet specific requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before gaining any benefits of that level, that character cannot take that prestige class.If a prestige class required you to be an Elf, such as Arcane Archer, and you took the 1st level of that prestige class, but then died and were reincarnated as a goblin, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to take levels in your arcane archer class, nor do you lose the benefits of being an arcane archer just because you no longer meet the prerequisites.
Yeah I forgot they changed that. In 3.x you had to be an elf or half-elf to be an arcane archer. They removed that in Pathfinder (and the should have removed the stupid assassin requirements too). :P
EDIT: But yeah, still, you only need to qualify for the first level of the class, and since the class has no ex-assassins, you don't lose any features after your alignment shifts back up from evil.| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without an assassin's guild, which the fluff makes no indication that such a thing exists or even needs to exist, the only way to become one is by virtue metagaming.
Swordfighter Joe: Hey, Deathblade, why did you become an assassin?
Deathblade: To learn to resist poison and hinder ressurection.
Joe: That's cool, so how did you pull that off?
Deathblade: By killing a random guy.
Joe: What? I've killed people before too, what does that have to do with being an assassin?
Deathblade: Yes, but my purpose for killing him was to become an assassin.
Joe: I'm not seeing the link. So you killed some guy and you randomly learned to become an assassin?
Deathblade: No, my purpose for killing him couldn't have been to become an assassin if I didn't know it was going to happen, so it's not like it could've happened randomly Joe derp.
Joe: Yeah okay... So how did you know who to kill?
Deathblade: It was random
Joe: So how did you know killing him was going to make you an assassin?
Deathblade: ...
...
...
Magic?
Joe:...
So did killing that guy give you some weird assassin magic that taught you?
Deathblade: Don't be stupid, I'm not magic. My abilities are totally mundane and not magical.
Joe: But you said... Fine whatever. So what was the link between killing that guy and resisting poisons and keeping people dead?
Deathblade: ...
Look do you question why Paladins get magical horses or weapons?
Joe: Well the Paladins are infused with positive energy and generally have gods... You on the other hand...
Deathblade assassinates Joe to keep the the chastity of the 4th wall pure.
I love you, Raven.
Though you are absolutely right in that there is nothing stating you lose the abilities once gained, I'm pretty certain the developers have said in a number of places that if you no longer meet the prerequisites for a prestige class, you cannot continue taking levels in it.Actually, that part is false. You can totally be a good assassin. You gotta be any evil to take the 1st level of the class, but after that you can continue progressing in the class, and you do not lose any features of the class for becoming a good guy.Is it possible to commit an evil act and return to the side of "good?" Sure, but not while still enjoying the fruits of your evil act. If you are an assassin who wants to be good, then atone for your evil deeds and leave the club. Then you can be good. But then you can't be an assassin
Unlike the core classes, characters must meet specific requirements before they can take their first level of a prestige class. If a character does not meet the requirements for a prestige class before gaining any benefits of that level, that character cannot take that prestige class.If a prestige class required you to be an Elf, such as Arcane Archer, and you took the 1st level of that prestige class, but then died and were reincarnated as a goblin, there is nothing stopping you from continuing to take levels in your arcane archer class, nor do you lose the benefits of being an arcane archer just because you no longer meet the prerequisites.
You know, my girlfriend just asked me this single question not just 4 hours ago, concerning racial prestige classes and reincarnation... So yes, yes she can have the opportunity to be both a Brightness Seeker (elf req), and a Halfling Opportunist (Halfling req)....
On another note. Raven, +1 fave for that AWESOME little narrative.
Um...I am confused.....both of the abilities that the Assassin PrCs are taught are not mundane abilities....they are supernatural. So how this just a regular mundane guy preventing resurection....With magic? I don't if I would define something as supernatural as mundane.
The Assassin PrC is meant to have a guild...where you go and learn these estoric skills....that probably have their roots in evil practices. But you defintly have to be a member of them.
The mechanics (resistance to poison, preventing the dead from rising) could go hand in hand with the neutral god Pharasma in keeping terrible people from rising unrightfully and putting down those who Pharasma has judged finished with their life; a sort of reaper flavor. It shares all the flavor minus the evil prereqs.
