So why aren't Assassin's Legal?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court 2/5

I recently went on Archives of Nethys and it showed me the pfs legal symbol beside the prestige class. Anyone care to explain? If assassins are pfs legal I WILL make one in a breeze. I don't know if anyone else has asked this question before. Also they could change the wording a little bit so that people may become the prestige class.

Also please do not recommend me to play slayer. I really do not want to until the class is complete. I have no intention of play testing it at any time in the future.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They're not legal for PFS since one of the requirements is an evil alignment. The PFS campaign does not allow for evil player characters. That's probably what it refers to.

3/5 5/5

Assassins aren't legal because they require an evil alignment, which isn't allowed in PFSOP.


Assassin's are not legal for PFS play because they require your character to be evil, and evil characters are not allowed for PFS play.

Edit: Damn ninja dragons.

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

yep as stated above. it is unfortunate as in 3.5 the alignment requirement was (non-good). So much better. especially since they have the red mantis assassin PRC which is also required evil alignment.

No love for the hitman for hire with little regards to good or evil. Especially since you consider how often you kill stuff anyways.


You don't need to be an assassin class to be an assassin character.
The vast majority of people on golarion are between level 1 and level 6, and if you are a rogue that is able to do more damage than the average hp of each then you effectively have death attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mswbear wrote:
yep as stated above. it is unfortunate as in 3.5 the alignment requirement was (non-good).

Are you sure? I seem to remember being in a lot of threads discussing why the assassin was evil only back in 3.5 days.


Tormsskull wrote:
mswbear wrote:
yep as stated above. it is unfortunate as in 3.5 the alignment requirement was (non-good).
Are you sure? I seem to remember being in a lot of threads discussing why the assassin was evil only back in 3.5 days.

Just checked. Alignment: Any evil.

No evil characters, no assassins. Q.e.d.


EDIT: ninja'd by Orfamay

Tormsskull wrote:
mswbear wrote:
yep as stated above. it is unfortunate as in 3.5 the alignment requirement was (non-good).
Are you sure? I seem to remember being in a lot of threads discussing why the assassin was evil only back in 3.5 days.

You are entirely correct Tormsskull - I just looked it up now, and Assassins' prerequisites are:

DMG pg 180 wrote:


Alignment: Any Evil
Skills: Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks
Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

So, pretty definitively evil (the first and last points of entry).

(Though I actually enjoy making assassin-style characters who aren't evil.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mswbear wrote:

Especially since you consider how often you kill stuff anyways.

Generally if my PFS character kills somoene it's because that person made it neccessary for me to do so. They don't generally go out on missions specfically to execute murder contracts. ("Take out this demon cultist before he destroys our city" cases notwithstanding.)

The assassin on the other hand is a paid killer. In fact one of the requirements of the class IS to kill someone for no other reason than becoming a "made" member of the assassin's guild.

It's why Bruce Wayne may have trained in the League of Shadows, but he's not willing to cross the line to murder on command.


Yeah, killing total strangers for money, really neutral...

As said though, aside from the veneer of 'ethical good', how is that any different from a group of pcs?

Dark Archive 2/5

Killing total strangers for money could actually be seen as neutral in a lot of ways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not familiar with PFS scenarios, but I can't count the number of times my group in other games has been trespassing, been confronted for it by the local goblins, and then brutally murdered them. After that we tend to rob their corpses. Rinse and repeat that scenario with all types of people and creatures.

I have a hard time taking "I'm much different than a paid killer" seriously. As an adventurer your day isn't complete until you've put X sentient creatures to the sword. You can say how you're "good" all you like, but you butcher people for a living and then sleep like a baby after.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

strayshift wrote:
how is that any different from a group of pcs?

Just because the PCs in your game are allowed to keep non-evil alignments despite killing solely for money, doesn't mean it's a baseline assumption of the game system.

Dark Archive 2/5

chaoseffect wrote:

I'm not familiar with PFS scenarios, but I can't count the number of times my group in other games has been trespassing, been confronted for it by the local goblins, and then brutally murdered them. After that we tend to rob their corpses. Rinse and repeat that scenario with all types of people and creatures.

I have a hard time taking "I'm much different than a paid killer" seriously. As an adventure your day isn't complete until you've put X sentient creatures to the sword. You can say how you're "good" all you like, but you butcher people for a living and then sleep like a baby after.

See also: Paladins

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:

I'm not familiar with PFS scenarios, but I can't count the number of times my group in other games has been trespassing, been confronted for it by the local goblins, and then brutally murdered them. After that we tend to rob their corpses. Rinse and repeat that scenario with all types of people and creatures.

I have a hard time taking "I'm much different than a paid killer" seriously. As an adventurer your day isn't complete until you've put X sentient creatures to the sword. You can say how you're "good" all you like, but you butcher people for a living and then sleep like a baby after.

