| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They just seem like an outdated idea to me, and some of them I'm quite curious about:
Assassin must be evil- Why? Doesn't "Any non-Good" make more sense? True mercenaries are more neutral than evil, and aren't assassins just specialized mercenaries?
Liches must be evil- Again, why? A Wizard specialized in Necromancy doesn't have any alignment requirements. And it makes sense that a necromancer might want to prolong their life with the type of magic they know best. But in order to do so, they must be evil (sometimes requiring a total 180 degree shift in alignment)?
Anti-Paladin and Chaotic Evil: Makes no sense whatsoever. I realize there must be this desire to have the class be the mirror opposite of the Paladin, but you can't require a chaotic class to follow a specific code (even if the code calls for chaotic behavior)! A required code, of any kind, goes totally against the idea of a chaotic alignment. There was a reason Blackguard was a Lawful Evil class, and that's because it just fits sooo much better.
What's the deal with the change from LE to CE?
So, I realize this stuff is very easily house-ruled, but I'm just curious to get other opinions on them. And I guess, if I'm lucky enough, to find out if these things had any real thought processes behind them or if they're just another "copy/paste" sort of issue from 3.5 stuff.
Cheers!
I agree.
In my game there is one culture where assassins can be of any non-evil alignment (they kill their people's enemies this way and killingh enemies is not 'evil').
The whole issue of Necromancy and 'evil' spells etc. (including becoming a Lich) is dealt with by a modified version of the position on this in 'Hollowfaust- City of Necromancers' by S&SS. Liches do not have to be evil - they just require a damn good reason to exist.
Paladins are Lawful evil and involve themselves with Devils - I don't agree with the PF take on this making them demon related.
Liches must be evil- Again, why? A Wizard specialized in Necromancy doesn't have any alignment requirements. And it makes sense that a necromancer might want to prolong their life with the type of magic they know best. But in order to do so, they must be evil (sometimes requiring a total 180 degree shift in alignment)?
Well, firstly, all undead are evil. Secondly, the specific thing about Golarion's liches is that for each person who wants to become lich there is a unique way for them to do so. Special formula/ritual that can be anything and it's not a far cry to guess that some of them would require evil methods to obtain them. Sacrificing babies, blood of the innocents, etc etc. For example, in Carrion Crown:
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assassins kill people for money. That's evil. Period. End of discussion. If you don't like that, then you should over haul the entire alignment system rather than just do away with alignments for classes. Or just play a ninja who kills only kills bad people for money and call yourself an assassin.
Soldiers kill people for money, but a Fighter class can be any alignment.
Rogues specialize in dishonorable combat (Sneak Attacks, Poison Use, etc.) but they can be any alignment.The "murderers must be evil" argument really holds no weight, which is why I question the prerequisite.
If you can't see the difference between a soldier and a murderer, we have no common ground and nothing to discuss.Assassins kill people for money. That's evil. Period. End of discussion. If you don't like that, then you should over haul the entire alignment system rather than just do away with alignments for classes. Or just play a ninja who kills only kills bad people for money and call yourself an assassin.Soldiers kill people for money, but a Fighter class can be any alignment.
Rogues specialize in dishonorable combat (Sneak Attacks, Poison Use, etc.) but they can be any alignment.The "murderers must be evil" argument really holds no weight, which is why I question the prerequisite.
Lolwut? Every soldier is a murderer. Whether you can justify it or not is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
For example, a military Sniper is an assassin. His/her job is to sneak in, take a life, and sneak out. But it's also just a job that any soldier who's good enough can take.Aside from cop-out answers, there's no justification. For all intents and purposes, a standard Rogue and an Assassin PrC are exactly the same. The only difference being a Rogue is better with traps and an Assassin is better with stealth. They both can use poison (equally well if you alter your Rogue slightly), they both deal sneak attack damage, and they both get a save-or-die ability.
