But the requirement is that you kill the person for no other reason than to qualify to become an assassin. You are introducing a bunch of other reasons to kill your designated victim. I am not sure that you would even be given a choice of who to kill.Once again. Its not an organization. There is no dark brotherhood that is handing out assignments. Unless your gm house rules otherwise, you may kill whomever you wish in the quest to become an assassin.Though it is a comomn trope that assassins belong to a guild of assassins, that isn't necessarily true, and the entry for Assassin prestige class in no way suggests that becoming an assassin means joining an assassins guild.
@David Knot - if an assassin's guild is not involved, who is limiting the choice on whom to kill? Nobody - that's an assumption you're including that is not mentioned in either the fluff nor mechanics.
@Thomas Long 175 - at the same time, you're assuming there is no assassin's guild, and just as the Assassin prestige class doesn't imply there is an assassin's guild at work, it doesn't imply there isn't one. You say there is no dark brotherhood handing out assignments, but there very will could be. The Assassin entry is ambiguous enough not to imply if either is true, but it also doesn't suggest that such a case is false.
Both you and David are making assumptions - trying to add additional information that is not in the rules. Neither one of you is completely accurate - perhaps its true for your home games, but not specifically by the book.
The GM can add an assassin's guild, but by the book you are not killing to join one. If killing to join a guild was the intent it would make sense to show proof of the killing, otherwise anyone could bluff their way into the guild.
Thomas was saying you do not have to join one by the rules in the book, not that no assassin guild exist, from the way I read his statement.
I'm actually fine with leaving the assassin prestige class as is. I see no problems with a gang of assassins that consists of someone with the Assassin prestige class, someone else as a ninja and yet another as a slayer - each has their strengths and weaknesses, and varying schtick to accomplish hired murder. I'd say pick the class/prestige class that best fits your alignment and character goals. I see no reason to have to upgrade a previous rendition of the occupation of assassins everytime a new similar class is created.
But its also an assumption that a guild does not exist. The rules don't specifically say there is no assassin's guild - only you are (and calling it a houserule to include one). You're reading in information that is not there.
Oh for earlier when someone said RL assassin/hashashin never cared about payment, yeah no. They were paid in hashish. They were paid in drugs so they could see what they thought was heaven from what I remember. Yes they had goals, but they were also drug addicts.
Ummm...
No.
It is pure coincidence that hashish and hashashin sound similar.
In the same spirit of correcting bullshït, George Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter, Columbus didn't discover North America, Amelia Earhart's body was found, and we know damned well what happened at Roanoke island.
In the same spirit of correcting bullshït, George Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter, Columbus didn't discover North America, Amelia Earhart's body was found, and we know damned well what happened at Roanoke island.
Cite sources or it didn't happen!
(Said the guy who apparently didn't need sources to believe those things in the first place.)
EDIT: Seriously though, please provide sources, as I'm quite curious about some of those things. I didn't know that Earhart's body was found or that people said that GWC invented peanut butter.
And I don't even know what Roanoke island is about.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem, as I see it, is that Prestige Classes often are concepts.
A Hellknight is a Hellknight. To become one, you have to go join the Hellknights. You can file the serial numbers off the class and make it a generic spooky-lawful guy, or even have it represent a specific guy's knightly style rather than a whole order of knights, but by default the class represents a specific concept--A Hellknight.
The Assassin is similarly an Assassin. You can file the serial numbers off and make it a dedicated killer for any number of causes, but the class has a concept baked into it--that of a mercenary killer without a conscience.
Now I happen to like this fact about PrCs, but I can see how some people don't :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and the reason people think you have to join a clan/guild of assassins as part of the PrC's requirements is that used to be the case. The 3.5 requirements stated:
The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.
Pathfinder changed that to "become an assassin" so you could have Assassins who weren't part of an organization.
Roanoke island was a pre james town colony located in the new england area that was said to have died off in its 2nd winter. Apparently, when the ships arrived next season the establishment was still there but the people were all gone with no trace of what happened to them.
Correct except for the location of the colony. Roanoke Island is part of the Outer Banks of North Carolina -- I've been there.
But its also an assumption that a guild does not exist. The rules don't specifically say there is no assassin's guild - only you are (and calling it a houserule to include one). You're reading in information that is not there.It also doesn't say the aliens from independence day and will smith aren't there. Is it a house rule to say things aren't assumed to be in the setting if they're not explicitly called out in the setting? I'd say not. It's not assumed to be in the game unless the game calls out that it is there.
