ArcOfCorinth
First Post
What happens to an assassin who gradually turns good? Does she lose her class abilities or retain them? I'm curious because any nongood is a prerequiste for the PrC.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Ex-Assassins
- Thread starter ArcOfCorinth
- Start date
Silver Moon
Adventurer
Back in the 1E days that happend to my character. With those rules the 1E Assassins operated as thieves two levels lower so he just became a thief at two levels lower.
Last edited:
Sollir Furryfoot
Explorer
As a DM I'd let you keep every ability that you have, but not gain anymore.
Why is a simple answer-None of the abilities seem to derive from a source other than your own. Unlike a paladin, or cleric for that matter your abilities aren't received by a deity or similar. But becoming good would probably mean you can't train with the assassins anymore making the higher class levels of the class inaccessible.
Ruleswise, I think a PrC allows you to retain its abilities unless it specifically mentions it (many Monk PrCs, Paladin type PrCs, etc...), you just can't get anymore levels in them.
Not 100% sure of course
Edit-And I'm wrong, but still as a DM i'd let you retain the abilities, so you might try pleading your case, heh.
Why is a simple answer-None of the abilities seem to derive from a source other than your own. Unlike a paladin, or cleric for that matter your abilities aren't received by a deity or similar. But becoming good would probably mean you can't train with the assassins anymore making the higher class levels of the class inaccessible.
Ruleswise, I think a PrC allows you to retain its abilities unless it specifically mentions it (many Monk PrCs, Paladin type PrCs, etc...), you just can't get anymore levels in them.
Not 100% sure of course
Edit-And I'm wrong, but still as a DM i'd let you retain the abilities, so you might try pleading your case, heh.
Last edited:
Well I'd look at each ability and decide if a "good" person would still do that sort of thing. And thats another thing.....how good is this person? In most campaigns battles end in bloody deaths and good characters do their share of the killing. So I'd look at the character's new alignment and figure out what he would still do and wouldn't do.
Sollir---I don't think it's a matter of physically being able to do it or even learning to do it.....it's wheter the individual's personal philosophy on life, moral and ethical codes would allow him to kill someone. Like a priest (most anyway....) are not physically incapable of killing it just goes against what they believe in.
So to sum it up I'd look at the character and his actions to see if he would still use these abilites knowing the outcome.
Sollir---I don't think it's a matter of physically being able to do it or even learning to do it.....it's wheter the individual's personal philosophy on life, moral and ethical codes would allow him to kill someone. Like a priest (most anyway....) are not physically incapable of killing it just goes against what they believe in.
So to sum it up I'd look at the character and his actions to see if he would still use these abilites knowing the outcome.
ArcOfCorinth
First Post
Well, she's a lawful evil assassin who already refused to kill children. Lately, she's been branching towards only hits on those who are guilty of a crime. Lately, she's only been killing creatures she's quite sure are evil and sparing even evil creatures if they do not threaten her or the rest of the party's well being. Last week, she disarmed a hostile bugbear and then left him unconscious on the dungeon floor. Her last true hit was a cleric of Nerull.
Her actions are seriously leaning towards lawful neutral/lawful evil.
Her actions are seriously leaning towards lawful neutral/lawful evil.
Byrons_Ghost
First Post
I'm sure I'm kicking a long-dead horse, but it probably depends on how your group is defining evil in the campaign. From what you describe above, I don't think your character is going to be sprouting a halo anytime soon- she's just not being over-the-top ridiculous about her alignment. To my mind, an evil character is just selfish, motivated mainly by gain, and more prone to do things that non-evil people wouldn't- such as torture or the death of innocents for personal gain. You can still have a code of honor, as shown by the lawful alignment- just because the character won't kill children doesn't mean that she isn't capabale of equally evil acts. It just means that she won't kill children, for whatever reason.
I think it mainly comes down to the PC/NPC role- evil NPCs are villains are supposed to be the sort of Dr. Evil "E-vill" and do things like kidnap princesses, put villages to the flame, attempt to destroy the world from their secret volcano hideouts, etc. I think PCs would fall more into an amoral/pragmatic version of evil- they wouldn't be quite as active about it, more opportunistic.
It seems to me that your character is just being pragmatic about things- why attack people you aren't paid to? You're just making more enemies and risking yourself without profit. Why kill the children when it's just going to make you look bad with your party members? Even if you don't buy into all their high morals, you still need them to watch your back from time to time. Essentially, I just think evil PCs should have better motivations than killing anyone they find, and the character sounds fine the way she is to me.
Of course, I'm not your DM (and, in fact, I generally don't allow evil PCs in my game, but that's another topic). If you think your DM may force you to switch alignments and you'll loose some abilities, then you should probably talk to them about what you're doing with the character and make sure that you both understand how the character is evil. That way there won't be any unpleasant surprises for anyone.
I think it mainly comes down to the PC/NPC role- evil NPCs are villains are supposed to be the sort of Dr. Evil "E-vill" and do things like kidnap princesses, put villages to the flame, attempt to destroy the world from their secret volcano hideouts, etc. I think PCs would fall more into an amoral/pragmatic version of evil- they wouldn't be quite as active about it, more opportunistic.
It seems to me that your character is just being pragmatic about things- why attack people you aren't paid to? You're just making more enemies and risking yourself without profit. Why kill the children when it's just going to make you look bad with your party members? Even if you don't buy into all their high morals, you still need them to watch your back from time to time. Essentially, I just think evil PCs should have better motivations than killing anyone they find, and the character sounds fine the way she is to me.
Of course, I'm not your DM (and, in fact, I generally don't allow evil PCs in my game, but that's another topic). If you think your DM may force you to switch alignments and you'll loose some abilities, then you should probably talk to them about what you're doing with the character and make sure that you both understand how the character is evil. That way there won't be any unpleasant surprises for anyone.
ArcOfCorinth
First Post
I'm the DM. I was asking for opinons on what to do with the character. All the PCs are evil, but they have expressed to me that they slowly want to turn good. Its a Darth Vader-like redemption thing sort of.
Byrons_Ghost
First Post
Ah. That clears that up.
If you're going for an eventual redemption for everyone, then I wouldn't penalize her too much, otherwise it'd be counter to what you're trying to accomplish. If it were me, I'd bend the rules slightly and say that she couldn't get any more assassin levels, but could still use the abilities she already had- that's once the alignment change becomes "official", mind you. This doesn't hurt her too much, since the main thing assassins get as they progress is better sneak attacks and uncanny dodge, which rogue levels could also grant her. And since prestige classes don't count for xp penalties, she'll still have options open.
One thing you may want to consider is the use of poison. Some DMs consider it to be always evil, with others it's a matter of the circumstances. That's the main thing I can think of- once she reforms, I don't see any reason why she couldn't use her death attack on evil creatures.
If you're going for an eventual redemption for everyone, then I wouldn't penalize her too much, otherwise it'd be counter to what you're trying to accomplish. If it were me, I'd bend the rules slightly and say that she couldn't get any more assassin levels, but could still use the abilities she already had- that's once the alignment change becomes "official", mind you. This doesn't hurt her too much, since the main thing assassins get as they progress is better sneak attacks and uncanny dodge, which rogue levels could also grant her. And since prestige classes don't count for xp penalties, she'll still have options open.
One thing you may want to consider is the use of poison. Some DMs consider it to be always evil, with others it's a matter of the circumstances. That's the main thing I can think of- once she reforms, I don't see any reason why she couldn't use her death attack on evil creatures.
Similar Threads