So what makes one "evil only" and the other "eh, you can be whatever,"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can easily see an assassin being evil. However, I can also see one being good. For example, let's suppose we had somebody with the skill set of the assassin PRC. However, instead of someone who kills for whoever pays her we have someone who is basically medieval batman with lethal force. Not only is this assassin not evil, she is a contender for a good alignment.
No, I don't like the always evil restriction of the assassin and the requirement to murder an innocent to become one. I have no problem with evil assassins, but it shouldn't be mandatory. The assassin should be a set of stealth kill based abilities that can be used for any motivation.
I like alignment-restrictions. A better question: why can't you play an "assassin" that is a different class other than the official "assassin" prestige class? Anybody that takes money for killing is an assassin.
It can't be the class features, as the assassin isn't really the sexiest set of options around - and all his class features can be obtained more readily elsehow.
Frankly, I dislike alignment restrictions in any case there isn't a very strong reason (often magical) reason for it. Paladins have to be Lawful Good because their abilities are based on being a paragon of Law and Good. Liches are evil because they are undead infused with negative energy which is, like, 100% distilled evil. I even accept the alignment restrictions on the Antipaladin (though I agree with everyone who would have preferred Paizo went a different way with their inverse-paladin).
But for something like the Assassin, I don't see the point. The requirements even conflict with the alignment section of the class description, which specifies that "Neutral characters sometimes become assassins." Lacking a specific metaphysical reason, I'd prefer if setting-neutral classes like the Assassin were just open for all.
Certainly, assassins in the "killer for hire" strand are mostly evil, maybe neutral. But there is nothing in the actual class abilities that requires being a "killer for hire." The ability set would work just as well for a lethal enforcer of justice, or a silent warrior dedicated to protecting the world from dark forces. I see the alignment restriction as analogous to the "Arcane Archer," which after so long has dropped the "Elf Only" requirement. Sure, there were "flavor" reasons for the original choice. However, in the end it just ended up restricting interesting character concepts for what should be a generic ability set.
Assassins kill people for money. That's evil. Period. End of discussion. If you don't like that, then you should over haul the entire alignment system rather than just do away with alignments for classes. Or just play a ninja who kills only kills bad people for money and call yourself an assassin.Soldiers kill people for money, but a Fighter class can be any alignment.
Rogues specialize in dishonorable combat (Sneak Attacks, Poison Use, etc.) but they can be any alignment.The "murderers must be evil" argument really holds no weight, which is why I question the prerequisite.
Some soldiers kill for money. Most of them that are in wars are just trying to protect their friends and their nations.
Sneak attacks and poisons are not dishonorable, well poison is by D&D standards, but sneak attack is just knowing how to pick out vital body parts.
They just seem like an outdated idea to me, and some of them I'm quite curious about:
Assassin must be evil- Why? Doesn't "Any non-Good" make more sense? True mercenaries are more neutral than evil, and aren't assassins just specialized mercenaries?
Liches must be evil- Again, why? A Wizard specialized in Necromancy doesn't have any alignment requirements. And it makes sense that a necromancer might want to prolong their life with the type of magic they know best. But in order to do so, they must be evil (sometimes requiring a total 180 degree shift in alignment)?
Anti-Paladin and Chaotic Evil: Makes no sense whatsoever. I realize there must be this desire to have the class be the mirror opposite of the Paladin, but you can't require a chaotic class to follow a specific code (even if the code calls for chaotic behavior)! A required code, of any kind, goes totally against the idea of a chaotic alignment. There was a reason Blackguard was a Lawful Evil class, and that's because it just fits sooo much better.
What's the deal with the change from LE to CE?So, I realize this stuff is very easily house-ruled, but I'm just curious to get other opinions on them. And I guess, if I'm lucky enough, to find out if these things had any real thought processes behind them or if they're just another "copy/paste" sort of issue from 3.5 stuff.
Cheers!
Liches are evil because to obtain lichdom necromancers usualy had to consume/or destroy a soul...which you can't get more evil than that. Lichs I can see why they must be evil.