1) Neutral gods can and do have evil followers....just pointing that out. So this person could still be deemed evil.
2) By cannon Pharasma does not need help to prevent coming back to life as she can handle this herself.
3) How is it in within favor for Pharasm to give poison resistance.
4) And I think Inquistor fits this concept 100 times better mechanicaly than the Assassin PrC. I would even probably make a PrC for this concept if a player brought it to me.
Political Assassins work too. Flavor minus the evil prereqs. Mechanics make sense.
Make a Spymaster....would probably much better at the task.
I am also noticing something distressing here.....it seems people really only want the the PrC because of the whole preventing of the 'bring back the dead spells'....are GMs have become soo uncreative and jerks to have to use ressurction spells to keep recuring villains around that people feel a need for this ability?
Also reading the fluff....it is badly written for the PrC and I do tend to think of it as the inheritor of the 1st ed Assassin Clss....which had guilds...and had the fluff to require the evil only restrictions. So the fluff needs to re written.
A bottom-line issue though, which I'm sure applies to many groups, is that splashing an evil character into a goodly group hardly ever works out for that character.
Also, many DMs refuse to run full-evil groups for either personal moral reasons, or because many times it turns into all the PCs working against each other.
Both situations automatically relegate the Assassin as an "npc class." And if it's meant to be an NPC class, then why is it in the Core book and not in the DM's Guide?
|
|
It's occurred to me-- on this whole discussion about the Assassin having the ability to kill someone and make it difficult for that person to be resurrected afterward, as being a key reason for wanting to play an Assassin-- the Assassin's ability doesn't do anything to prevent someone from using a 'True Resurrection' or 'Wish' to get someone back.
And-- any character, of any class, with a little bit of time and some supplies... can deny raise deads and resurrections just as well as the Assassin-- all a character needs to do is practice proper disposal of enemy bodies.
Proper anti-return from the dead disposal: Destroy the body after you've killed him-- you've done exactly the same thing the Assassin's power does, only it usually takes a little longer.... then again, 'Disintegrate' is a 6th-lvl Wizard/Sorcerer spell...
|
|
Also, this whole debate about the 'Assassin' brings another conclusion for me--
The 'Assassin' prestige class is misnamed. It should be called the 'Contract Killer', the 'Hired Hit Man', or some similar name. I think using the name 'Assassin' which, everywhere other than D&D rulebooks, refers to a lot of different varieties of people who purposefully eliminate particular people, in service to a wide variety of causes; but nearly all of which were motivated to carry out their attacks by something much more than just money-- starting with the original 'Hashishin' fighting against both the Crusaders and against other sects of Islam that the Hashishin regarded as Apostates; and then largely moving to describe people who selected and tried to kill particular individuals largely from political and/or religious motivations. In fact, one really can say that, including the original Assassins, this, political and/or religious motivations, is the binding tie for every historical or otherwise RL proper use of the terms Assassin, and Assassination.
You use the word 'Assassin'-- other than in D&D, it really has different connotations from what the rulebook says about the PrC currently wearing the name.
A bottom-line issue though, which I'm sure applies to many groups, is that splashing an evil character into a goodly group hardly ever works out for that character.
Also, many DMs refuse to run full-evil groups for either personal moral reasons, or because many times it turns into all the PCs working against each other.Both situations automatically relegate the Assassin as an "npc class." And if it's meant to be an NPC class, then why is it in the Core book and not in the DM's Guide?
Um...in 3rd ed the PrCs did appear in the DM's Guide....and in PF the Core serves as both the player's guide and the GM guide.
You use the word 'Assassin'-- other than in D&D, it really has different connotations from what the rulebook says about the PrC currently wearing the name.
But that has always been the case with D&D.
Look at the historical Druid and the the new age druid....now look at the D&D druid.
