|
Add another yes for each no then.Then make that 1,001 times no.Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.Paladins should be of any and every alignment.No, no, a thousand times no.Subtract one yes each time you add one.
How old are we now? Will someone eventually pull out "infinity plus one"? :)
I was going to give you the honor. ;)
In short, could the paladin have been modified into a more general class to accommodate all alignments, or would it have to remain the same due to licenses and such?Paladins remaining exclusively LG is perhaps the clearest example of why PF never became my game of choice.
With a few small tweaks that a monkey could have made within ten minutes, the Paizo team could have opened this class up to eight more archetypes and uncounted rp opportunities. There's no backwards-compatibility issue with the change, as LG paladins could have simply stayed LG. Instead, the Paizo team kept the same old alignment exclusions that have been causing debate and restricting rp options since Gary made some stuff up he thought'd be fun. And then told people to make some stuff up they think'd be fun.
Exclusively LG paladins probably isn't the biggest problem I have with PF, but it does clearly demonstrate why I left Paizo's agonizingly slow march toward progress for a more forward-thinking game.
I do think it shows one of Pahtfinder's bigger issues: it's still sitting in 3.5's shadow. Granted, Pathfinder was made to cater to folks who wanted an improved version of 3.5, but the desire for backwards compatibility really held the game back in some critical areas.
I do think it shows one of Pahtfinder's bigger issues: it's still sitting in 3.5's shadow. Granted, Pathfinder was made to cater to folks who wanted an improved version of 3.5, but the desire for backwards compatibility really held the game back in some critical areas.In short, could the paladin have been modified into a more general class to accommodate all alignments, or would it have to remain the same due to licenses and such?Paladins remaining exclusively LG is perhaps the clearest example of why PF never became my game of choice.
With a few small tweaks that a monkey could have made within ten minutes, the Paizo team could have opened this class up to eight more archetypes and uncounted rp opportunities. There's no backwards-compatibility issue with the change, as LG paladins could have simply stayed LG. Instead, the Paizo team kept the same old alignment exclusions that have been causing debate and restricting rp options since Gary made some stuff up he thought'd be fun. And then told people to make some stuff up they think'd be fun.
Exclusively LG paladins probably isn't the biggest problem I have with PF, but it does clearly demonstrate why I left Paizo's agonizingly slow march toward progress for a more forward-thinking game.
Yep, if I had to point out one problem with pathfinder, it'd be that. As pathfinder was born out of people who desperately longed for a 3.75 in response to the issues they saw in 4e, it lost the opportunity to leave behind a lot of the problems 3.5 had. While it did a lot that I liked, like overhauling the skills to be condensed enough, but not too much, and placing the emphasis back on classes, not PrCs, and such, it still suffers from many of the problems 3.5 had.
I still contend that 4e did a lot to innovate D&D, even though a lot of it's negative points were difficult to overlook. However, much like the American election system, Pathfinder was influenced too much in the 3.5 direction, in its beta phase, much like party primaries tend to choose candidates farther to the left or right of the political spectrum (depending on the party). This left a choice between 4e and Pathfinder that left people like me, who like parts of both 4e and 3.5, but despise other parts with a fiery passion, a bit stranded. Were Pathfinder not created in the immediate aftermath of 4e, perhaps this would be different, as the response would be a little more tempered, allowing some sacred cows to be dropped, and there would be less of a "4e sucks, we shouldn't be like them!" sentiment, and more of a "Well, 4e had some good goals, but massively failed at a lot of it's execution; how can we prevent this?" feeling. I feel like I'd like Pathfinder a lot more, if the latter had a greater impact on the design of the system.
|
I do think it shows one of Pahtfinder's bigger issues: it's still sitting in 3.5's shadow. Granted, Pathfinder was made to cater to folks who wanted an improved version of 3.5, but the desire for backwards compatibility really held the game back in some critical areas.In short, could the paladin have been modified into a more general class to accommodate all alignments, or would it have to remain the same due to licenses and such?Paladins remaining exclusively LG is perhaps the clearest example of why PF never became my game of choice.