Assassins the PrC- You must kill somebody just to join the club. Mercs usualy don't just kill somebody at random to join a merc outfit. Also assassins can be played though whatever class you want from rogue to wizards....but if you want to be a Assassin you need to be evil.
Anti-Paladin: 1st you are completely wrong in Chaotic characters can't follow a code. That is nonsense. They often have personal codes and such but they do adhere to them. Though I agree with you in a way...Anti-Paladins should be open to Any Evil as Paladin should be open to any Good. Nothing about either class screams to me as particular Law or Chaos. It just requires each god to have codes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't see the difference between a soldier and a murderer, we have no common ground and nothing to discuss.Assassins kill people for money. That's evil. Period. End of discussion. If you don't like that, then you should over haul the entire alignment system rather than just do away with alignments for classes. Or just play a ninja who kills only kills bad people for money and call yourself an assassin.Soldiers kill people for money, but a Fighter class can be any alignment.
Rogues specialize in dishonorable combat (Sneak Attacks, Poison Use, etc.) but they can be any alignment.The "murderers must be evil" argument really holds no weight, which is why I question the prerequisite.
Lolwut? Every soldier is a murderer. Whether you can justify it or not is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
For example, a military Sniper is an assassin. His/her job is to sneak in, take a life, and sneak out. But it's also just a job that any soldier who's good enough can take.Aside from cop-out answers, there's no justification. For all intents and purposes, a standard Rogue and an Assassin PrC are exactly the same. The only difference being a Rogue is better with traps and an Assassin is better with stealth. They both can use poison (equally well if you alter your Rogue slightly), they both deal sneak attack damage, and they both get a save-or-die ability.
So what makes one "evil only" and the other "eh, you can be whatever,"?
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. Now, from the perspective of the country that the solider is invading using lethal force probably qualifies as unlawful, but, it wouldn't from the point of view of the state that gives him his paycheck. This is why soldiers can be tried for murder while serving in areas in conflict. If the killing wasn't justified he can be charged with murder.
That being said...I can imagine an assassin who is particular about the jobs he takes. Maybe he only takes jobs when the target is an evil person and he rejects jobs that require a killing that serves evil purposes. For example, an assassin hired by a Jewish person, who lost their family to the camps, to take out Hitler doesn't strike me as evil if he is also unwilling to be hired by the state of China to take out the Dalai Lama (assuming the pay is good).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wooo alignment arguments!
I'll leave this thread alone, save to say that many alignment-related issues are contentious topics even among the Paizo staff. :D
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wooo alignment arguments!
I'll leave this thread alone, save to say that many alignment-related issues are contentious topics even among the Paizo staff. :D
Really hoping someone up there's in Team Non-Evil Orc Tribe. It'd be nice to come in from the cold one day.
Really hoping someone up there's in Team Non-Evil Orc Tribe. It'd be nice to come in from the cold one day.Wooo alignment arguments!
I'll leave this thread alone, save to say that many alignment-related issues are contentious topics even among the Paizo staff. :D
Whoever is in that Team is being kept out of the spotlight rather well, given the most vocal people are on Team Evil Orc Tribe, best example of this being James Jacobs.
When a DM tells you to make a Fort save versus Death Attack, you know you're up against an Evil with a Capital E bastard.
Some people like that. At the least, it's a very quick way to communicate an impression of an NPC.
Actually, few death attacks have the Evil descriptor, and are often used by Neutral characters just as frequently.
If I was attacked with a death attack, it means that we're playing for keeps, no holding back, this guy means business. His alignment is irrelevant. :P
EDIT: For example, a Lawful Good elven queen could pop wail of the banshee. The only difference is they're harder to bring back from their just rewards than if she had just burned their bodies in a horribly painful conflagration of fire and brimstone with a fireball.
They're also good options for spells when good-guys don't want bad guys coming back to do more bad. :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't 'is he a soldier or assassin or murderer?' the standard, 'well, who wrote the history book?'