Look at rangers, barbarians, Paladins etc....D&D has always redefined real words thing to mean something else....sometimes very slightly
Now there's a thought lets say I'm a god, I found my starstone path and ascended. I had immense power as a mortal and even more as a deity, I pick some random gutter trash 16 year old girl who just murdered the guy who'd been beating and prostituting her since she was 12. Walk up to her and say "I am a god and I'm here to tell you that YOU are good." does that make her good or me an insane god? Is the fact I'm insane make my proclamation any less valid afterall it is the word of god and I can prove it by bringing . . . well okay bringing back the guy she just killed to life wont prove anything as I could do that as a mortal but what if I make her a paladin/holy warrior imbued with some of my power to protect other girls from her situation?I'm a Christian, and even I have to laugh and say you have a point. Technically I could say my word is the word of God, and have just as much proof/evidence for it. :PBy the nature of the word Paladin, you have Lawful Good.The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it is?
I'm not sure it matters what you are. I have PCs that would follow you by measure of sheer awesomeness. :P
It really grinds my gears when people make comparisons to 1st Edition AD+D which simply did not have a lot of the mechanics to 3.X and Pathfinder given that the term prestige class would be two editions later. (3 if you count 2.5 as being a separate edition) YES THERE WAS AN ENTRY REQUIREMENT. YOU HAD TO BE EVIL. NOT NON-GOOD, EVIL. So while it wasn't stated it's probably quite logical that a first level assasin in the original game had indeed killed someone to enter the class.
The PrC isn't evil because it has to kill someone to enter. It has to kill someone to enter because it's evil. We can demonstrate this by looking at the AD&D PHB, in which the Assassin is evil and has no entry requirements. Since evil assassins predate killing as a PrC entrance requirement the killing is demonstrably an after the fact justification rather than a real reason for the PrC to have an evil alignment.
Actually, to become a bard you had to be human and do a lot of dual-classing at the correct levels. Bard was the first prestige class, and it definitely hard requirements.
On a side note, how many rules it had is irrelevant. The fact is, you just had to be evil to be an assassin. You didn't have to kill someone just because. There's no way around that.
EDIT: For those curious...
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition (1977-1988)
Bards in First Edition AD&D were a special class unavailable for character creation. A character could become a bard only after meeting specific and difficult requirements, achieving levels in multiple character classes, becoming a bard only later. The process of becoming a bard in the First Edition was very similar to what would later be standardized in D&D as the prestige class — in fact, the First Edition bard eventually became the Fochlucan Lyrist Prestige class in the Third Edition supplement Complete Adventurer.
To become a bard, a human or half-elf had to begin with very high ability scores: Strength 15+, Wisdom 15+, Dexterity 15+ and Charisma 15+, Intelligence 12+ and Constitution 10+. These daunting requirements made bards one of the rarest character classes. Bards began the game as fighters, and after achieving 5th level (but before reaching 8th level), they had to dual-class as a thief, and after reaching 5th level as a thief (but before reaching 9th level), they had to dual-class again to druid. Once becoming a druid, the character then progressed as a bard.
Bards gained a limited number of druid spells, and could be any alignment that was neutral on at least one axis. Because of the nature of dual-classing in AD&D, bards had the combined abilities of both fighters and thieves, in addition to their newly acquired lore, druidic spells, all level dependent druidic abilities, additional languages known, a special ability to know legendary information about magic items they may encounter, and a percentage chance to automatically charm any creature that hears the bard's magical music. Because bards must have first acquired levels as fighter and thief, they are more powerful at first level than any other class.
2) By cannon Pharasma does not need help to prevent coming back to life as she can handle this herself.
The mechanics (resistance to poison, preventing the dead from rising) could go hand in hand with the neutral god Pharasma in keeping terrible people from rising unrightfully and putting down those who Pharasma has judged finished with their life; a sort of reaper flavor. It shares all the flavor minus the evil prereqs.
And Iomedae is perfectly capable of smiting evil, so I'm sure there's no need for her to invest mortal agents with that power...
And Iomedae is perfectly capable of smiting evil, so I'm sure there's no need for her to invest mortal agents with that power...2) By cannon Pharasma does not need help to prevent coming back to life as she can handle this herself.
The mechanics (resistance to poison, preventing the dead from rising) could go hand in hand with the neutral god Pharasma in keeping terrible people from rising unrightfully and putting down those who Pharasma has judged finished with their life; a sort of reaper flavor. It shares all the flavor minus the evil prereqs.
Actualy there is a huge difference. Pharasma simply does not allow somebody who is not suppose to come back to come back.