With a few small tweaks that a monkey could have made within ten minutes, the Paizo team could have opened this class up to eight more archetypes and uncounted rp opportunities. There's no backwards-compatibility issue with the change, as LG paladins could have simply stayed LG. Instead, the Paizo team kept the same old alignment exclusions that have been causing debate and restricting rp options since Gary made some stuff up he thought'd be fun. And then told people to make some stuff up they think'd be fun.
Exclusively LG paladins probably isn't the biggest problem I have with PF, but it does clearly demonstrate why I left Paizo's agonizingly slow march toward progress for a more forward-thinking game.
Actually even if there werent issues of backward compatability they probably still wouldent make Paladins of other allighments since I seem to recall it being mentioned they had thought of doing it for the APG but in the end settled on just the Anti-paladin instead
add in a CG Something that has anti-law abilities and blammo.But a paladin should be anti evil, no matter their personal law/chaos leanings. Paladins are pro-good/anti-evil. I want NG and CG paladins, but wouldn't dream of playing an anti-law paladin. That goes against the concept of a champion of good.
When issue 310 of Dragon Magazine came out I was looking forward to seeing the CG paladin. Imagine my disappoinent when it had anti-law abilities but nothing against evil! What a waste of time!
Then you want option 2 from my post instead.
I still contend that 4e did a lot to innovate D&D, even though a lot of it's negative points were difficult to overlook. However, much like the American election system, Pathfinder was influenced too much in the 3.5 direction, in its beta phase, much like party primaries tend to choose candidates farther to the left or right of the political spectrum (depending on the party). This left a choice between 4e and Pathfinder that left people like me, who like parts of both 4e and 3.5, but despise other parts with a fiery passion, a bit stranded. Were Pathfinder not created in the immediate aftermath of 4e, perhaps this would be different, as the response would be a little more tempered, allowing some sacred cows to be dropped, and there would be less of a "4e sucks, we shouldn't be like them!" sentiment, and more of a "Well, 4e had some good goals, but massively failed at a lot of it's execution; how can we prevent this?" feeling. I feel like I'd like Pathfinder a lot more, if the latter had a greater impact on the design of the system.
Yup, I've seen anti-4e knee-jerks entirely too often amongst Paizo fans. Which is sad, because I don't think you're the only fan who'd be happier if PF were a little more like 4e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly possible to be an evil assassin, but the choice to kill your enemies is common to good people in the game. Even paladins are killers for their god? It's Smite Evil, not Send Evil To The Naughty Step!
So the techniques of assassins can be learned by anyone of any alignment. It's how you use those skills that define you as good or evil, not the skill knowledge.
So the class shouldn't be limited to evil.Assassination (as a profession not a one off) is invariably evil, because its completely dishonorable.
Even cultures that the game defines as chaotic - Vikings, Homeric Greek, ancient German barbarians, and so on - abhored assassins.
Warrior cultures probably hated them even more than civilized culture, because a man's strength was his skill at arms, and someone who would slay him while he was sleeping or who used poison was the scum of the earth.By that token, every single sniper has an evil alignment.
What is there, mechanics-wise of the prestige class, that makes it evil? I'm not talking about entry requirements; those could easily be tweaked. Imagine a government trained assassin, who's job is to kill the very same enemies that the paladins are trying to kill. Being trained in instant death techniques is no more evil than hacking someone to death with an axe!
Assassins murder people for money. The assassin classes are the classes of those who murder people for money. Not a collection of skills anyone can take. They are adhering to a mindset and a code, just like a paladin does, only in this case, they are evil.
A soldier trained as a sniper is doing his duty as a warrior and soldier, not for pay. He's on a battlefield where he can be sniped in return. His biggest enemy is other snipers. There's nothing evil about what he does. He's out there hunting and doing his duty against enemies of the state, not cashing a check when he offs the girl with the inconvenient baby because a millionaire will pay him fifty large for it.