But yeah, I scrap alignment requirement for classes in my game. I feel like they create more problems than solve. You can roleplay your character however you want. No need for a crutch to justify your decision-making.
|
Actually, few death attacks have the Evil descriptor, and are often used by Neutral characters just as frequently.
If I was attacked with a death attack, it means that we're playing for keeps, no holding back, this guy means business. His alignment is irrelevant. :P
You're talking death effects, Ash. I said Death Attack, as in, the Assassin class feature.
Which by RAW can only be used by Capital E characters.
Edit: Interestingly, a Death Attack is not a death effect, and death ward does not grant its bonus to saves against it.
Assassins kill people for money. That's evil. Period. End of discussion. If you don't like that, then you should over haul the entire alignment system rather than just do away with alignments for classes. Or just play a ninja who kills only kills bad people for money and call yourself an assassin.Soldiers kill people for money, but a Fighter class can be any alignment.
Rogues specialize in dishonorable combat (Sneak Attacks, Poison Use, etc.) but they can be any alignment.The "murderers must be evil" argument really holds no weight, which is why I question the prerequisite.
Some soldiers kill for money. Most of them that are in wars are just trying to protect their friends and their nations.
Sneak attacks and poisons are not dishonorable, well poison is by D&D standards, but sneak attack is just knowing how to pick out vital body parts.
I think all the soldiers I know are in it for the money but they sure don't want to kill others but they know it's part of the job when they are deployed. As one friend put it, that military paid a good wage and kept him out of trouble.
Real life example just don't work with this game. Remember this is game where everyone is an assassin. You kill and loot the bodies and collect the reward. How much more assassin like can you get? Just seem depending on you alignment dictates which quest you will be open to.
Saying that I see no reason why you can't have Lawful Good assassin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assassins can be more than just in it for the money. A lot of times, it is political or even religious. Probably the best example of an assassin group that didn't kill for money alone is probably the Hashashin of the Crusades. It was more over keeping political balance and getting rid of despots in the area. I think assassins should be any non good admittedly and we have see them remove restrictions on core rulebook prestige classes. The Arcane Archer no longer has the 'elf/half elf' restriction. I was disappointed that they didn't change the Assassin one, but hey, I just house rule it and call it a day.
You're talking death effects, Ash. I said Death Attack, as in, the Assassin class feature.
Which by RAW can only be used by Capital E characters.
Edit: Interestingly, a Death Attack is not a death effect, and death ward does not grant its bonus to saves against it.
If death attack is the issue for making assassins evil then why the hell aren't people up in arms because master spy doesn't have an alignment restriction?
Isn't 'is he a soldier or assassin or murderer?' the standard, 'well, who wrote the history book?'But yeah, I scrap alignment requirement for classes in my game. I feel like they create more problems than solve. You can roleplay your character however you want. No need for a crutch to justify your decision-making.
It isn't about "who writes the history books".
A soldier isn't there to kill. He's there to enforce the will of his nation using whatever level of force in necessary. Necessary. That's why you can be prosecuted for an unnecessary or improper use of force. That necessary use of force can range from a show of force to major battles that involve a lot of dying. Can you get away with evil acts in war? Yes. That doesn't mean you have to, or, obviously, should.
An Assassin, in D&D / PF, kills for profit. Pure and simple. That he does so using sneaky and dishonorable means just puts the capital E on the "Evil" descriptor. I've never understood how people can justify stabbing people in the back or poison use as "not evil". It may be necessary, the ends may not be "evil", but the act certainly is.
As for "murderer" that says it all. You've killed unlawfully and without moral justification. Not a soldier (unless they break the rules) but *could* be an Assassin.
Chosing a certain character path brings an alignment restriction with it. You could be a Paladin or an Assassin. Whether you stay with that alignment depends on your actions in game. You could be a Neutral Evil Assassin who slowly drifts into a non-evil alignment or has a crisis of conscious and decides to change. That type of thing should happen in-game, not off stage. That type of drama deserves to be on stage and part of the game, not assumed to have happened where it can't be played out and seen. Too much happens in "backstory" these days. I prefer my players do it in game, and as a player I prefer it that way too. Ymmv.