Also she has no real problems with people returning from the dead....as they will die eventualy. Her issues more have to do with the undead. Which the assassin class does not really do much.
I was just don't see the concept working in Golarion....other death gods in other setting...I guess....but that is kinda of a short view for a god of death IMO.
|
|
Actually, to become a bard you had to be human and do a lot of dual-classing at the correct levels. Bard was the first prestige class, and it definitely hard requirements.
There's an error in the wiki that you're quoting. Yes, the stat requirement is correct; start as a fighter, make at least 5th lvl, switch to thief before you reach 8th lvl fighter, switch before you reach 9th lvl thief... however, you switch straight to Bard after making your Fighter and Thief levels ("under Druidic tutelage" according to the AD&D 1 PHB), not to Druid and then start going up as a Bard.
The way experience for dual-classing worked in 1st edition-- you could make it to 7th lvl fighter and 8th lvl thief, at the same time as your Fighter buddy who'd started with you was still in the middle of 8th lvl, and already start off as a Bard well before he made 9th.
Heh. I actually made it through all the requirements and played a Bard in the 1st edition days, among other characters...
Speaking of 1st Edition: NPC Assassins in 1st edition did always belong to a Guild, and there were some guild related rules in the PHB... although it is explicitly mentioned that PCs could be exceptions to the Guild membership expectation. This also probably has something to do with the "must be evil" requirement.
And Iomedae is perfectly capable of smiting evil, so I'm sure there's no need for her to invest mortal agents with that power...2) By cannon Pharasma does not need help to prevent coming back to life as she can handle this herself.
The mechanics (resistance to poison, preventing the dead from rising) could go hand in hand with the neutral god Pharasma in keeping terrible people from rising unrightfully and putting down those who Pharasma has judged finished with their life; a sort of reaper flavor. It shares all the flavor minus the evil prereqs.Actualy there is a huge difference. Pharasma simply does not allow somebody who is not suppose to come back to come back.
Also she has no real problems with people returning from the dead....as they will die eventualy. Her issues more have to do with the undead. Which the assassin class does not really do much.
Oh c'mon now...
If that was true, there would be NO undead in Golarion, and we both know that's not the case.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the Golarion gods aren't that tough. I mean, we don't have stats for them to my knowledge, but I mean that one wizard-king basically fought with Aroden himself and while slain, he returned to life, then slew a different goddess. Then the ghost king Geb decided it would be cute to animate her as a lich (sweetness) to spite the knights who whorshipped her, that were campaigning against his country and what not, and made her his queen.
Honestly, based on the actual stuff that the Golarion gods are described as doing, and the amount of power they actually wield over the world, well...level 25-30 at best. Most of them could be 20th level for all they're worth.
EDIT: That's why they need all those followers. They aren't omnipotent, and they obviously can't be everywhere at once, they can't actually enforce their rules on people themselves, at least not in any way that seems viable.
Of course it should be that way. Otherwise there's not really much for stories because it just gets stupid. "Well let X god handle it, because they interfere with everything and our choices don't matter" becomes the name of the game.
|
|
But that has always been the case with D&D.
You use the word 'Assassin'-- other than in D&D, it really has different connotations from what the rulebook says about the PrC currently wearing the name.
Are you arguing then, that it's a good thing simply because it's what we've "always been doing"?
I think others are already arguing that point-- my take is, that doing something because it's always been done that way, is a really stupid reason to do anything. Do something because it makes sense, because it works, because it's pragmatic and requires less retraining... but tradition solely for tradition's sake is crap (IMO)-- unless maybe you're talking about little traditions that have no real effect at all, but they still amuse you (I'll admit to continuing some traditions of that sort). At the same time, I do agree with the point that change just for the sake of change is also wrong. Change because someone's got a better idea, there are other ways to do things that might work better, we can correct old mistakes-- yes, but don't change just to change something.
Look at the historical Druid and the the new age druid....now look at the D&D druid.
Yes, another boneheaded naming convention. But it's closer to the historical druid, than the Assassin class has ever been to historical uses of the word "Assassin".