An assassin using sniping is still a murderer. He's no different then a poisoner...killing a target for the simple reason he was paid to do it, by whatever method is most effective for him.
The Avenger's whole shtick is about avenging past wrongs and bringing justice to evil for their crimes, to those who would be beyond them. It's not about profit.
Motivation is everything. Slayers of Domiel are redeemed assassins in the service of highest good. They don't do it for the money, either.
So the assassin PrC is not about a skillset, it's about a mindset, and then bringing appropriate skills to match that mindset.
If you want to make up a Good PrC that has assassin skills, feel free to go ahead and do it. The Avenger is a good basis to start from, I'd reckon, or go with the holy slayers of Domiel.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assassins murder people for money. The assassin classes are the classes of those who murder people for money. Not a collection of skills anyone can take. They are adhering to a mindset and a code, just like a paladin does, only in this case, they are evil.
That is a very narrow definition - monetary motivation is not required to qualify as an assassin. Quite often political or ideological reasons are the primary motivation for an assassination, not money.
Coincidentally that's also a fairly strong argument for why the assassin prestige class shouldn't have an alignment restriction, or at the very least should allow Neutral characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(...)To me, a paladin is a religious solider(...)
To me, the paladin is, as it always was, a champion of good. That religion thing takes second seat...
|
It's certainly possible to be an evil assassin, but the choice to kill your enemies is common to good people in the game. Even paladins are killers for their god? It's Smite Evil, not Send Evil To The Naughty Step!
So the techniques of assassins can be learned by anyone of any alignment. It's how you use those skills that define you as good or evil, not the skill knowledge.
So the class shouldn't be limited to evil.Assassination (as a profession not a one off) is invariably evil, because its completely dishonorable.
Even cultures that the game defines as chaotic - Vikings, Homeric Greek, ancient German barbarians, and so on - abhored assassins.
Warrior cultures probably hated them even more than civilized culture, because a man's strength was his skill at arms, and someone who would slay him while he was sleeping or who used poison was the scum of the earth.By that token, every single sniper has an evil alignment.
What is there, mechanics-wise of the prestige class, that makes it evil? I'm not talking about entry requirements; those could easily be tweaked. Imagine a government trained assassin, who's job is to kill the very same enemies that the paladins are trying to kill. Being trained in instant death techniques is no more evil than hacking someone to death with an axe!
Assassins murder people for money. The assassin classes are the classes of those who murder people for money. Not a collection of skills anyone can take. They are adhering to a mindset and a code, just like a paladin does, only in this case, they are evil.
A soldier trained as a sniper is doing his duty as a warrior and soldier, not for pay. He's on a battlefield where he can be sniped in return. His biggest enemy is other snipers. There's nothing evil about what he does. He's out there hunting and doing his duty against enemies of the state, not cashing a check when he offs the girl with the inconvenient baby because...
Exactly, motivation is everything!
But motivation is provided by the player, not the character class. If I have trained to kill swiftly, silently and efficiently, this doesn't mean that my motivation suddenly switches to money! I'll choose my own motives, thank you very much!
He is freelance you can always hire him for your table.Over in 4EI know. :P
Maybe we can get him a work visa for Pathfinder?
Does he work weekends and mow lawns? I need someone to mow the lawn in the summer.
|
Exactly, motivation is everything!
But motivation is provided by the player, not the character class. If I have trained to kill swiftly, silently and efficiently, this doesn't mean that my motivation suddenly switches to money! I'll choose my own motives, thank you very much!
Pardon me for squeezing into the conversation. Motivation is interesting and doesn't have to be about money. A royal guard could see his king has gone mad and the people are suffering. He may decide killing his liege would benefit the greater good and carry out the deed. These moral quandaries make the game interesting.
An assassin has trained to be efficient at murder. Their target often has no chance to defend against either battle or by judgement of their peers. Assassins train themselves to carry out murders. Motivation is irrelevant. Unlike the kings guard who faces a moral crisis, an assassin chooses to willing murder over and over. The results may be a benefit to the greater good, but make no mistake this is the act of an evil person.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, motivation is everything!