Repeat after me:

"I am not the baseline. I am not the standard. I will not comment on universal defaults based on an assumption that everyone plays the game the same way as me."

Maybe your PCs "butcher people for a living"; fine. Don't assume mine do too.


"As an adventure your day isn't complete until you've put X sentient creatures to the sword."

Actually, you are not supposed to do it for the money alone (there is usually at least some pretense that they are a threat) and most often there is no requirement to kill all of them - i.e. in case you can and want to persuade them to move, imprison or exile the former leader, etc.

If we are going to have alignments in their current form at all, something that explicitly requires you to kill someone for no other reason than membership certainly merits an evil tag.

Liberty's Edge

strayshift wrote:

Yeah, killing total strangers for money, really neutral...

As said though, aside from the veneer of 'ethical good', how is that any different from a group of pcs?

Maybe it's no different at all from the PCs YOU play. But ours don't start the day with the express intention to murder people. I'm a Pathfinder, an Eagle Knight, not an assassin, and my current concerns are two fold, completing my current aobjective, fightig the rising tide of aristocracy tht threatens the democracy in Andoran, and defeating the demons in the Worldwound. I don't go around killing people unless they themselves make it necessary for me to do so. I've a major beef with the former leader of my faction, because it seems he DID consider us his hired flunkies to cover up his own indiscretions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:

I'm not familiar with PFS scenarios, but I can't count the number of times my group in other games has been trespassing, been confronted for it by the local goblins, and then brutally murdered them. After that we tend to rob their corpses. Rinse and repeat that scenario with all types of people and creatures.

I have a hard time taking "I'm much different than a paid killer" seriously. As an adventurer your day isn't complete until you've put X sentient creatures to the sword. You can say how you're "good" all you like, but you butcher people for a living and then sleep like a baby after.

Repeat after me:

"I am not the baseline. I am not the standard. I will not comment on universal defaults based on an assumption that everyone plays the game the same way as me."

Maybe your PCs "butcher people for a living"; fine. Don't assume mine do too.

Your PCs don't walk the earth killing people and things and living off the proceeds? How? Are you not playing Pathfinder? Because that's how the game works: Kill things and take their loot. You may have a dolled up reason for doing so, but in the end you're doing the exact same thing as that assassin. That is the baseline.


strayshift wrote:

Yeah, killing total strangers for money, really neutral...

As said though, aside from the veneer of 'ethical good', how is that any different from a group of pcs?

Eh, I ran a homebrew game, (not PFS) where one of the players played an assassin, but he served a neutral goddess of death, who had issues with people who extend their lives beyond the normal life span, through necromancy, wishes, whatever. To this deity unnatural lifespan extensions is a cosmic crime. So her agents seek to slay those chosen by her priests as someone who is committed such. Although the act of assassination wasn't a 'good act'. It wasn't done for money, as an act of revenge, nor any personal/political reason. His character was neutral in alignment, and it seemed to fit well, with not being evil.

Dark Archive 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My hellknight pretty much starts his day with the intention of taking as many criminals into custody as possible (usually after rendering them compliant via the pimp hand). Unfortunately, for those apprehended by the Order of the Gate, what they are subjected to after being arrested is thought to be considerably worse than if they had actually been killed. Running afoul of people that keep a fully functioning hellgate in their basement = bad plan. To note, yes, this is a Pathfinder Society character. The society is morally grey, not good like most people seem to want it to be.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, I've never played a Pathfinder PC who set out and killed people for no reason but money. And that includes the Evil character I played (he did things worse than that, but in the service of his nation or ambition, not for mere wealth).

Many have been mercenaries, but they've tended to care about the details of what was going on and gotten involved when innocents were in danger or the like, never just because "The goblins are rumored to have gold, let's go kill them!"

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Your PCs don't walk the earth killing people and things and living off the proceeds?

Nope.

Quote:
How?

By setting out to explore an area, or help someone, or defend against zombies or demons, or to arbitrate disputes, or solve mysteries. Along the way, sometimes folks give you tokens of appreciation for helping, or equipment to help you fend off demon attacks, or you find buried treasure, or you're simply paid for a job well done. More often than not I'll go through a multi-encounter session without killing a single free-willed creature.

And that's with my freaking battle cleric of Iomedae, to say nothing of my can't-we-all-be-friends sorceress.

Quote:
Are you not playing Pathfinder?

Presumably I am, given that I'm speaking primarily from my experience in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

Perhaps you're the one "not playing Pathfinder". Perhaps you're playing AD&D with Pathfinder rules?

Like I said, your game is not the baseline, so don't judge my PCs based on your PCs' actions.


chaoseffect wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:

I'm not familiar with PFS scenarios, but I can't count the number of times my group in other games has been trespassing, been confronted for it by the local goblins, and then brutally murdered them. After that we tend to rob their corpses. Rinse and repeat that scenario with all types of people and creatures.