Look at rangers, barbarians, Paladins etc....D&D has always redefined real words thing to mean something else....sometimes very slightly
Rangers-- generic word, with no specific historical connotations to tie it to a very specific archetype. Although D&D probably got the idea from "Lord of the Rings", 'Ranger' has been used to describe individuals who are fairly well-skilled in the outdoors, at hunting, survival, wood-craft and such... usually with some sort of connection to patrolling, or law enforcement functions, or military functions; the word's been in use for at least 3 centuries because it wasn't a new word when Robert Rogers used it to describe his Colonial Soldiers in the service of the British Crown in the French & Indian War (aka, the Seven Years' War).
Barbarian-- well, lemme see-- there's another thread discussing whether 'Barbarian' is an appropriate name for the 3E/3.5/PF class or not. However, the 1st edition (UA) Barbarian was a lot closer to a reasonable approximation of what most people think when they hear the word 'Barbarian'-- and in fact, had a fair amount of customization built into the class to approximate various 'Barbarian' tribes and groups. It didn't become the 'Berserker'-style rage-based class it is now, until 3E.
And Paladins-- in spite of every effort some people try to make (in all those arguments about whether Paladins really need to be LG or not), really is still pretty close to the original roots of the class, which really were directly inspired by Charlemagne's Paladins, some of Arthur's Knights, and some classic fantasy fiction based on those inspirations.
The "assassin" is very very divergent from the non-game use of the word. Even "monk" is closer, since (although it is nothing at all like European monks) the word 'monk' has been historically used for certain groups in asia, some of which really were well-practiced at some of the martial arts. Shao Lin Monks were not a D&D invention...
However, I've made my point-- apparently you don't agree with me and are probably not going to, no matter what I say. Do as you wish, it's your game. If/when I run a game of PF again, I'm going to throw out the "must be evil" requirement for the Assassin class, because it really isn't necessary, IMO (the abilities given for the class are not solely those of a contract hit-man), and I might just change a few class names while I'm at it. This isn't, however, that big a deal (IMO) no matter which side you come down on.
@Ashiel you do realize that description fits most of the older non-omnipotent deities like the greek, norse, roman or even modern asian gods and their relationship with heroes who were usually their children.
Yep. Which is why I actually like the Pathfinder gods, because they aren't that big in the grand scheme of things. A 20th level party could likely wipe the floor with them, based on the lore I've read, and you know what?
That suits me just fine. :)
@Ashiel and Neo2151: Yes true on Golarion the gods as shown by cannon seem to be limited....but on their home plains....and over their preview they are very powerful. It has been stated by canon that Pharasm does not mind people coming back via resurction magic or stop their aging because eventualy they will be before for judgement.
The Undead option is the dodge she can't stop that is why her faith goes after undead like they do.
The "assassin" is very very divergent from the non-game use of the word.
In the above post this is what I disagree with and would point out that anybody with the Assassin PrC would be defined as a assassin by any person I know. It is just a limited focus. It was never meant to since 3rd ed to represent every possible kinda of assassin. It is meant to represent a fantasy trope of a evil guild of assassins with somewhat mystical powers.
As proof of this....you want to be a ranged sniper kinda of assassin...than this class completely fails in that their Death Attack ability only works with melee weapons.
You qwant to be the master of disguise inflitrator type? You'll be meh...Master Spy is a ton better at that.
Etc.
It is a PrC...it is narrowed focus by defination.
But hey run your game just as you want....I just saying there is more of a reason than just because 'that is how it was always done.'
@Ashiel and Neo2151: Yes true on Golarion the gods as shown by cannon seem to be limited....but on their home plains....and over their preview they are very powerful. It has been stated by canon that Pharasm does not mind people coming back via resurction magic or stop their aging because eventualy they will be before for judgement.
The Undead option is the dodge she can't stop that is why her faith goes after undead like they do.
Placing Pharasma on the list of lamest deities, as she obviously has to stick her nose in where it's not wanted, and has to get her click to go bother those tall dark and spookies with the super high Charisma, because nobody likes her and she wants to feel better about herself. :P
Seriously though, I was recently reading a lot of stuff about the Golarion deities on the PF wikis, and honestly, Pharasma strikes me as immensely boring, very one-dimensional, and "meh" in general. Also hypocritical. She's out there trying to get her followers, who for some reason aren't following some other more worthwhile and interesting deity, to screw with some undead, when she might as well be making war with druids and their nature deities for effectively having immortality through the use of magic like reincarnate.