But motivation is provided by the player, not the character class. If I have trained to kill swiftly, silently and efficiently, this doesn't mean that my motivation suddenly switches to money! I'll choose my own motives, thank you very much!
Pardon me for squeezing into the conversation. Motivation is interesting and doesn't have to be about money. A royal guard could see his king has gone mad and the people are suffering. He may decide killing his liege would benefit the greater good and carry out the deed. These moral quandaries make the game interesting.
An assassin has trained to be efficient at murder. Their target often has no chance to defend against either battle or by judgement of their peers. Assassins train themselves to carry out murders. Motivation is irrelevant. Unlike the kings guard who faces a moral crisis, an assassin chooses to willing murder over and over. The results may be a benefit to the greater good, but make no mistake this is the act of an evil person.
You're begging the question! You're defining as murder when someone with that skillset kills, and then point out that murder is evil!
The mechanics of the class could be completely unchanged, and tweak the entry requirement so that didn't require the murder of an innocent nor require an evil alignment. It would work perfectly, players could choose alignment and motives for their own PC, just like they can with fighters.
Fighters learn to kill people efficiently. They can be murderers if they want, but the killing skills they have can be used to defend the innocent (read: kill the baddies) and this would not be murder.
The Death Attack from the assassin PrC could be used to kill the same baddies for the same pure motives. It would no more be murder than when the fighter did the same thing.
|
The problem comes from the premeditation of the act. If you are using snipers in a time of war as an example for assasins who are 'murderors' Dont. War is a different matter altogether. Also using ideology is a bit sketchy in my opinion, cause killing for a cause often deviates into illegal things and their causes are far from just.JFK killed by ideology, MLK Ideology, you think their killers were motivated by good reasons?
The only issue i have against the argument that anyone should be allowed to get the assasin prestige class sounds like you are looking for mechanical crunch not the fluff, which is fine i guess, just seems more rollplay than roleplay to me.
|
|
Sure. Assasination prequires you to premeditatively think and plot the other persons demise. Someone brought up Snipers as assasins because they are trained to hide out for long hours in places and take long ranged shots to take out targets. I took that as in military training, because what other sort of person goes through that effort for their job. War does not follow any rules set forth by any society that i can think of. Ideology is a beleif in ideals. Using two classic examples of 'snipers' who killed targets based off their beliefs instead of financial motavation i used John Kennedy, and american president killed by a sniper in Dallas and martin luther king, a black rights activist also killed by a man with opposing beliefs who sniped him. If anyone could find me a 'good' sniping in historical times please correct me. Sure they thought their reasons were for the greater 'good' I would think society thinks otherwise.
It sounds to me (my opinion) that those arguing for being good assasins, want all the cool perks of the prestige class Assasin without the negative status of it.
Is that translated enough for you? It was a little rude to denote it as crazy by the by, a simple i dont understand you would have been fine.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, motivation is everything!
But motivation is provided by the player, not the character class. If I have trained to kill swiftly, silently and efficiently, this doesn't mean that my motivation suddenly switches to money! I'll choose my own motives, thank you very much!
Pardon me for squeezing into the conversation. Motivation is interesting and doesn't have to be about money. A royal guard could see his king has gone mad and the people are suffering. He may decide killing his liege would benefit the greater good and carry out the deed. These moral quandaries make the game interesting.
An assassin has trained to be efficient at murder. Their target often has no chance to defend against either battle or by judgement of their peers. Assassins train themselves to carry out murders. Motivation is irrelevant. Unlike the kings guard who faces a moral crisis, an assassin chooses to willing murder over and over. The results may be a benefit to the greater good, but make no mistake this is the act of an evil person.
You're begging the question! You're defining as murder when someone with that skillset kills, and then point out that murder is evil!
The mechanics of the class could be completely unchanged, and tweak the entry requirement so that didn't require the murder of an innocent nor require an evil alignment. It would work perfectly, players could choose alignment and motives for their own PC, just like they can with fighters.