Just like any other existence, the burden of proof lies on existence itself, not lack of existence. Otherwise, Will Smith, ace pilot and alien killer is assumed to be in every setting until explicitly told he's not there.
PF didn't invent the Assassin its a conversion from 3x Assassin which was much more explicit regarding becoming an assassin meant joining an assassin's guild.
Oh, and the reason people think you have to join a clan/guild of assassins as part of the PrC's requirements is that used to be the case. The 3.5 requirements stated:
The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.
Pathfinder changed that to "become an assassin" so you could have Assassins who weren't part of an organization.
This.
And changing the wording makes sense, since indeed many assassins today, in the RL are individuals not part of a larger organization, but hired as a professional within the criminal community.
Using 3x history, Assassins were members of an assassin's guild. These rules don't exist in a vaccuum, the PF variant of the rules is for clarification of not requiring to be in a guid. However, an expectation that there is an assassin's guild is appropriate.
But no where is your silly argument that anything else applies - such Will Smith, etc. I didn't just start playing PF with no reference to any previously published RPG. 3x versions is a very real comparison.
Right, because its a conversion from 3x, with specific wording deviating from the previous, thus the change in rules and meaning. That said, the new version of assassin doesn't specifically discount the existence of a guild, just that it no longer requires a guild's participation. It is not a mistake or houserule to believe that a guild still may be involved. The change in wording doees not imply that all previous descriptions of the rule (in a different rule system) are negated, only that that more specification has been applied.
I should have given an example.I agree that killing for money/profit is evil. The non-evil assassins I was speaking of are those that such as government agents who kill people to protect their country, as an example. To avoid any hair-splitting we will assume the gov't is not having him kill people for bad reasons. :)He was speaking of the PrC, not the assassin profession. Being an assassin does not make you evil.If you are jaded enough that you will kill someone merely for a contract, you're evil in my book.Then that would be some very weird government. Kings and governments employ assassins to do things they won't dare be caught ordering openly.
.... and then sometimes they hire an assasin to kill the assasin.
You are still not getting what I mean.
As simple as I can make it→assassin=one skilled in the art of killing not the traditional mercenary who takes contracts. I doubt governments dont have agents with this skill set.
The Assassin is similarly an Assassin. You can file the serial numbers off and make it a dedicated killer for any number of causes, but the class has a concept baked into it--that of a mercenary killer without a conscience.
Except an Assassin isn't exactly or always a mercenary killer without a conscience; that isn't the concept, the concept may be a person that kills for money and doesn't care who it is, it could be on that kills for money but only kills those that deserve it, someone that kills out of loyalty to another, their country, their government, or their church, or just someone that learned to kill people really well.
But its also an assumption that a guild does not exist. The rules don't specifically say there is no assassin's guild - only you are (and calling it a houserule to include one). You're reading in information that is not there.
all requirements a re listed in the book. If it s not in the book it is not a requirement. There is no ambiguity anymore than if I try to say all assassins have a code of honor. Some do just like some might be in an organization. But neither a code of honor or a guild/organization are part of the rules .
Right, because its a conversion from 3x, with specific wording deviating from the previous, thus the change in rules and meaning. That said, the new version of assassin doesn't specifically discount the existence of a guild, just that it no longer requires a guild's participation. It is not a mistake or houserule to believe that a guild still may be involved. The change in wording doees not imply that all previous descriptions of the rule (in a different rule system) are negated, only that that more specification has been applied.As said before though, allowing them to select for you who to choose in order to join the prestige class is a house rule. They don't get to pick or choose who you kill, and to make it so is in fact a house rule.
Nothing I discussed in the entire thread had anything to do with whom you kill. By RAW its any person, "someone", for no other reason than to become an assassin. Why would I argue otherwise, its plainly stated.
In the several assassins I've played even long before 3x, all were always loners and never part of a guild of assassins. I'm not an advocate for nor against the inclusion of a guild of assassins. Whatever works in your game is fine by me.
Just the assumption of a guild is not some "out of nowhere" (and must be a houserule) idea with how an assassin works, they've been around (and later disappeared) since 1e, and assassin guilds were a thing since then. That doesn't mean a guild is a must-have, just that assuming there are is not far-fetched.