At least most of the other deities have some flavor to them.
@Ashiel you do realize that description fits most of the older non-omnipotent deities like the greek, norse, roman or even modern asian gods and their relationship with heroes who were usually their children.Yep. Which is why I actually like the Pathfinder gods, because they aren't that big in the grand scheme of things. A 20th level party could likely wipe the floor with them, based on the lore I've read, and you know what?
That suits me just fine. :)
Um not in any game I have or would ever run. And also the guy who killed a goddess...she was a demi god and he was waaaayyy beyond 20th level.
Sidenote: Personaly gods should never be killed in staight combat....that is why the FR gods went to heck and I hope Golarion does not follow suit.
@Ashiel you do realize that description fits most of the older non-omnipotent deities like the greek, norse, roman or even modern asian gods and their relationship with heroes who were usually their children.Yep. Which is why I actually like the Pathfinder gods, because they aren't that big in the grand scheme of things. A 20th level party could likely wipe the floor with them, based on the lore I've read, and you know what?
That suits me just fine. :)
Um not in any game I have or would ever run. And also the guy who killed a goddess...she was a demi god and he was waaaayyy beyond 20th level.
Sidenote: Personaly gods should never be killed in staight combat....that is why the FR gods went to heck and I hope Golarion does not follow suit.
Well, I guess I just figured that by the time you are wielding godlike power in terms of our reality's view on gods, it stands to reason that an entire team of godlike individuals could probably overthrow another godly individual.
Personally, the way I look at it, is if you don't want Gods to be affected by mortals, don't be affecting mortals. Let gods be background, descriptive and narrative tools, and so forth. I guess I just quickly become disenchanted with stuff that is supposed to be vastly beyond 20th level, since by 20th core classes can replicate every act of God in the Holy Bible; and I don't see much need for going drastically beyond that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the above post this is what I disagree with and would point out that anybody with the Assassin PrC would be defined as a assassin by any person I know.
Then with respect, the people you know should expand their horizons outside of games and fiction, since they appear to be completely ignorant of the word's historical and present non-fictional definitions. Unless you are referring to the Islamic, specifically Isma'ili sect, known as the 'Hashishin' (or variant spellings thereof), the critical point in most definitions and all correct uses of the term 'Assassin' is the political nature of the Assassin's target. 'Assassin' was never a general term for hired contract hit-men who go out and kill whomever they're paid to eliminate, everywhere from the completely unknown, to the very rich and powerful. Neither the Hashishin, nor the killer specifically out to get important political figures, is well-represented at all by the class and its fluff.
Which is why I will run my game differently.
It is meant to represent a fantasy trope of a evil guild of assassins with somewhat mystical powers.
Really!? I don't remember reading that in Core Rulebook. Maybe it's written in invisible ink...
It's put there by people who read them and decide that this PRC must have more requirements than are stipulated in the rules because it fits their archetypal view of the word whether that view has anything in relation to the meaning of the word or not.
|
|
Then with respect, the people you know should expand their horizons outside of games and fiction, since they appear to be completely ignorant of the word's historical and present non-fictional definitions. Unless you are referring to the Islamic, specifically Isma'ili sect, known as the 'Hashishin' (or variant spellings thereof), the critical point in most definitions and all correct uses of the term 'Assassin' is the political nature of the Assassin's target. 'Assassin' was never a general term for hired contract hit-men who go out and kill whomever they're paid to eliminate, everywhere from the completely unknown, to the very rich and powerful. Neither the Hashishin, nor the killer specifically out to get important political figures, is well-represented at all by the class and its fluff.
I should have added two things to this earlier post of mine, so I'm mentioning them now:
1. The 'Hashishin', from whom (via typical English language butchery while borrowing words from other languages) the noun 'Assassin' is derived, were motivated by religious fanaticism and the desire to defend their faith... but (linking them directly to the modern non-fiction use of 'Assassin'), the Hashishin's targets were primarily political (and religious, but in a day and age in which religious leaders were political leaders) in nature. So, targets chosen for their political value, is a common thread to all correct uses of the label 'Assassin'.