Fighters learn to kill people efficiently. They can be murderers if they want, but the killing skills they have can be used to defend the innocent (read: kill the baddies) and this would not be murder.
The Death Attack from the assassin PrC could be used to kill the same baddies for the same pure motives. It would no more be murder than when the fighter did the same thing.
Fighters have a choice in how they proceed the interpretation of what they are is more open. An assassin by definition is a murderer by choice. An assassin uses murder as a solution and has no issue with that. I guess our difference is all you see is mechanics and I see purpose and definition.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters have a choice in how they proceed the interpretation of what they are is more open. An assassin by definition is a murderer by choice. An assassin uses murder as a solution and has no issue with that. I guess our difference is all you see is mechanics and I see purpose and definition.
I've seen plenty of fighters that use murder as a solution without any issue. I see no distinction between the two.
Remember that Death Attack does not have to be used to kill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neither do I.
Nor is an assassination necessarily a murder in the first place.
The Royal Enforcer, tasked with carrying out his king's will, who sneaks into the lairs of crime lords and whatnot, and assasinates them...is not murdering them. A murder is an UNLAWFUL killing.
A CIA agent who's given a wet op is not committing murder by taking out their target.
And so on, and so forth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then it comes back to the old problem: Badguy has to die for the good of the land. Which is the best way to deal with him? Honorable single combat, and let the dice fall where they may? Of course not. Lives are at stake, the least you could do is take this seriously.
|
|
Neither do I.
Nor is an assassination necessarily a murder in the first place.
The Royal Enforcer, tasked with carrying out his king's will, who sneaks into the lairs of crime lords and whatnot, and assasinates them...is not murdering them. A murder is an UNLAWFUL killing.
A CIA agent who's given a wet op is not committing murder by taking out their target.
And so on, and so forth.
Not commiting murder here say in america, im sure other nations would disagree as would say the UN
|
|
There is a distinction that people are overlooking. An assassin is a targeted killer. Not all fighters, soldiers, guards, etc, are assassins. Yes they are trained to kill but its not their sole purpose. It can be and if murder is their purpose then they are evil.
Now just because evil is on a character sheet doesn't mean horrible person. You don't have to kidnap the princess or kick every puppy you see. You don't have to steal from or kill your fellow travellers. All it means is that murder is a solution and not something troubling for you.
The real problem here is fighter is a very open concept. Fighter can be a law man, soldier, prize fighter, or even an assassin. Same thing with a rogue. Rogue can be a performer, thief, stuntman, or even an assassin. Assassin is a specific archetype; its an assassin.
To bring this conversation full circle the assassin is receiving the same treatment as our good pal the paladin. Folks are mistaking the assassin and paladin as an open concept like the fighter and rogue. They are not the same, they are specific archetypes. They screwed the pooch making the paladin a base class and that cat is not going back in the bag. Its too bad cause they could have avoided a lot of headaches.
|
|
An assassin by definition is a murderer by choice. An assassin uses murder as a solution and has no issue with that.
I don't usually 'fix' things for people, but I'll make an exception here.
An assassin by definition is a killer by choice, just like a fighter or even a paladin. An assassin uses killing as a solution and has no issue with that, just like a fighter or even a paladin
Murder is unlawful killing. Therefore, if it's lawful, then it's not murder. The commandos of WW2 were trained in 'death attack' techniques. The heroes of Assassin's Creed are, well, the good guys. Their death attacks are just that, but they are motivated by need, not money.
Just because you have assassin skills doesn't mean you have to murder people.
I guess our difference is all you see is mechanics and I see purpose and definition.
And there you go ascribing the lowest motives to anyone who disagrees with you! Completely ignoring the story possibilities already available in real life and in fiction; instead saying that the only possible motive for us to want good assassins is for mechanics. That's like saying 'You only want to be a wizard because of the spells!'
T
Folks are mistaking the assassin and paladin as an open concept like the fighter and rogue. They are not the same, they are specific archetypes.
