Non-good assassin

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Non-good assassin

Why not use the monk and call it a ninja?

Because one is monk-like and the other isn't? Seriously though, it depends on what kind of Ninja you want to play. The Ninja PrC in OA is less monk-like and more rogue-like.

 

[Tewligan]

just as a side note: To make restrictions, especialy big restrictions on your adventurers shows the lack of ability one has as a dm.

As another side note: That's an assy thing to say. I'm much more likely to respect a DM who sets some limits so that his world maintains some sort of consistency with how he envisions it. Allowing players to play anything they want regardless of context or campaign direction makes for a slapdash campaign.

"Okay, so the samurai, the android from the Barrier Peaks, the merfolk paladin, and the halfling on a quest to destroy a powerful magic ring all meet in the tavern and agree to adventure together. What do you want to do now?"

 

[Zerth]

Killing someone is not inherently an evil act at all. "Murder" is a subjective term applied in the eyes of the beholder. The intentions and motivations of the killer in question is what defines the act itself.

I don't think good/evil can be justified only by the actor's intentions and motivations. Good/evil are not philosophical concepts in D&D (even if they were, it wouldn't be that simple, but that's no concern here). They are building blocks of a rather black and white D&D universe. All assassins are evil just like all paladins are good. It doesn't matter how honorable an assassin thinks he is, because assassinating someone is evil in D&D universe (and is considered evil in practically every culture ever existed). If some D&D societies, like drow, accept assassins, then the whole society - including assassins - is evil. Of course not every drow is evil, but every drow assassin is. IMHO, that's how good/evil work in D&D.

Ex-assassins regretting their former life would be the only way I'd allow non-evil characters with assassin skills. They would not be able to raise any more levels as assassins (unless turned back evil).

 

[kreynolds]

I don't think good/evil can be justified only by the actor's intentions and motivations. Good/evil are not philosophical concepts in D&D (even if they were, it wouldn't be that simple, but that's no concern here). They are building blocks of a rather black and white D&D universe.

You obviously haven't read the Book of Vile Darkness yet.

Seriously though, I ask you to explain how Cleaving someone in half is not evil and killing someone in one merciful shot is evil. It's all about how the Assassin is portrayed, or more appropriately, how he is played.

 

[CCamfield]

I agree with kreynolds here. If a particular "assassin" is someone who, for instance, works for a (good) country and undertakes missions out of patriotism - perhaps even requiring that their victim "deserves it" (and knowing enough about the victim to make that judgement) the evil label is harder to make stick.

The really evil part about traditional assassins is their willingness to kill anyone for money, with essentially no questions asked. After all, soldiers kill people for money too, even if they do so face-to-face in battle.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

Re: Assassin... Drop the restriction, it's a role-playing restriction that shouldn't have much effect on balance. Maybe tweak the class a little, even add some sort of code of conduct (to keep the balance of the rp'ing restriction)?

Re: Ninja... If you don't want to write up a class for it, why not just let him multiclass Monk/Rogue? There is the monk rule to consider (can't return to monk after going to another class) to consider, and this is an important balancing agent (monks get some strange synergies when multiclassing, particularly with the Wis to AC), but I don't think it creates too much trouble with Rogue specifically... So you can always just rule that the "Monks can't multiclass out and back in" rule doesn't apply only when taking Rogue. (perhaps add in a few more restrictions associated with this)

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, for a start the prestige class in the DMG is one which has an association to some sort of 'guild' or other organisation. It's not someone going out and doing contract jobs.

Presumably this association has a company line of 'you do the job we give you, you ask no questions, you get paid'. Hence you couldn't be any of the moral assassins mentioned above and still be within the organisation.

If you as a DM want to drop that association, then fine, do so. Undoubtedly doing so would also remove the 'must kill someone for no other reason than to join the organisation' (which would of course be an evil act in itself) and the evil alignment restriction.

 

[Painfully]

If you got newbs in the group, I would suggest you stick with the PHB, and prohibit the assassin class. I see them as much more like loners and not likely to travel around with an adventuring group.

The conflicts that come up when having both good and evil PCs in a group aren't worth the hassle.

On a side note though, I developed a pseudo-prestige class that was based partially on the paladin class and rogue/assassin classes. I developed them into a Lawful Neutral organization with a loose heirarchy based on military type ranks. They kill only to protect a particular artifact of a LG deity, but they dont mind being sneaky about it.

I think if you develop a substantial theme, background story, or sound reasoning for an assassin to exist, then it should be perfectly fine. But if you can't substantiate a real reason that an assassin would travel with other adventurers it can break the believability and cohesiveness of the group very easily.

Make the player do his own homework and come up with a believeable background that integrates his role in the group, and if the group agrees, then by all means let it happen.

The worst thing you can do is let one player "sneak into" the group as an assassin while the group thinks he is some other class, and then when something goes wrong later on, he turns on the party.

That kind of playing is a gamebreaker IMO, and I would never allow it--it puts one player's fun ahead of that of the group, and that is always a bad idea.

 

[Al]

I don't think good/evil can be justified only by the actor's intentions and motivations. Good/evil are not philosophical concepts in D&D (even if they were, it wouldn't be that simple, but that's no concern here). They are building blocks of a rather black and white D&D universe. All assassins are evil just like all paladins are good. It doesn't matter how honorable an assassin thinks he is, because assassinating someone is evil in D&D universe (and is considered evil in practically every culture ever existed). If some D&D societies, like drow, accept assassins, then the whole society - including assassins - is evil. Of course not every drow is evil, but every drow assassin is. IMHO, that's how good/evil work in D&D.

Hmm...

The good mayor turned to the noble characters and explained to them the threat of the necromancer. He carefully told them that to preserve the village under his protection, the PCs would need to slay the vile necromancer before he could raise his army of undead. As an added incentive, he was more than willing to give each of the valiant heroes 1000 gold pieces each.

So...going out and killing someone for money is not evil.

Yet as soon as you place the word 'assassin' on it, it is? It seems that it's not the act which is evil, but the semantics.

Personally, I can see non-evil, and even good assassins. Assassination is a last resort for most good characters (I hope), but it seems that in DnD it is not the act but the context which counts. In the context of defeating evil, 'assassination' is perceived as a good thing (by most characters)- but it cannot be called as such. Why not have a 'good' (or non-evil) assassin working for a good-aligned group to get rid of evil foes. I hate real-world examples to illustrate a fantasy argument, but if one were to assassinate Saddam Hussein, I would hardly call that evil. Since it is the context, not the action (and certainly not the terminology) which counts, I have no problem with non-evil assassins.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Remember the non-rules prerequisite for an assasin: You have to kill someone solely for being paid for it. If the mayor explains how evil and terrible the necromancer is, and that he will destroy the whole world, than you are not doing it purely for the money.

If the mayor comes to you, and says: "1.000 gold pieces, and you kill the guy in the tower. Agreed?", and you agree without knowing anything about the person, and without a doubt hat will you do it, than you can become assassin.
So, the only reason for you to kill is pure egoismn, and this could be considered evil. But maybe, in your world, it is just not good...

Mustrum Ridcully