PrC-restrictions or ...

[Hashmalum]

As the assassin learns spells like a wizard and none of these spells has an [evil] descriptor AFAIK, they shouldn't be related to some special alignment.

Some new assassin spells in the Book of Vile Darkness have the [evil] descriptor. A non-evil character can cast evil spells--he just won't stay non-evil for very long if he does so. The only restriction with regards to casting spells with an alignment descriptor is found in the class abilities section of certain divine spellcasting classes, and the restriction is merely against casting spells that have an alignment descriptor that is opposite to the character's alignment. The limitation only applies to those classes and it is not a general rule.

I would agree that a non-evil assassin who wants to stay non-evil can't use his death attack to kill someone and shouldn't use poison.

Killing is not in itself evil. The victim, the circumstances, and the motivation make all the difference. There's nothing inherently evil in the death attack, either--it's simply an extremely precise attack. As such, it's no more evil than the sneak attack.

As for using poison, that isn't evil in itself either--it's merely unchivalrous. As long as the assassin hasn't switched class to paladin or something equally fussy, I don't see the problem.

Losing his save bonus to poisons seems to be ok, too (become more resistant to poison is more supernatural or comes from a divine source, IMHO).

Becoming more resistant to poison is a function of the body's natural reaction to continued exposure. The more you are exposed to a poison or drug, the higher the tolerance you will build up to it. Consider the example of a chronic morphine addict--their bodies have become so desensitized to morphine that the amount needed to give them a buzz would be enough to kill a normal person.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Here's my opinion, which does NOT match with the core rules.

Class abilities aren't Feats. If you lose the prerequisites for a PrC, you shouldn't lose the abilities you've gained so far, only the ability to continue the class. The exceptions would be any "deity-granted" abilities (divine spellcasting, Paladin abilities) or any abilities that are explicitly lost.

Let's take an example using core classes.

A Barbarian can't start off as Lawful. If he becomes Lawful due to his actions, does he lose anything? You could argue that he can't Rage any more since it requires surrenduring control to his primal, chaotic nature, so I could see losing that ability.

A Bard can't start as Lawful, either, but is there anything in the class that they'd lose if they became Lawful?
Music: no, music isn't inherently chaotic; anyone can take the Perform skill, after all.
Spells: not unless you also say that Sorcerers can't be Lawful (which we did, IMC, but that's not core)
Skills: nope

A Monk has to be Lawful. If you believe his enhanced abilities come from physical training and meditation, then an alignment change shouldn't remove them, although he wouldn't be able to progress in the class (as no monastic orders would want him), although you could probably use the Obi-Wan Rule (the "old hermit in the wilderness" loophole).

And so on. To the original topic, I'd say that the Assassin shouldn't lose any existing abilities since all of them come from training and study. But, remember two things:
1> They won't be able to find training to progress further in the class.
2> How exactly do they become non-Evil? This is a PrC that basically required killing innocents as an entrance requirement. Unless they were a saint from the moment they entered the class, which would be WAY out of character, there's no way I'd consider them "redeemed" any time soon.

 

[Dark Dragon]

Some new assassin spells in the Book of Vile Darkness have the [evil] descriptor. A non-evil character can cast evil spells--he just won't stay non-evil for very long if he does so. The only restriction with regards to casting spells with an alignment descriptor is found in the class abilities section of certain divine spellcasting classes, and the restriction is merely against casting spells that have an alignment descriptor that is opposite to the character's alignment. The limitation only applies to those classes and it is not a general rule.

I don't have the BoVD, but otherwise, I agree.

Killing is not in itself evil. The victim, the circumstances, and the motivation make all the difference. There's nothing inherently evil in the death attack, either--it's simply an extremely precise attack. As such, it's no more evil than the sneak attack.

Yes, that's what I meant. Trying to kill the main villain with a Death Attack (and being successful) would made things easier . And the assassin has the option to render the victim unconcious rather than killing it.

As for using poison, that isn't evil in itself either--it's merely unchivalrous. As long as the assassin hasn't switched class to paladin or something equally fussy, I don't see the problem.

Well, that's debatable. But I don't see any problems, too.

Becoming more resistant to poison is a function of the body's natural reaction to continued exposure. The more you are exposed to a poison or drug, the higher the tolerance you will build up to it. Consider the example of a chronic morphine addict--their bodies have become so desensitized to morphine that the amount needed to give them a buzz would be enough to kill a normal person.

Hmmm, don't forget that the poison list is quite long. I doubt that an assassin trains with ALL that poisons and becomes relative quickly resistant to them. Otherwise you are correct.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

A Monk has to be Lawful. If you believe his enhanced abilities come from physical training and meditation, then an alignment change shouldn't remove them, although he wouldn't be able to progress in the class (as no monastic orders would want him), although you could probably use the Obi-Wan Rule (the "old hermit in the wilderness" loophole).

I agree with most of the rest of your analysis, but I would strongly disagree here. The monk abilities come from a focusing of mind and body. Even if they could do it once, they lose that discipline, they lose the abilities. (esp the supernatural ones). Look at obi wan or yoda. Sure they weren't part of an order, but they weren't carousing either. They maintained their own focus in their own way.

If I had a monk in my campaign who was shifting significantly from a contemplative attitude (orderly, vs the law abiding aspect of lawful) it would definitly put his special abilities in danger.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Spatzimaus]

It depends on what your definition of "Lawful" is. Is it having an orderly mind, or is it that you believe in following the laws of a structured society? The two aren't automatically connected. A brilliant criminal might have an orderly mind but flaunt the laws, while a vigilante would have a chaotic outlook but support the laws of the society.

If the first, then I'd agree with you. In fact, that's how we explain Lawful vs. Chaotic in my campaign, and it does help explain Monks a bit better. But, this doesn't really match well with some other parts of the PHB.