I was only entering the discussion as it applied to the reasonable existence of an assassin's guild. That in no way inserts me into any other separate discussion. I was only clarifying the single point - not the argument, which I was not a part.
Zwordsman, you do realize that just because the person you kill isn't good still makes you evil right? Murder is murder. And again, we are talking murder not self defense which is what a fair number of adventurers do. Heck, my good characters and even neutrals always give the option to surrender to the enemy until the last moment and never coup but instead stabilize and take all their stuff, then leave them.
It is like killing someone evil does NOT make you good. It is about WHY you killed them. Just doing it to fill a requirement to join a guild is a pretty evil reason. Doing it to save a village is a bit more noble but grey. The assassin class requires you to be evil because you are a contract murderer. You have to commit murder for no other reason but to join like an initiation. If your character is ok with that, they are a cold hearted monster. Again, I point to the operative in Serenity and Jonathan Teatime in Discworld.
Also, you know sociopathy/psychopathy is a disorder that means you simply are unable to feel empathy for other people so hold no value on the lives of others right? Someone correct if I am wrong please.
By your logic Paladins as a Player Class cannot exist...
Take every bit of "fluff" out of the rulebook and you will have a terribly boring book with no feel at all to the game and just have numbers really. Heck, even saying names of abilities and having races and classes exist at all is fluff. Take out all the fluff and enjoy your list of spreadsheets and playing a game of compare numbers and add variables. Go ahead and play a game with zero fluff. The story is fluff and character goals are fluff. Calling things spells is fluff too.
Absolutely everything in the book is a rule. Every rule in the book can be disregarded. That is every edition and incarnation of D&D and pretty much all other role playing games.
Except when you tie your self exclusively to the fluff you end up with Rangers who are all Sociopathic Nature huggers and All ninjas running around in Pajamas and monks who don't even live up to their description...
Ehhhh, that description actually does define the class and generally what members of said class is like. Well, if you want to roleplay why you have this as your profession that is and why anyone chose to train you in said class. Your character's "character" shows what they will become and if anyone things you have got the stuff to learn what they are teaching. Nobody just wakes up one day and says "I'm a level one wizard now!" Cause that is terrible storytelling in a storytelling game.
Oh course, in your game you can do what you want but generally yeah that description tells you what people of that class are supposed to generally be like. Otherwise, you are slapping the creative devs and writers in the face and saying in the world and game they made, they are wrong and their stories (fluff and flavour is story and vice versa. no getting around that) that you choose to play in are bad.
Again, at your table you can do how you like but those descriptions, by default, are not throw away. Everything and I mean -everything- in the rule book is a rule but every GM has the authority to use as much of it as they like.
Lemmy you sorta contradicted yourself. You say you want all alignment restrictions removed but you tell others not to make the devs change things to force a restriction. You can't say the devs need to change things to how you want and then say others can't do the same.
Looking at alignment as a restriction on your role play is wrong. You take your character's character (meaning personality) and then look at where does it fit. Your sense of character limits and restricts what your game character can be. You don't pick an alignment. Rather you make a person first, think about who and what they are, then pick the alignment that fits that best and class that makes most sense for them to grow into becoming.
Basically, first you make your backstory and history for the character to see who they are, then you give them their class representative profession and the alignment that best...
I´m sorry but isn´t that the way you create characters, not how everyone should create their characters? I create my characters like that as well, mostly, but other people are allowed to create theirs just out of mechanics if they like. My experience is that those characters are boring (i.e. we have a hunter in our party and we keep forgetting it´s a female because she wasn´t really made as a character, rather by mechanics).
|
The Slayer, like every other class, is just a title. There's no tattoo on Zadir's head that says SLAYER. He could do whatever he wants with his abilities and have a LG alignment as far as we know. The Assassin will straight up kill anyone for money.
And really, I don't see where the comparison is coming from. Assuming you're playing a Paizo AP, the heroes are always fighting for SOMETHING, saving SOMEONE, and being heroic. Not being murderhobos. The money and XP are part of the game, so looting their enemies doesn't automatically make them bad people. Are you honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between a Slayer fighting to protect Sandpoint from goblins, and an assassin who would kill my dear old grandma for some GP?
