| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Paizo hates Prestige Classes and wants you to take Archetypes.
/sarcasm off.
You may be speaking more truthfully than you think . . .
Paizo did not really make PrC's weaker, they just make the game less dippable, since in 3.5 people would take classes just for mechanical reasons and dip 3 to 4 classes. They also don't front load classes as much.
The idea of a PrC was not to just get be a stronger class, but a more focused class. However many did have special abilities that were stronger than a normal class. Many of them are still playable, but they are not just a power grab anymore, which is not really a bad thing. There is no reason why they would really care if you played a PrC. They could have just stopped making them altogether really. People would have complained, but I don't think it would have mattered much if they had waited until 3 or 4 years to say "no more PrC's".
While I agree in general, the Assassin is the one PrC that outright got nerfed; replacing spellcasting with a couple minor skill bonuses and making it harder to raise people they kill.
On the broader topic, I think a lot of it is down to legacy issues and the fact that the "good" assassin has only recently picked up a lot of popularity as a character type in fantasy circles (which I suspect one can largely attribute to stealth-based games in the vein of Assassin's Creed and Dishonored). And all things considered, I think the Slayer fills that niche just fine, and with much better mechanics than the Assassin.
I know the slayer would likely be more effective, the conversation mentioned in the first post simply made me question WHY evil was a prerequisite, assuming that that logic given was the main reason I found the logic behind that statement flimsy.
Also a Paladin's alignment is because he is champion of GOOD deities if I'm not mistaken, there is a cause tied to the name of that class. To me the only thing tied to the name assassin is a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.
Sorry, the way I was going to word this was just to perfect not to do that. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asking why an asssasin must be evil makes about as much sense as asking why a Paladin should be good.Another perennial topic.
I think this particular comparison is actually rather apt, because the objections to both cases stem from the same source: mechanics being restricted/limited by pre-defined flavor.
In the case of assassin, some people are annoyed that "Stealthy killer" niche is limited to evil characters only. In the case of the paladin, some people annoyed that the "Martial Champion of the Gods" niche is limited to lawful good characters.
Now, one can certainly argue how well other classes will allow people to fill that same role (I'd say the slayer does fine as the assassin of any alignment), but some people want what they want. They don't want to play a ninja or a slayer or a rogue, they want an Assassin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The beginning of the Texas Rangers. The first rangers were told to seek out troublemakers and "Shoot'em or recruit'em." So, giving people who are doing things Hobson's Choice goes back to the beginnings of one of America's most celebrated law enforcement teams, and likely way, way further back then that. Intelligence agencies and crime families do the same thing all the time.
==Aelryinth
"Join us or die" isn't a Hobson's choice but an extortion. A Hobson's choice is between X and the empty set - the only consequence of not taking X is that you didn't take X.
I have questioned why a Paladin must be LAWFUL in these forums before so I'm not only questioning this classes alignment restriction. I'm not up to on paladin stuff though so I can't say I make terribly informed questions, I have wondered though why there can't be paladins of neutral deities though, seeing as there are Paladins for good, and paladins (anti paladins) for bad deities, why not neutral ones? I know there alignment based class abilities would probably need a slight tweak but it is a thought.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have questioned why a Paladin must be LAWFUL in these forums before so I'm not only questioning this classes alignment restriction. I'm not up to on paladin stuff though so I can't say I make terribly informed questions, I have wondered though why there can't be paladins of neutral deities though, seeing as there are Paladins for good, and paladins (anti paladins) for bad deities, why not neutral ones? I know there alignment based class abilities would probably need a slight tweak but it is a thought.
A Paladin gets her powers from her adherence to the code, not a deity. That's where the lawfulness comes from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hobson's Choice is mainstreamed as a choice that is not a choice.
i.e. you make the choice, because there are literally no viable options for NOT making the choice. "Something for nothing" is one version of Hobson's Choice. "Make the choice or die for not making it" is another version of it. Hobson's choice is the choice that is not a choice.
Which is the context I was using it in.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have questioned why a Paladin must be LAWFUL in these forums before so I'm not only questioning this classes alignment restriction. I'm not up to on paladin stuff though so I can't say I make terribly informed questions, I have wondered though why there can't be paladins of neutral deities though, seeing as there are Paladins for good, and paladins (anti paladins) for bad deities, why not neutral ones? I know there alignment based class abilities would probably need a slight tweak but it is a thought.