It's only a mistake in your eyes. An Assassin can be a great many things for a great many reasons.
how hard would it be to modify paladin into a generic divine crusader class without the alignment restrictions and with 2-5 general paths?
If you want to play a Paladin, play a Paladin.
If you don't like all the restrictions, like the LG sticker, go play a different holy/melee class.
"Paladins - LG since the 70's"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins of other alignments. Evil Paladins. Chaotic Paladins.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Or since Charlemagne. ;)If you want to play a Paladin, play a Paladin.
If you don't like all the restrictions, like the LG sticker, go play a different holy/melee class.
"Paladins - LG since the 70's"
Yes. Paladins. Rocking the Cause of Good since the 13th century... and page 3. (I already mentioned the 12 Peers.) :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins of other alignments. Evil Paladins. Chaotic Paladins.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Fine, you don't want to use the term "Paladin"? Call them Liberators (for CG), Tyrants (For LE), Despoilers (For CE) or what have you. I don't think anyone cares about the semantics here; just so long as the mechanics exist for them, I think most people would be happy.
Hey, I LOVE the term Illriggers for LE holy warriors! But I don't call them paladins. They might happily call themselves 'dark paladins', but only as a smear and slap to the face of the actual ones.
Other such alignment-heavy orders wouldn't want to be called 'paladins', either, it'd be a slap in the face to them and their beleifs, to be addressed as if they were pale rub-outs of another faction's warriors...
erm...
Won't say anymore.
==Aelryinth
Fine, you don't want to use the term "Paladin"? Call them Liberators (for CG), Tyrants (For LE), Despoilers (For CE) or what have you. I don't think anyone cares about the semantics here; just so long as the mechanics exist for them, I think most people would be happy.Paladins of other alignments. Evil Paladins. Chaotic Paladins.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
CE already has the name Anti-Paladin already. I like Dread Knight or Terror Knight for LE.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
CE already has the name Anti-Paladin already. I like Dread Knight or Terror Knight for LE.Fine, you don't want to use the term "Paladin"? Call them Liberators (for CG), Tyrants (For LE), Despoilers (For CE) or what have you. I don't think anyone cares about the semantics here; just so long as the mechanics exist for them, I think most people would be happy.Paladins of other alignments. Evil Paladins. Chaotic Paladins.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I don't like the name Anti-paladin. Both thematically (in no setting would I believe that they'd be called "anti-paladin") and in terms of being a dark-mirror of a paladin, I think LE fills that role much better. Just because CE is diametrically opposed to LG doesn't mean it fills the role best.
In terms of my LE name, that was honestly just the first thing that popped in my head. My main point was that people are arguing way too much about the name, when, in reality, what matters is the mechanics. After all, the names are just a way to refer to the class. They don't matter too much. It's the mechanics and what those mechanics represent that matters. After all, no one complains about a Bard-in-name-only, who acts as a battlefield commander, using Perform: Oratory to inspire her troops. Nor do people (rather, most people) seem to mind, when people play a "rogue" who is actually a Ninja or Archaeologist bard, or Vivisectionist alchemist, or the like. All that those are are names. It's not a Roleplaying straightjacket.
I think the name Knight for the class fits them just fine, and they can be whatever alignment they want.
Myself, I just run the Paladin as Any Good and Antipaladin as Any Evil and it works fine for us. YMMV
Aren't they releasing a War Priest in the next batch of classes?
Seems that might cover the bases for all alignments.
Aren't they releasing a War Priest in the next batch of classes?
Seems that might cover the bases for all alignments.
Class plays a lot differently. It focuses on using his Fervor to do more than heal himself (or create more smites for contemporaries on these boards).
No smiting, no Divine Grace, no mount.
It's more like a cleric that was designed to be a battle cleric and less like a divine warrior who dabbles in a little spellcasting here and is totally blessed by the powers of goodness.
On the assassin arguement I have no problen withthe PrC being restricted to evil since the flavor is that of an someone who basically kill for with"not good" reasons. However not all assassinations are done with an evil or bad intent so the class should have had a different name but since most people think bad thoughts upon hearing the word "assassination" the class got that name.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In that case, Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb.So a person has to be honorable to be good now?Yep, some sort of fair play code. That is the nature of good.