2. Especially as I watch the argument on another thread over 'Barbarian' vs. 'Berserker' as the name for a class, and the re-run of the argument over whether 'monk' is a good class name or not-- and this discussion here... I guess I kind'a have to shrug my shoulders and accept that many of the games I play take great pride in maligning and misusing words to label concepts that weren't associated with that word (outside of the fictional game universe) even before the mutations seen over several editions. However, while I get that the name is very unlikely to change in the game after all these years, and I can live with and easily tolerate that outcome (for the most part); I do not feel the same willingness to accept ignorance and lack of education, in people who don't know and apparently cannot be bothered to understand that the words used one way in the game have (and have always had) a different meaning and use in the history books and dictionaries that exist in the non-fictional world beyond the game manuals. That disturbs me, though I suppose it's another thing I'll have to live with.
What would you call the class instead, Finn K?
I ask because it seems to me that nothing is going to survive the etymological scrutiny you've applied to assassin. Everything is going to be just as "wrong". No doubt "hit man", "murderer" or anything else is going to be equally restrictive and/or historically inaccurate.
It's not terribly important to me, but FWIW I think that "how it's come to be known in the game" is a good reason to favor one choice over the other. (remember the "it's not D&D if wizards don't forget their spells!" crowd? Should vancian magic be abandoned since fifteenth century "wizards" weren't supposed to cast spells like that?)
The problem isn't the etymology its the people that assume the PRC has a certain background that isn't present anywhere at all in the class write up.
The scrutiny that is being applied here to challenge the preconception that people have whenever they keep stating that it is a necessity that the class has the background because that is what Assassin means.
"How it's come to be known in the game" is not exactly a universal conception and it has absolutely no fluff to support it so I don't exactly see the leg you're standing on here other than a refusal to read the rest of the thread which in your defense is painfully long and filled with rather irritating fighting over opinions.
Why is it important whatever they decide to call anything? It is a game... Sometimes simulationists get a little too carried away with historical naming accuracy.
Mortals killing gods is as old as D&D itself. It was even written into the world of Greyhawk. I guess when you run out of bigger opponents it becomes the ultimate expression of "My character is the ultimate bad ass". Adolescent fantasy. I disagree with the killing of gods in my games... but that is probably because I don't buy into anyone being the ultimate bad ass. And I see the gods in the game as little more than ideas or social forces. And you can't kill an idea with a sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is some of the most sexist nonsense I've read this morning.
You know killing a god could just you know be plot as opposed to the "ultimate bad ass fantasy".
Edit to clarify the sexist nonsense statement: The drive to attain power and mastery over ones surroundings is a trait inherent to the human race not just men. Writing the drive for power off in such a fashion is to disregard the entirety of human evolution as adolescent male fantasy.
I'm not saying that the gods being concepts or even impossible to kill is wrong, quite the contrary I agree in a typical campaign, but there are many good reasons to have PCs kill a god that have nothing to do with adolescent male fantasies or the drive to control the variables that influence our survival.
Why is it important whatever they decide to call anything? It is a game... Sometimes simulationists get a little too carried away with historical naming accuracy.
I'm not sure why there are people getting bent up on the name. I kind of see where people getting bent up on the fact that the "Assassin" PRC has no support in Golarion, though. RAW, many people who want to play it are stopped by prerequisites, and as IR pointed out, the background it gives don't even support prerequisites (There are no mystical evil guild of assassins anywhere in the background) meaning that anyone taking the class has to be metagaming. I'm not even sure how good the class is, so I won't call it shameless optimizing. Seriously, who takes this class RAW!?
Mortals killing gods is as old as D&D itself. It was even written into the world of Greyhawk. I guess when you run out of bigger opponents it becomes the ultimate expression of "My character is the ultimate bad ass". Adolescent male fantasy. I disagree with the killing of gods in my games... but that is probably because I don't buy into anyone being the ultimate bad ass. And I see the gods in the game as little more than ideas or social forces. And you can't kill an idea with a sword.