You'll find that a lot of things in Pathfinder are sacred cows going back to AD&D and even late OD&D. Paladins being lawful is one of them.
Assassins being evil stems from a few concepts, sacred cows largely stemming from their contrast with the rather Arthurian Cycle ideals underpinning the paladin:
-Treacherous tactics ARE evil. While later editions have moved away from this, it was explicitly in the 2e paladin ethos that "Stealth in the name of good is acceptable, but only as a last resort." Stealth. As in, going around the ogres rather than over their corpses was a borderline ethos violation for the paladin.
The assassin prefers treacherous tactics.
-Poison use IS evil. This was another sacred cow; in both 1e and 2e, the Dagger of Venom had a specific disclaimer that "use of this weapon by good - particularly lawful good - characters should be monitored closely for effects on alignment."
The assassin was uniquely capable of creating and safely handling poisons.
-Killing humans and demihumans for profit alone IS evil. Of course, this is the assassin's raison d'etre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assassins never HAVE to commit murder. (I am not talking about the PrC explicitly that says you have to but more as a statement on assassins in general as I am advocating this stipulation be removed) Murder is an unjustified killing. No one ever said assassins have to take every job, or even have to work as a killer for hire. An assassin could very well work exclusively for a single good aligned body. I don't see why people wouldn't want obviously evil forces taken care of, perhaps there is a stronghold dastardly villains that seems to be a little to much for a frontal assault? Thus rendering the paladins useless. In comes the assassin, stabbing douche bags in the back. Stereotypical assassin? No. But a guy sneaking around back stabbing and cutting throats sounds like an assassin to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, I'm not arguing that the flavor of the class isn't evil, (I did forget about the kill someone just to be an assassin tidbit) I am now arguing that the flavor shouldn't be there and that it should be as open to interpretation as any other class.
Flavor is always mutable but I think it is ok for the base version to be evil. I don't see the problem with an assassin class that is based on evil even if its powers could be useful for team good.
Exactly, I'm not arguing that the flavor of the class isn't evil, (I did forget about the kill someone just to be an assassin tidbit) I am now arguing that the flavor shouldn't be there and that it should be as open to interpretation as any other class.Flavor is always mutable but I think it is ok for the base version to be evil. I don't see the problem with an assassin class that is based on evil even if its powers could be useful for team good.
I agree with this, totally. Unfortunately this does nothing for use in PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also repeat. Many of the game rules are based on tropes such as the witch requiring a familiar. So flavor is baked into the rules in some cases. If you look at other rules they so have flavor baked in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh well for PFS you are out of luck. You cant even reflavor weapons.
Well that resolves another topic I've been meaning to make. "How open to reflavoring is PFS?" Oh well.
So why the evil alignment restriction?
Without reading the entire thread, I highly recommend you drop all class alignment requirements.
The WHY is very important. {. . .} If you can't see the inherent difference, then there's no further for us to go.I have never understood it either.
If you kill Gnolls, or Hobgoblins, and collect the bounty, you can be a Paladin.
If you kill elves, or halflings, and collect the bounty, then you are evil.
It's a blatantly biased situation. The NAAGP (National Association of Greenskinned Peoples) should register a complaint and get themselves a mind-flayer lawyer to address this issue.
I think the post you responded to was supposed to be a joke . . . .
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I liked the alignment system from Rifts/Palladuim.
*
*
*
*
*
Principled (Good)
Principled characters are, generally, the strong, moral character.
A true lawful by-the-book good
Scrupulous (Good)
Scrupulous characters value life and freedom above all else, and
despise those who would deprive others of them. This type of hero is
typically portrayed in many Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson films;
the person who is forced to work beyond the law, yet for the law, and
the greater good of the people. They are not vicious or vindictive men,
but are men driven to right injustice. I must point out that these characters
will always attempt to work with or within the law whenever possible.
Many cyber-knights are scrupulous.
Unprincipled (Selfish)
This, basically, good person tends to be selfish, greedy, and holds
his/her personal freedom and welfare above almost everything else.
He/she dislikes confining laws, self-discipline and distrusts authority.
This is the Han Solo, Star Wars, character. The guy who is always
looking for the best deal, associates with good and evil characters, is
continually tempted to lie and cheat, and hates himself for being loyal
and helping others.