Actually, few death attacks have the Evil descriptor, and are often used by Neutral characters just as frequently.
If I was attacked with a death attack, it means that we're playing for keeps, no holding back, this guy means business. His alignment is irrelevant. :P
You're talking death effects, Ash. I said Death Attack, as in, the Assassin class feature.
Which by RAW can only be used by Capital E characters.
Edit: Interestingly, a Death Attack is not a death effect, and death ward does not grant its bonus to saves against it.
Ohhhhhhhh. :P
Sorry. My brain was like Death Attack = Death descriptor + attack = finger of death or something. I didn't even imagine that it was due to the Assassin prestige class.
On a side note, there is no Ex-Assassin, so once you've qualified for the class and have taken levels in it, there's nothing preventing the assassin from simply not being evil anymore. Maybe he's now actually Neutral, or even Good. :P
paladins being a paragon of law and good is a weak argument too.....none of the paladin abilities ties it to being lawgul.
good yes, but not law imo
The absolute adherance to a code (which is not your personal creation), no matter how tempting it would be to deviate or how much you might, personally want to is quite lawful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Assassin, in D&D / PF, kills for profit. Pure and simple. That he does so using sneaky and dishonorable means just puts the capital E on the "Evil" descriptor. I've never understood how people can justify stabbing people in the back or poison use as "not evil". It may be necessary, the ends may not be "evil", but the act certainly is.
Attaching evil or good qualities to an action in a vacuum is silly at best fanaticism at worst.
I would then go on to wager since you cannot understand that good can lack honor and that evil can be noble that you do not understand the alignment system as written.
A soldier isn't there to kill. He's there to enforce the will of his nation using whatever level of force in necessary. Necessary. That's why you can be prosecuted for an unnecessary or improper use of force. That necessary use of force can range from a show of force to major battles that involve a lot of dying. Can you get away with evil acts in war? Yes. That doesn't mean you have to, or, obviously, should.
Which is why soldiers train to kill people and wield weapons.
An Assassin, in D&D / PF, kills for profit.
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.
Let's not also forget the word Assassin comes from an order of Muslims who killed crusaders. Not for money, or profit, but for war.
Pure and simple. That he does so using sneaky and dishonorable means just puts the capital E on the "Evil" descriptor. I've never understood how people can justify stabbing people in the back or poison use as "not evil". It may be necessary, the ends may not be "evil", but the act certainly is.
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.
Which the nature of their duties include killing, espionage, and potentially bounty hunting. It notes "duties". An assassin is your average adventurer.
As for "murderer" that says it all. You've killed unlawfully and without moral justification. Not a soldier (unless they break the rules) but *could* be an Assassin.
Unlawful has nothing to do with good and evil. Moral justification is also difficult to ascertain. Does a soldier have a moral right to kill someone because he is ordered to do so? Does having a choice change whether it is evil or not? Hm?
Chosing a certain character path brings an alignment restriction with it. You could be a Paladin or an Assassin. Whether you stay with that alignment depends on your actions in game. You could be a Neutral Evil Assassin who slowly drifts into a non-evil alignment or has a crisis of conscious and decides to change. That type of thing should happen in-game, not off stage. That type of drama deserves to be on stage and part of the game, not assumed to have happened where it can't be played out and seen. Too much happens in "backstory" these days. I prefer my players do it in game, and as a player I prefer it that way too. Ymmv.
And you can - legally - be a Paladin Assassin. Just means you've had a brush with the dark side. You can qualify and enter the Assassin class and then go to the Paladin class legally, within the rules, and continue to use your assassin class features after your alignment becomes Lawful Good.
EDIT: In fact, you only need to be Evil as far as the first level. Once you have attained 1 level of the Assassin class, you can continue to gain levels in it regardless of your alignment.
|
|
Ohhhhhhhh. :PSorry. My brain was like Death Attack = Death descriptor + attack = finger of death or something. I didn't even imagine that it was due to the Assassin prestige class.