Villains are the ones with the anything goes attitude.If you follow that rule then good starts looking an awful lot like evil.
Lets play good kingdom versus evil kingdom.
The evil kingdom sends an assassin and kills the good king. (Evil act.)
The good kingdom sends an assassin and kills the evil king. (Good act.)The evil kingdom infects the good kingdom with a plague which kills thousands of good people. (Evil act.)
The good kingdom infects the evil kingdom with a plague which kills thousands of evil people. (Good act.)Evil kingdom tortures captives from good kingdom. (Evil act.)
Good kingdom tortures captives from evil kingdom. (Good act.)The evil kingdom sends terrorists to attack the marketplaces of the good kingdom. (Evil act.)
The good kingdom does the same ...The thing is you can't have good doing everything evil does in a tit for tat manner, otherwise good and evil become indistinguishable beyond the labels.
So yeah, I think to be good you need to play by a code and not just do whatever you like to the "evil" enemy just because they have an evil sticker on their back.
IRL, each country believes that they are good and the enemy is evil. When their soldiers kill ours then it's those evil murdering bastards slaughtering our brave boys in uniform who are only there to protect our loved ones. When our soldiers kill their's then our brave boys took the fight to the enemy, hampering their villainous plans for world domination.
Spies working for our enemy are vile deceivers who worm their evil way into the affections of decent, honest folk so that they can murder and destroy in a most cowardly manner.
Spies working for us are brave souls who risk life and limb to infiltrate the enemy and attempt a surgical strike that could end the war with the death of a single enemy leader instead of thousands of deaths on both sides. What heroes these brave men are!
In our fantasy worlds, good and evil are real forces. There really are good kingdoms and evil kingdoms, and they do go to war. And yet the forces on both sides do the above stuff to each other. Do the good guys become evil by fighting a just war against those who would enslave them? Do paladins fall the first time they successfully use Smite Evil on the grounds that killing people is wrong?
No! The good guys in our fantasy worlds aren't pacifists but warriors, who kill the bad guys! And this is sanctioned by the forces of good. Paladins could not exist otherwise.
In war, your duty to your loved ones is to defeat the enemy so that they cannot harm those to whom you have a duty. We all have a right to defend ourselves and our loved ones, and governments and soldiers have a duty to do so, and that involves killing.
So, if the evil enemy is on your doorstep with overwhelming force that your army cannot hope to match, and the enemy are on the verge of victory and enslaving and murdering those women and children who you have a duty to protect, then if the opportunity for victory presents itself, is it evil to take it? Is it evil for one of our soldiers to kill one of their soldiers? Is it evil to have one of our commandos kill one of the enemy generals...?
'Commando' is a name for our soldiers who have undergone specialised training, including but not limited to, assassination. Was every commando evil? Does merely undertaking commando training turn you evil, or do you have to be evil before you can take the training?
. . . And that's "8th century," though they were probably a tad less idealistic---that is, thugs with swords---than the troubadours portrayed them centuries later.
But who cares about facts? I want my traditional paladins!
True. I was referencing when the term paladin came into common usage rather than the actual referent's period of operation. But I will take that as fair correction, Sir. :)
|
|
I guess our difference is all you see is mechanics and I see purpose and definition.And there you go ascribing the lowest motives to anyone who disagrees with you! Completely ignoring the story possibilities already available in real life and in fiction; instead saying that the only possible motive for us to want good assassins is for mechanics. That's like saying 'You only want to be a wizard because of the spells!'
I did use a broad brush there. I do not consider it the lowest motive though. This is an RPG some people want a blank slate to make their own way. Some people like borders to guide them along as they play. Those who want open concept classes and those who see the value in a class with parameters like prestige classes. Neither is right or wrong but they are differing view points. I am fine with alignment and enjoy letting it define my character. I can see how some find it limiting or undesirable.