 

[Skade]

Yep. Unfortunately, not all PrCs are treated the same way if one or more requirements aren't met anymore. Arcane PrCs seem to be somewhat difficult to handle on that matter.

Two examples (both from FRCS):

1) Red Wizard. Requires non-good alignment, gains some special abilities (tatoos and so on...) and spell casting level +1 for each Red Wizard level. What would happen if the wizard becomes good after gaining some Red Wizard levels? Does he fall back in his spell casting power to a pre-PrC level? What about his (arcane) special abilities? Nothing is written here about an alignment change and its results.

2) Harper Scout. Requires good alignment, IIRC. He gains arcane spells (from a small spell list) and some divine powers. Should the alignment change to evil, he loses all divine powers, but retains the arcane ones (see FRCS). He can't progress as a Harper Scout unless the requirements are met again. Clear ruling, why not for all PrCs?. *sigh*

As the assassin learns spells like a wizard and none of these spells has an [evil] descriptor AFAIK, they shouldn't be related to some special alignment. I would agree that a non-evil assassin who wants to stay non-evil can't use his death attack to kill someone and shouldn't use poison. Losing his save bonus to poisons seems to be ok, too (become more resistant to poison is more supernatural or comes from a divine source, IMHO).

My answer: They keep their arcane spells and extraordinary abilities. Divine abilities are immeiatly stripped unless they aquire a new sponsor. I could see a particularly vile ex-harper being granted a few twisted versions of his former divine abilities.

For the Red Mage every former associate that ever catches wind of him, and the assassins and mercs sent after him would do their best to kill him. Or, preferably bring him in alive for torture.

The harper, might live, but only until they had an excuse to remove him from this world.

Not every response to this situation has to be done directlly with game mechanics. Its a punishment to simply have abilities ripped away, but killing them, well, that's just good fun.

Seriously, I would rather there be a story response that my player has to accept than simply taking away one of his toys.

edit: I was not making much sense at first. Kane is quite tired.

 

[Hashmalum]

It depends on what your definition of "Lawful" is. Is it having an orderly mind, or is it that you believe in following the laws of a structured society? The two aren't automatically connected. A brilliant criminal might have an orderly mind but flaunt the laws, while a vigilante would have a chaotic outlook but support the laws of the society.

If the first, then I'd agree with you. In fact, that's how we explain Lawful vs. Chaotic in my campaign, and it does help explain Monks a bit better. But, this doesn't really match well with some other parts of the PHB.

The person with the orderly mind is likely to desire such order in the world around him as well, and the simplest way to do that is to support the existing order--and if it needs changing, change it from within (so as to maintain order). But obviously this won't be the case for everyone. I'm considering the following feat:

Professionalism [General]
You are capable of compartmentalizing your mind, keeping the work habits of one of your classes seperate from the rest of your life.
Benefit:Choose one class with an alignment requirement. You may not choose a class with divine spellcasting abilities (such as cleric, druid, or paladin) for this feat. You may deviate from the alignment of that class by up to one step without suffering class-related penalties. For example, a monk with the Professionalism (monk) feat may become nonlawful but may continue to advance as a monk as long as they remain nonchaotic.

In the real world, lawyers seem all too capable of this form of deliberately-induced schizophrenia, putting their legal skills in one mental compartment and their sense of morality in another.

 

[Hashmalum]

(Neat, nested quote tags work.)

As for using poison, that isn't evil in itself either--it's merely unchivalrous. As long as the assassin hasn't switched class to paladin or something equally fussy, I don't see the problem.

Well, that's debatable. But I don't see any problems, too.

I should have been more specific in my original statement. Not all uses of poisons are morally equivalent. One very important reason that evil people like poison is that you can poison someone's food or otherwise harm or kill someone in such a way that is very difficult to trace back to you. Evading responsibility (possibly allowing someone innocent to take the blame) and legitimate punishment for one's actions is the very soul of evil. It isn't very lawful either. Poison gas applied over a wide area can poison the soil and water if it is a poison that doesn't biodegrade quickly--and that's morally problematic as well. There's also the problem of accidentally catching innocents in the cloud as well, but that's the moral peril of any sort of area attack--fireball, scattershot from a catapult, or what have you.

On the other hand, although poisoning a blade or arrowhead is definitely not chivalrous, it isn't any more morally problematic than anything else that increases the lethality of the weapon (such as using a vorpal weapon). Using a more lethal attack is morally problematic for the sole reason that killing a person denies them the opportunity to repent and redeem themselves. But this is a fantasy game, where such things as absolute good and absolute evil really exist and are usually discernable as such by the player characters--the moral elements of D&D are as much a fantastic element as any dragon or magic spell. And different people of good alignment draw the moral line at different places. You can still use highly lethal attacks and fall into the moral category of "good".

Becoming more resistant to poison is a function of the body's natural reaction to continued exposure. The more you are exposed to a poison or drug, the higher the tolerance you will build up to it. Consider the example of a chronic morphine addict--their bodies have become so desensitized to morphine that the amount needed to give them a buzz would be enough to kill a normal person.

Hmmm, don't forget that the poison list is quite long. I doubt that an assassin trains with ALL that poisons and becomes relative quickly resistant to them. Otherwise you are correct.

True, it isn't strictly realistic. But hey, this is D&D! Anyway, there's already a couple of feats, Poison Resistance (Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and Masters of the Wild) and Poison Immunity (Book of Vile Darkness) that work on the same principle and Poison Resistance grants a broad bonus against all poisons in the same way as the assassin's class ability works. So I don't see any problems with allowing the assassin to keep his poison save bonus if he becomes non-evil or otherwise no longer meets the class requirements.