Anarchist (Selfish)
This type of character likes to indulge himself in everything. He is
the insurgent, con-man, gambler and high roller; the uncommitted
freebooter seeking nothing more than self-gratification. This character
will, at least, consider doing anything if the price is right. These people
are intrigued by power, glory and wealth. Life has meaning, but his
has the greatest meaning. Laws and rules infringe on personal freedom
and were meant to be broken. An anarchist aligned person is always
looking for the best deal, and will work with good, selfish or evil to
get it; as long as he comes out of the situation on top. The anarchist
is continually teetering between good and evil, rebelling, and bending
the law to fit his needs. Often mercenaries fall into this category
Aberrant (Evil)
The cliche that there is "No honor among thieves." is false when
dealing with the aberrant character. This is a person who is driven to
attain his goals through force, power, and intimidation. Yet the aberrant
person stands apart from the norm, with his own, personal code of
ethics (although twisted ethics by the standards of good). He expects
loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a
swift, merciful death. An aberrant person will always keep his word
of honor and uphold any bargains. He will define his terms and live
by them, whether anyone else likes it or not.
Miscreant (Evil)
This self-serving, unscrupulous character is out only for himself.
Power, glory, wealth, position, and anything that will make his life
more comfortable is his goal. It matters not who gets caught in the
middle, as long as he comes out smelling like a rose. This person will
lie, cheat and kill anyone to attain his personal goals.
Diabolic (Evil)
This is the category where the megalomaniacs, violent, and most
despicable characters fall. This is the cruel, brutal killer who trusts no
one and has no value for anyone or anything that gets in his way.
Aberrant aligned characters find these dishonorable people just as revolting
as a good aligned character.
|
Again. I don't think that we should trust Paizo or Wizards of the Coast with their definitions of the alignments. TBH, it was clear to me from the beginning that their definitions and grasp on the alignment system was flawed.To paraphrase: I don't think we should trust the designers of the game with the rules of the game. It's been clear from the beginning that their understanding was flawed.
Seriously? Through multiple editions and redesigns of the game, two different sets of game designers didn't understand the rules they wrote? How does that make any sense at all?
Was there some great secret about the way TSR handled alignment that was different and made sense, but that the 3.0 designers just missed? Or did Gary not understand alignment from the start? Cause I remember alignment arguments coming up back in the day. Not so often of course, because there was no Internet.
Yup. Pretty much. I think it's a wonderful system, mind you. It has had the unintentional effect of mystifying good and evil, making it perfect for it's best application; religious context.
Anything else, though? It tends to make people roll characters based on their alignment, which is abhorrent to me. Plenty of times already, I've had players who twist their character to become immersion breaking murder-hobos just because they wanted to play a character with an evil alignment, because they think that it's a get-out-of-jail-free-card under soft GMs.
Assassins being evil Dates back to AD&D(2nd ed.)I believe it's original (because I also believe it's heritage from 3.5 and older) intent was to mark the assassin as a dedicated murderer who places value in mortal life, only as long as the opposite end of the weight stays down.
They don't have creeds, death is a service, and they instigate the violence.
Mind you, I think a lot of Pathfinders who are good aligned, or even neutral would consider nonlethal approaches if:
1) It was more easily effective without dedicating to it
2) Didn't carry the almost blatant threat that anyone not escorted directly to prison would simply wake up, heal up, and come back for round 2. I imagine, if I were a bandit, and someone whopped me so well that I passed out, and I came to with them looking at me saying "Go away." I'd listen and never look back.
Again, it goes back to before AD&D(1st ed.) Greyhawk and its assassins guild were a later OD&D supplement.
In fact, 1e's assassin was a core class - and the only reason you'd pick thief over it was to avoid the requirement to be evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that and that you were a couple levels behind on all the thief things and needed more xp to advance as well. You were also more limited in multiclassing, which is where I usually saw thieves anyway.{. . .}
In fact, 1e's assassin was a core class - and the only reason you'd pick thief over it was to avoid the requirement to be evil.
Although strangely, in 1st Edition AD&D, Thieves had an alignment requirement written as having to be Neutral or Evil, although they meant have a Neutral component, because they could be Neutral Good, or any non-Good; this had a weird effect of Thieves not being allowed to be Chaotic Good, which semi-hosed the idea of Robin Hood.
Actually, I liked the alignment system from Rifts/Palladuim.
I could never figure out a meaningful distinction between Miscreant and Diabolic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could never figure out a meaningful distinction between Miscreant and Diabolic.Actually, I liked the alignment system from Rifts/Palladuim.
