Assassins: Is Neutral okay?

Is there any problem to changing "Any evil" to "Any non-good"?
And 'Kill to just be an assassin' to 'Kill to join the assassins'?

Game mechanics wise? Absolutely. The class is balanced even if you ignore the alignment restriction entirely.

Alignment-wise? Well, not as written - the Assassin PrC as written pre-supposes that the character is a member of an organisation of paid killers. Switching from "kill solely to become an assassin" to "kill to join the assassins" is a pretty trivial change - the character has still taken the choice to join an organisation that kills for money, and that's pretty clearly Evil.

But...

Here's a question for you: in "Batman Begins", Bruce Wayne has received training by the League of Shadows, but to formally join he has to kill a guy. It's basically the exact same entry requirement, and he refuses.

Now, in game terms, does BW qualify for the "League of Shadows" PrC by virtue of having received the training, or does he fail to qualify because he doesn't truly enter the order? If he doesn't qualify, does that mean he has some other PrC that is almost entirely identical, but not quite?

What I'm getting at is this: PCs are pretty much exceptional by their very nature, in just the same way as Bruce Wayne is exceptional. So, while I wouldn't replace the general "must be Evil" rule with a looser "must be non-Good" rule, if the player was able to present a strong in-story argument for his character being an exception to that rule, I would at least consider it.

And then, being me, I'd probably say "no". But I would at least consider it. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I was in the US Army and aware of that point of view. I was even a 'sharp shooter'.


Having a similar background is what made my mind ask the question.


You have a fair point about the missiles. That's not something which would not be in D&D. However, there are some spells and such which would allow similar tactics to be employed.
 

Murdering people for money? That's an evil act in my books. If the PCs are hired as hitmen and follow through, their alignment goes south for the winter.

Alignment-wise? Well, not as written - the Assassin PrC as written pre-supposes that the character is a member of an organisation of paid killers. Switching from "kill solely to become an assassin" to "kill to join the assassins" is a pretty trivial change - the character has still taken the choice to join an organisation that kills for money, and that's pretty clearly Evil.

Pathdfinder Good Versus Evil said:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.


People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.


There's two aspects here. First, Good protects innocent life, and Neutral has compunctions against killing the innocent. So that's the basic "killing for money is evil" clearly falls.


But we're discussing the character who refuses to kill the innocent. Perhaps he only takes hits on those proven to have committed evil acts themselves. Maybe he actively Detects Evil before he will kill the target. Perhaps he kills for something other than personal remuneration.


Good still implies respect for life. Killing is a last resort. Of course, that also should apply to any form of combat. That would mean taking prisoners where possible, stabilizing or healing downed opponents to minimize loss of life, perhaps striking for non-lethal damage where this is practical. How often do we enforce that respect for life?



Finally, of course, we get to those entities who are not, perhaps, considered "life", such as the Undead and otherplanar creatures. A PrC that teaches assassination techniques which are to be used only against such targets, and only the evil ones, could justifiably be "Fantasy Good".


Here's a question for you: in "Batman Begins", Bruce Wayne has received training by the League of Shadows, but to formally join he has to kill a guy. It's basically the exact same entry requirement, and he refuses.

Now, in game terms, does BW qualify for the "League of Shadows" PrC by virtue of having received the training, or does he fail to qualify because he doesn't truly enter the order? If he doesn't qualify, does that mean he has some other PrC that is almost entirely identical, but not quite?

What I'm getting at is this: PCs are pretty much exceptional by their very nature, in just the same way as Bruce Wayne is exceptional. So, while I wouldn't replace the general "must be Evil" rule with a looser "must be non-Good" rule, if the player was able to present a strong in-story argument for his character being an exception to that rule, I would at least consider it.

And then, being me, I'd probably say "no". But I would at least consider it. :)

Your scenario posits obtaining the training first, then being instructed to kill the person as a requirement of joining the organization. But he's already received the training. Doesn't that mean he's already gains one or more levels in the relevant PrC? The fact you can't take a level in Assassin before you meet the prerequisite of killing a person solely to become an Assassin seems to imply you get no training before you make that kill, differentiating this from the Bruce Wayne example.