I'm pretty sure that mortals killing gods is as old as many culture's creation myth. Anyway, I guess it's probably up to Ashiel to explain why she would defend "serving up the ultimate bad ass fantasy for males". I'm not sure if you play Golarion's World, but is one where Gods have indeed been killed by mortals (Very powerful, but mortal none-the-less).
My post was sexist??? Ok I did use male once... sorry I removed the offensive word.
The drive to attain power and mastery over ones surroundings is a trait inherent to the human race not just men. Writing the drive for power off in such a fashion is to disregard the entirety of human evolution as adolescent ... fantasy.
there are many good reasons to have PCs kill a god that have nothing to do with adolescent ... fantasies or the drive to control the variables that influence our survival.
I am discounting nothing in human evolution. Nothing. We are the masters of our world through cooperative endeavors ... NOT through childish power trips. It just seems absurd to let someone kill a being who isn't even housed in a mortal form anymore kill such a being by stabbing it... I don't care HOW skilled you are at swinging that sharp piece of metal you can't kill an idea with it.
The word wasn't offensive the concept that you portrayed was removing the word doesn't remove the problem merely disguises it.
Controlling the world around us is not a childish power trip. If you don't view controlling a being that determines where you spend eternity a vital step in evolution then I don't really know what to say. We worshiped mammoths at a time in history was it childish to dominate and kill them and by extension all other gods both material and immaterial? By conquering our gods we created what we now know as civilization. How do you equate this with childish fantasy?
In your game gods are ideas. In most Dnd settings Gods are people. Killing a person with a sword, particularly one that got tagged with the god killing function, is quite reasonable.
Edit for further clarification: In many Dnd settings the gods are people fulfilling archetypal roles and just because a given god is slain does not mean the archetypal role is slain. Typically it means there is a vacancy that is soon to be filled. So even in said scenario one would not typically be slaying an idea just a person.
Edit: Yet again the whole origin of the name thing isn't because people necessarily disagree with the naming convention. People were justifying a false conclusion by defining assassin incorrectly. Pretty much everybody else jumped out of the woodwork to correct this assertion. This maintains as to say that if their trying to create a certain feel and function to the assassin class then perhaps they should name it something to generate said function. This is not everyone suddenly being a simulationist rather I see it as a function of being tired of explaining the meaning of the word repeatedly to people who cannot be bothered to read the topic before explaining how they're right because they know all about the connotations of the word assassin.
Why is it important whatever they decide to call anything? It is a game... Sometimes simulationists get a little too carried away with historical naming accuracy.I'm not sure why there are people getting bent up on the name. I kind of see where people getting bent up on the fact that the "Assassin" PRC has no support in Golarion, though. RAW, many people who want to play it are stopped by prerequisites, and as IR pointed out, the background it gives don't even support prerequisites (There are no mystical evil guild of assassins anywhere in the background) meaning that anyone taking the class has to be metagaming. I'm not even sure how good the class is, so I won't call it shameless optimizing. Seriously, who takes this class RAW!?
I wasn't really interested in the RAW of assassin. As a PrC it is entirely placed in the hands of either the GM or published setting builder to explain why they made it evil only. It hardly matters in my opinion whether you follow that rule or not. As a house rule waiving any alignment restrictions on classes isn't going to ruin anyone's game. Not by itself anyway... But players can get carried away I guess. So it's not a bad idea to enforce some sort of code on classes that deserve them.
I guess it depends on if you see a god as a metaphysical entity or a supremely powerful physical one. (See the live action Thor movie for an example.)
I suppose this is exactly the issue.
Controlling the world around us is not a childish power trip. If you don't view controlling a being that determines where you spend eternity a vital step in evolution then I don't really know what to say. We worshiped mammoths at a time in history was it childish to dominate and kill them and by extension all other gods both material and immaterial? By conquering our gods we created what we now know as civilization. How do you equate this with childish fantasy?
We never worshiped our food in any history I read... But that is irrelevant. Killing critters didn't give us civilization. Learning how to cooperate with each other to farm, to write, to add or subtract that is what gave us civilization. If we were waiting for killing some animal to evolve us we would still be tiny scattered groups of nomadic hunter/gatherers.