On a side note, there is no Ex-Assassin, so once you've qualified for the class and have taken levels in it, there's nothing preventing the assassin from simply not being evil anymore. Maybe he's now actually Neutral, or even Good. :P
I believe that is a point of contention, but I won't argue it here. I had also forgotten about the Master Spy having DA. Still, my point was that some people like the character shorthand of 'paladin = LG' and 'assassin = E'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny when people will go through hoops to give justifications that either have no precedence or invalidate previous assertions when the truth is that it's just a holdover from long ago when things were different.
You have a point Lumi, but so does Tri here. People will ignore the facts over trivial stuff like alignment just because it is "simpler".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lolwut? Every soldier is a murderer. Whether you can justify it or not is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
For example, a military Sniper is an assassin. His/her job is to sneak in, take a life, and sneak out. But it's also just a job that any soldier who's good enough can take.
Neo--
Extremely offensive, and WRONG. There is a difference between murder (unjustifiable, deliberate killing of another human being) and justifiable killing (self-defense, defense of others, legitimate line-of-duty for those legally authorized to use lethal force in the course of their duties who are properly and reasonably doing so with good reason-- such as soldiers in hostile military operations, and police officers presented with a clear and present threat that has to be dealt with, and there is no other reasonable way than lethal force).
Frankly, next time you decide to imply that all combat-veterans who have actually "pulled the trigger" in battle are murderers, I'm really going to take justifiable offense to your words. Do try to understand the difference between killing as murder and as justifiable homicide-- there are both legal and moral differences between the two.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really hoping someone up there's in Team Non-Evil Orc Tribe. It'd be nice to come in from the cold one day.Wooo alignment arguments!
I'll leave this thread alone, save to say that many alignment-related issues are contentious topics even among the Paizo staff. :D
I'm with you on this one, Mikaze-- I agree with the folks who say there should be alignment tendencies for the different races-- but not alignment absolutes for them (except in special cases, like certain outsiders)-- so I could definitely see non-evil Orc tribes out there, even in worlds where most Orcs are evil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All soldiers (and anyone else who kills) ARE murderers and sinners. When God decreed that "thou shalt not kill" he didn't add the addendum "unless you're a soldier or other 'lawful authority'."
Also, he didn't specify what we could and could not kill, so we should all be vegetarians too.
:P
Well, firstly, all undead are evil.
Untrue. Also, my ghost paladin would like to have a word with you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, he didn't specify what we could and could not kill, so we should all be vegetarians too.
Even Vegetarians Kill plants. so we shouldn't be eating at all if that were the case. nor should we have most of the tech we have today. you know why this celestial being chose to violate that commandment? we angels have to eat too. now you know why i converted over to Lamashtu. Sarenrae was far too meek for my tastes. mother is such a wonderful goddess.
|
|
Regarding 'Evil' alignment as a requirement for Assassins-- I think it is simply a hold-over from previous editions. Killing people in cold blood for money, on contract-- is usually evil.
I still think it's not (or shouldn't be) an absolute... One example: the Assassin who takes contracts, carries them out and accepts money for her kills because she has to make a living, but makes sure that all of the contracts are on evil, nasty people whom the world would really be better off without... probably isn't good, but isn't necessarily evil.
Also-- any character class can be an "assassin" (in the normal, modern use of the word)-- it's rather close to a synonym for "hit man"-- people make contracts to pay you specifically for relieving other people of the "terrible burden of life"-- in a civil context, that's usually murder... and you're an assassin (IMO), regardless of what it says under "class" on your character sheet.
If one wants to bring up the historical use of the word... sorry, not sure what class would best represent the 'Hashishin' (pick your favorite variant 'Latin' spelling-- the original's in Arabic script), but I'm not sure the D&D class is it-- especially since the real, historical 'Assassins' didn't kill for money-- they were religious fanatics motivated by a particular understanding of and devotion to their faith (and considering that they were usually fighting enemies of their people and/or invaders of their territory, might not be "evil" in D&D terms).