This also comes back to the nature of prestige classes. The original theory - special classes intrinsically linked to the game world and organizations therein - faded pretty quick in favour of "options to better optimize my character and screw the backstory fluff - gimme my mechanics!".

Now, what if that evil PC with a few Assassin levels sees the light. He WAS evil, and he DID kill a person just to join the organization. Maybe he's killed a lot of innocent (and non so innocent) people since. But he's changed. He's come to respect life, and recognize that his past has been wrong. He was Evil, but his alignment has shifted, perhaps gradually or perhaps suddenly, to Neutral or even Good.

The Assassin abilities look a lot like learned skills - many are shared by other classes. Maybe the "can't raise" abilities are backed up by some evil power, or maybe they are learned techniques closely guarded by the Assassin organization. If he's no longer Evil, he probably no longer works for the organization and no longer receives training. That sounds like he can gain no further levels in the class, but there's no reason he would not retain his class abilities (possibly with the exception of the "can't raise" ones, if you view those as gifts from the Death Gods rather than learned techniques).

Like a Paladin, this character could "Atone" and return to Evil, and the organization, by proving himself loyal, and could then gain levels in the PrC again.

That alignment change would seem to be the crux of the unusual nature of the player character.

If we want to simulate the Bruce Wayne approach for the Assassins, it seems like that could be done in a role playing setting. But it's not as easy as getting the training, then refusing the final test. Here, it's a preliminary test, so it precedes the training. Other than, arguably, the "no raise" abilities, there's nothing supernatural about the assassins. The player needs to (in game, I expect) trick the Assassins into believing he killed that victim, but not actually have done so. Then he has to keep up the bluff, somehow avoiding assignments to kill on a non-Good (or non-Neutral, as the case may be) basis.

That would certainly require some pretty fancy footwork - accomplishing something truly exceptional. But you want your PC to be exceptional, so play it out in game and show that PC's exceptional nature.

The second option, of course, is a PrC that fits into YOUR game world, provides the same or similar training, and does not require killing a person to join. Perhaps it has some other prerequisite related to the purpose for which this organization has developed these techniques, and shares them with its initiates. IOW, re-skin the PrC - it doesn't have to be called Assassin - perhaps this is the Holy Inquisitor, rooting out the greatest of Evils and purging them as part of the Church's Holy Work. Maybe you require the ability to Detect Evil and Smite Evil, and a demonstrated dedication to the Holy Precepts of a very Lawful Good church to even be considered for this training. There's your "Paladin-Assassin" - assuming you wish to allow for same.
 


Killing and murder are two different things. Even though the result is the same, the means of causing the death is everything. If two foes are facing each other weapon to weapon or weapon to claw - it's a fair fight. Sometimes dangerous diplomacy sessions can lead to sudden violence, even when a fight wasn't prepared for. This while not a good thing, is not necessarily an evil thing - it's pretty much neutral.

Assassination is premeditated with the attempt to catch the target off guard and murdering them. This is very much an evil act. It's nothing close to opposing combat leading to death.

So a wizard with improved invisiblity who disintegrates somebody is automatically evil?
 

But we're discussing the character who refuses to kill the innocent. Perhaps he only takes hits on those proven to have committed evil acts themselves. Maybe he actively Detects Evil before he will kill the target. Perhaps he kills for something other than personal remuneration.

I get the argument, but I'm afraid I just don't buy it. As written, the Assassin PrC relates specifically to joining an organisation dedicated to killing for money. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't relax the alignment restriction even if the specific assassin in question only murders Evil characters.

Now, if we re-fluff the class so it's basically just a matter of training in particular areas, then I can certainly see relaxing, or even removing, the alignment restriction - provided the "must kill to become an assassin" requirement also goes.

Your scenario posits obtaining the training first, then being instructed to kill the person as a requirement of joining the organization.

Yes, it does.