Miscreants...Don't like looking like Diabolics.
That's what I got out of it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind is that the Assassin class in past editions (and the PrC to an extent, and the 4th ed. version) were not balanced and considered to be overpowered compared to the other classes available. The PrC has a one shot ability that just needs a bit of time and a failed save to outright kill an enemy/mark.
It also should be noted that the concept of Assassin is more popular wanted choice while the poor Paladin is steered away from because of an Alignment requirement gone the other way.
I have always considered the Assassin PrC as an NPC class, with characters for a game being heroic needing to be Non-Evil most of the time, just as it is in PFS.
I was soured by the overall Assassin class when a player was a 1st edition version in a 2nd edition game, and took over the game most of the time. At the time, the blurred line between the two editions was simply to adapt instead of going with complete edition change, running a combination of the two editions. Most considered a better experience with merged games rather than actually playing a complete second edition game, as with all that was available from the previous edition was still considered to "good" to jettison to the side. The differences between the two are not as severe as they are between the successors after them.
The 1st edition Assassin became even more unbalanced in a combined editions game than it was in a complete 1st edition game. The move in 3.0 to a PrC and basically making it (in my mind) a NPC class was a nice move, one that meant that any Assassin headaches to party cohesion was avoided without having the DM having to outright deny the player the choice for any reason, as "balance" was seen as a lame excuse to do such bannings.
PrC's themselves were meant to be introduced by the GM as a possible choice for characters through guilds or storylines instead of being something outlined in the players side of things.
I would like to add that I also like the Rifts alignment choices, though the overall system is almost unplayable without some sort of pick and choosing of rules to use or not use. The rule system also does not rely on alignment like D&D pre 5th edition or PF does either.
Not really, there isn't anything about Robin Hood himself which suggests skill at opening locks, or back stabbing people. In Pathfinder, you'd probably run him as a Scout archetype Ranger with the obvious focus on bows.{. . .}
Although strangely, in 1st Edition AD&D, Thieves had an alignment requirement written as having to be Neutral or Evil, although they meant have a Neutral component, because they could be Neutral Good, or any non-Good; this had a weird effect of Thieves not being allowed to be Chaotic Good, which semi-hosed the idea of Robin Hood.
But remember that 1st Edition AD&D didn't HAVE a Scout archetype of Ranger -- closest thing they had to an archetype was the Thief-Acrobat. (Assassin was more like an alternate class.) Archetypes didn't get formally introduced until part way into Pathfinder's history, although the D&D 3.5 SRD Unearthed Arcana section has what could certainly be called precursors to archetypes, and 2nd Edition's kits and related phenomena were also a step in this direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't really matter anyway. It's a pretty bad PrC and, dare I say, you would be better off just putting levels in rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In response to the OP, the Assassin's alignment requirement is outdated (AD&D legacy) as other character classes (like Ninja and Slayer) have the same abilities without needing that requirement.
However, poison use has a history (not necessarily in Pathfinder) of being an 'evil' act. Its like the way we view torture in war times in 2015, just not acceptable behaviour by the majority.
A question for the pathfinder experts: Does Golarion have its own version of the Geneva Convention?
It doesn't really matter anyway. It's a pretty bad PrC and, dare I say, you would be better off just putting levels in rogue.
That was my thought also -- it does get you a Death Attack some levels earlier than the Rogue or Ninja, but in the long run doesn't do as good a job, and Rogues or Ninjas that prestige into Assassin delay the attainment of their own capstone abilities for doing assassinations.
However, poison use has a history (not necessarily in Pathfinder) of being an 'evil' act. Its like the way we view torture in war times in 2015, just not acceptable behaviour by the majority.
Actually, more like use of chemical weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could never figure out a meaningful distinction between Miscreant and Diabolic.Actually, I liked the alignment system from Rifts/Palladuim.
Miscreant characters will do all sorts of bad things to accomplish their selfish goals. For a diabolic, the bad things are the goals. To quote Alfred "Some men just want to watch the world burn."
To the victims, the distinction probably doesn't matter, but a miscreant person might be able to be reasoned with, channeled, controlled etc. A diabolic person (or creature) pretty much just has to be put down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the cruel, brutal killer who trusts no one and has no value for anyone or anything that gets in his way.It matters not who gets caught in the middle, as long as he comes out smelling like a rose. This person will lie, cheat and kill anyone to attain his personal goals.