I have a hard time taking "I'm much different than a paid killer" seriously. As an adventurer your day isn't complete until you've put X sentient creatures to the sword. You can say how you're "good" all you like, but you butcher people for a living and then sleep like a baby after.

Repeat after me:

"I am not the baseline. I am not the standard. I will not comment on universal defaults based on an assumption that everyone plays the game the same way as me."

Maybe your PCs "butcher people for a living"; fine. Don't assume mine do too.

Your PCs don't walk the earth killing people and things and living off the proceeds? How? Are you not playing Pathfinder? Because that's how the game works: Kill things and take their loot. You may have a dolled up reason for doing so, but in the end you're doing the exact same thing as that assassin. That is the baseline.

Pretty much agree here, and give the pcs a choice, an evil one which they profit from and a less-evil one which they don't and they will take the one they profit from nine times out of ten.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yours might. Mine don't. Stop looking at your own behavior and assuming that's what everyone's like.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:
Yours might. Mine don't. Stop looking at your own behavior and assuming that's what everyone's like.

QFT.

I've literally never had a PC group in a Pathfinder game I ran who were that seriously immoral. Individual characters? Sure, a few. But never a whole party, and the Good characters kept them from doing anything that bad.

In games I've played in, only the Evil game was that ambitious/pragmatic, and even that one didn't resemble what's described here (it was arguably worse, but more directed, and, well, an explicitly Evil game).


Oh, I've only been playing for 30 odd years with a huge number of different groups/play-styles across that time... Must have fumbled my moral-compass roll... repeatedly.


strayshift wrote:
Oh, I've only been playing for 30 odd years with a huge number of different groups/play-styles across that time... Must have fumbled my moral-compass roll... repeatedly.

Must be, I've been playing since 1977, and really only during 1e days were our players killing anyone willy nilly. By the time I started playing 2e, about 1987, killing you and taking your stuff was no longer the way we played. As Jiggy mentioned sure there were a few blatantly evil characters run, but never the whole group. We have one player that always plays a pacifist, no matter what edition, character class, and still does so in Pathfinder.

I have no idea where you'd get the idea that your version of the game is the baseline - I've never seen a group act like that since 1e.

Note: my 1e games were never the same group as my 2e group, but of that group, we're still playing together, now with Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:
Oh, I've only been playing for 30 odd years with a huge number of different groups/play-styles across that time... Must have fumbled my moral-compass roll... repeatedly.

Because, you know, everyone who's been interacting with people for over 30 years has a reliable moral compass. Your age definitely proves that you know how people you've never met behave. Why didn't you bring it up sooner?


My group is quite immoral. However they still occasionally negotiate instead of fight, occasionally accept surrender, have never taken money from somebody to kill somebody else, and never have really robbed anybody just to do it.

I think adventurers can be assassins, but all adventurers are not assassins by default. That's horribly narrow minded.

Back on topic though, I think it's kind of a bummer that assassins have a "must be evil" requirement because it is an interesting prestige class. I don't see playing an assassin with a conscious (enough to be at least neutral) as unreasonable. Fiction is full of them. On the other hand, I assume that PFS was designed so that GMs wouldn't have to deal with evil bastards at the table.

3/5

PF Assassins are one of the few areas where I really wholly disagree with RAW.
On the other hand, they are a pretty horrible PrC, so I generally don't use the class even for NPCs that actually ARE assassins, unless I'm making them intentionally stupid, so I guess it doesn't really affect me much.

If you want a PFS legal assassin character, play a ninja with the assassinate master ninja trick and a LN or N alignment. You won't even have to do a "charity murder" to get your special decoder ring.

Also, flagged for wrong forum as this seems to be a PFS question.

-TimD

Shadow Lodge 1/5

Just play a ninja; a high-level ninja gets pretty much what the Assassin has already.

Wow. An alien ninja was ninja'd about ninjas.


Jiggy wrote:
strayshift wrote:
Oh, I've only been playing for 30 odd years with a huge number of different groups/play-styles across that time... Must have fumbled my moral-compass roll... repeatedly.
Because, you know, everyone who's been interacting with people for over 30 years has a reliable moral compass. Your age definitely proves that you know how people you've never met behave. Why didn't you bring it up sooner?

Morality is completely relative to one's society. In Russia, for instance, it is completely legal for the police to beat the living crap out of you.

It is completely acceptable in Islamic nations to kill homosexuals.
Try that in a civilized nation and we'll execute or imprison the offender for first degree murder.