Now, what if that evil PC with a few Assassin levels sees the light. He WAS evil, and he DID kill a person just to join the organization. Maybe he's killed a lot of innocent (and non so innocent) people since. But he's changed. He's come to respect life, and recognize that his past has been wrong. He was Evil, but his alignment has shifted, perhaps gradually or perhaps suddenly, to Neutral or even Good.

Okay, in this case, the DM would need to make a ruling. Three things to consider:

- Most classes with an alignment restriction also have a section on "Ex-XX", discussing what happens when the character no longer has the alignment in question. The Assassin PrC does not. That suggests to me that the character may actually never become an Ex-Assassin, no matter what happens to his alignment - once he's met the requirements and join the class, he's fine.

- On the other hand, there's also the general policy that if something (a class, feat, whatever) has prerequisites, if the character later loses those prerequisites for any reason then he also loses the class (or feat, or whatever). In which case, a non-Evil Assassin loses access to all aspects of the PrC, because he no longer qualifies.

As I said, the DM would need to make a ruling.

FWIW, the ruling that I would make is this: the character retains all existing aspects of his class, but can no longer gain levels as an Assassin - he's no longer a member of the order, so they won't give him any further training, but what he's already learned he keeps.

YMMV, of course.
 

I guess I painted myself into that corner - too bad you couldn't have posted all that until now. I truly make no legal claims, only as it applies to Pathfinder. The prestige class says "must be evil", that's the only real leg I can stand on.


No, I already conceded that I was wrong. Read the whole thread.

That said, going back to the post mentioning James Jacobs comments - if the flavor includes something to not consider assassination as evil, then it works. Which means if you don't have the flavor granting some viable reason to assassinate and not be considered evil - it still should be considered evil.

Myself, I don't see assassins as exclusively taking the prestige class, any arcane spell caster would make a most excellent assassin.
 

I get the argument, but I'm afraid I just don't buy it. As written, the Assassin PrC relates specifically to joining an organisation dedicated to killing for money. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't relax the alignment restriction even if the specific assassin in question only murders Evil characters.

Now, if we re-fluff the class so it's basically just a matter of training in particular areas, then I can certainly see relaxing, or even removing, the alignment restriction - provided the "must kill to become an assassin" requirement also goes.

Which, I believe, is addressed later in my post. The portion you quoted was directed at whether it might be possible to be focused on killing, but not be evil by default.

The Batman Begins example makes it possible for the character to progress to some point without taking that "kill to join us" step, so a character could
advance that far without automatically being evil. But he would probably have to keep his true colours hidden, or the assassins have no reason to train him.

FWIW, the ruling that I would make is this: the character retains all existing aspects of his class, but can no longer gain levels as an Assassin - he's no longer a member of the order, so they won't give him any further training, but what he's already learned he keeps.

That would likely be my approach as well (assuming no Evil Power backstory to any of the abilities).
 

So any character who gets hired to attack a goblin village is evil then?

Quite possibly.

Were the goblins dangerous? If not, then charging in to kill them for some coin seems lacking in respect for life, does it not? Respect for life is a hallmark of good. Did they attack first, slit the throats of the fallen and slaughter the women and children? That strikes me as far from a good act.

Or were the goblins actively raiding the nearby town and killing villagers? In this case, putting a stop to their actions seems a non-evil act to take. Do the heroes do just as much damage as is needed to stop the raiding? Do they investigate why the goblins have taken up raiding to seek a more peaceful solution? Those seem like things Good characters would do.

Good also includes Altruism, so being hired to attack the goblin village doesn't seem to epitomize Good. If there are valid reasons to attack the goblins - like ending their attacks on a peaceful settlement - it seems like Good characters would not need to be paid to perform such a service, but would be motivated by their altruism.

Of course, this is addressed from the point of view of the alignment descriptions, and not the point of view of most actual fantasy gaming.
 

Which, I believe, is addressed later in my post. The portion you quoted was directed at whether it might be possible to be focused on killing, but not be evil by default.

You're absolutely right. I just didn't quote it, because I had nothing to say beyond "I agree". Perhaps I should have said that. :)
 

Remove ads

Top