The only real difference is the author seems to feel Diabolic characterizes the psychopath, but a Miscreant would be just as clinical going by the description. That's just one problem I have with the Palladium alignments. Another is that Unprincipled means selfish, but principled.
The Palladium alignments roughly correspond to D&D alignments. It breaks down at some points, but yeah.
Principled = lawful good
Scrupulous = chaotic good
Unprincipled = neutral tending toward chaotic
Anarchist = chaotic neutral
Aberrant = lawful evil
Miscreant = neutral evil
Diabolic = chaotic evil
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Interesting that they chose Diabolic for their term corresponding to Chaotic Evil, rather than Demonic.
And by the way, if you look in a Basic D&D (pre-AD&D but after the first introduction of the 2-axis alignment system) booklet, you can find an alignment chart that has Diabolic for Lawful Evil and Demonic for Chaotic Evil.
|
|
Because assassin is a name, a place holder, anyone can be an Assassin and kill people in the broad sense of the term. The "assassin" could just as easily have the name "hitman" "Cold Blooded Killer" ect... the "assassin" as a class is evil because what they do is ruthless, self serving and down right unsavory. You have to kill someone in cold blood to qualify for the prc its not exactly nice.
Please do not be harsh to alignments.
To me, the unwritten rule has always been that humans or rather non-outsiders can never truly represent an alignment unless they are truly extraordinary. It takes an outsider to take an alignment to its pure extreme, with often very uncompromising ideals.
Alignment system is not an excuse to take human fallibility out of humans. Lawful Good Paladin is not an Archon, although you can play it so. You become a monster in the process tho. Assassin is outdated in away, it makes sense that lot of assassins CULTS require you to be certain alignment because you obey a certain code, like the paladins do. So if you want to be a killer for hire, you have to be evil, in human sense. Not evil as in infernal level of evil.
I personally dislike all alignment restrictions. In general, the rules try to let you create the character you want using the game's mechanics, but then in some arbitrary instances, restrict how the character is going to behave? It's a form of forced flavor, and I feel you should completely be within your rights to be a neutral or even good assassin (granted, that is basically what the slayer is). Of course, I also feel you should be able to be a paladin for any god, not just the lawful good ones (though that's sort of what the warpriest is). I think you should be able to be a monk - well trained in extensive unarmed combat techniques - without the need to be tied to a very tight set of rules, (but then that's what the brawler is). It's almost as if the alignment restrictions are an old legacy hold over that has no place in the current state of the rules... Makes me wonder why anyone enforces them.
|
|
Though I dislike Alignment restrictions, my overall feeling is that the Assassin, as a class or PrC, would very much stay on the other side of the fence, being a tool for the GM to use instead of a Player used resource. It is not only the overall written aspect of the class that is taken into account when I say this, but the overall aura of what an Assassin is and what they do for a living.
As far as Alignment restrictions, I question the validity of a Monk having to be Lawful. We already have the Paladin, and the iconic Monks in literature are not those that tend to follow set Laws, like that from the City or Region, but instead follow an edict that tends to be in concert with the Laws of good communities. I always though that the restriction, if given one, for a Monk should have been Neutral. (NG, N, CN, NE) Maybe even one step further and be non-Chaotic Neutral, though there are Monks out there a bit Chaotic than their brothers.
Any character that kills for profit is evil, regardless of class.
Going out to collect that bounty on gnoll scalps that was mentioned earlier? Well unless you find a bunch of already-dead gnolls, then you are doing evil.
Period.
The Assassin, by it's very nature, is guaranteed to be making a profit from killing (unless you're divorcing the class from it's typical association, in which case... er, why? Other classes will do what you want better, guaranteed). Therefore, the Assassin is required to be evil.
The seriously overplayed trope tends to be "Chaotic Neutral is a License to Kill without being evil." Except it's not. And players that think this way are bad.
Also, Good organizations do not support killing. There is no, "doing the dirty work for the good organization so they don't have to." If you're being paid by an organization to slay things, then that organization is not Good (yes, this includes real-world examples like the USA - deal with it.)
:)
I understand that in real life someone can be an assassin for their government, and kill for reasons other than "just money" but the specific assassin class which is evil, is not the same as an assassin(the profession) even though I don't think many of them will normally be good either.And in most of those real life cases, government assassins are just as evil as the ones in game.In real life, yes.
But we're not playing real life, we're playing genre fiction. Good assassins are pretty common in fiction, fantasy or otherwise.
Name three.