The PFSociety is not a good organization. They seek knowledge, magical items and artifacts, and if people are helped or harmed during the process of obtaining said things by the actions of members then that is their problem. There is a reason a great deal of people outright hate the society.
However, the society neither wants the reputation of being an "evil" organization, nor to have affiliates who kill innocent people of standing just because someone put a great deal of money on the victim's head. This is more or less a self preservation thing. The society, if it came together could take on armies and probably found a nation, but spread apart as it is if their reputation was too sullied by the actions of several nefarious members they might be thrown out of countries and lose powerful affiliations with current ranking members whose fame allows them to stay where they are.

Technically speaking good characters are not supposed to try to kill anyone unless said people are an obvious threat to others, such as in they are threatening or attacking with weapons. Even that tribe of goblins or civilization of kobolds are supposed to be negotiated with before just killed. Or at least the idea is that you are supposed to allow them to prove their intentions to try and kill you before you fight to kill them.

Neutral characters are around the same as the above, but might kill "potential" threats before said threats became too dangerous.

Evil characters kill other sentient creatures for sport, profit, or for no reason what so ever.
Good = Never kills for profit.

Neutral = Robs, Rapes, Ravages for profit, but will leave survivors if possible. Needs to justify killing. Killing pirates as they run away after being defeated is perfectly fine because said pirates are just going to regain their wits and kill other people.

Evil = No survivors unless one wants a reputation. Kills for profit without a second thought.

However, most of the time the PCs are never met with a moral dilemma because the enemies attack them on sight or the enemies are so obviously evil that killing them would probably make the world a better place anyway.


James Bond is an assassin. Play a Gunslinger in a tux.

Scarab Sages

Vamptastic wrote:
James Bond is an assassin.

Yup. England is actually more strict in their entry requirements in that you have to kill two people before you get 00 status.

Sovereign Court 2/5 *

There actually is someone playing the assassin PrC somewhere in PFS. This past Gen Con there was a boon you could buy to play a neutral version. It was an auction thing on the last day I think. Most of those boons were going for $500 or so and I know the bidding on that particular sheet was awfully high.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Vamptastic wrote:
James Bond is an assassin.
Yup. England is actually more strict in their entry requirements in that you have to kill two people before you get 00 status.

shoot a pair of kobolds, now you can get 00 Status. it doesn't say they get to choose whom you kill, it's up to you. and there is no level or CR restriction on your target. so anyone is fair game.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Should have been marked as illegal when I input the Core rules. It's been fixed. Good job on double checking here, it's always a good idea to double check the Additional Resources or base rules, the Archives can't be taken as gospel. :)


Have all the posts in this thread been deleted? Or is this a new thread?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
In the future that might change when I'm out of college and actually have money.

So it's only a mentally handicapped action if you don't have the money to afford it?

Essentially, people who are not you are stupid for doing something you cannot but they can?


Can we go back to talking about assassins, you nerds?

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vamptastic wrote:
Can we go back to talking about assassins, you nerds?

No.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vamptastic wrote:
Can we go back to talking about assassins, you nerds?

Neva! The topic is suppose to be about how Jiggy's players never engage in combat, and how that is supposed to be the default for a game in which 95% of the rules are about combat:)

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Karui Kage wrote:
Should have been marked as illegal when I input the Core rules. It's been fixed. Good job on double checking here, it's always a good idea to double check the Additional Resources or base rules, the Archives can't be taken as gospel. :)

Actually, I'm not sure.

As far as I can tell, you mark things as being legal if there is a boon that lets you play it. And there is apparently a "play an assassin" boon floating out there :)

3/5

Cylyria wrote:
There actually is someone playing the assassin PrC somewhere in PFS. This past Gen Con there was a boon you could buy to play a neutral version. It was an auction thing on the last day I think. Most of those boons were going for $500 or so and I know the bidding on that particular sheet was awfully high.

I played with this guy at a con in Milwaukee. Mr. Mortika was the GM.

Sovereign Court 2/5

Apparently, it hasn't occurred to the majority of people that you don't have to kill someone before you take their stuff. There's a reason you fall unconscious after negative HP, die at negative con, can do non-lethal damage, and have a spell called "stabilize".


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Yours might. Mine don't. Stop looking at your own behavior and assuming that's what everyone's like.

QFT.

I've literally never had a PC group in a Pathfinder game I ran who were that seriously immoral. Individual characters? Sure, a few. But never a whole party, and the Good characters kept them from doing anything that bad.

I'm not saying all PCs are immoral. I'm saying that even if you claim you character is a paragon of virtue he has still personally ended more lives than the worst historical mass murderer (those that did their work personally, that is), and then probably took their stuff. That is an indisputable part of Pathfinder and DnD in general: It's a combat system, what do you expect? Your character probably justifies his actions, but in the end he's spilled enough blood to be able to swim in it, and probably doesn't feel all that bad about it.

With that in mind, I don't see you as much different than the assassin. If you run a non-combat Pathfinder game, I apologize for projecting onto you, but it's safe to say you aren't the baseline if you do.

1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / So why aren't Assassin's Legal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.