Why are Hexblades mean?

[Sir Whiskers]

A well crafted curse is far worse than a quick firey death.

Curses in fantasy fluff are seldom pleasent ways to bring down a foe, while sometimes curses serve just ends, focusing on them as a means to an end does fit with a non-good ethos.

My favorite bestow curse was when the pc monk was cursed with beserker rage. Anytime he entered combat, he immediately raged (as a barbarian), but could not stop fighting until all his enemies were defeated. That nearly got him killed more than once and the player never did figure out why his character suddenly became a beserker. Fortunately, the party decided to help out a particular npc, who was able to heal him.

 

[Felix]

There are some folks who think that Assassins shouldn't have alignment restrictions. That Good people should be able to go around Death Attacking folks for money and a good cause. There are extensive rationalizations for this.

But the class was build with one thing in mind: evil SOBs that go around Poisoning Deathing and SneakAttacking for gold. Thus, must be Evil.

Similarly, the creator of this class might have thought "I would like a core class fighter-arcanist. I envision these guys to be mean and selfish. They don't go around doing things for other peoples well being, unless that directly benefits their own well being. I shall call them Hexblades." And then he made the class.

So, for the assassin, the Evil bit is because he kills for hire... "but what if he doesn't kill for hire?" Then he's not an Assassin. He might kill people for a living, but he doesn't have levels of Assassin.

For the Hexblade, he isn't Good because he's a selfish, cruel SOB who goes around wishing people ill... "but what if he doesn't wish people ill, and is Good?" Well, then he's not a Hexblade... he's some other kind of fighting arcanist.

The description may be fluff, but it does provide some very nice help for designing characters, especially when that class is not a base core class. It provedes a window into the mind of the creator of the class, and I am very happy living with that, and using the class where it's appropriate.

 

[takyris]

Felix, the counter to this is that there's no reason not to come up with the exact same class, change the flavor text, and call it something new. Which amounts, really, to the same thing.

I mean, my hypothetical chaotic-good assassin doesn't call himself a rogue7/assassin3. He calls himself a Peasant's Champion, the man who averts wars by going after evil, selfish nobles who are either warlike (which means "Lots of dead peasants") or abusive of their peasants (which, similarly, means "Lots of dead peasants"). He didn't kill anyone just for money, but he has killed a noble who was abusive and oppressive and planning a war against his neighbor that would have killed hundreds of peasants (as they were drafted unceremoniously into the infantry), and he did so in order to gain entry into the Order of the Peasant's Champions (that's me changing the flavor text of the quest requirement for the PrC).

There it is, folks: The Peasant's Champion. Do it exactly like the Assassin, mechanicswise, only take out "for money" and put in "only goes after nobles or people who prey upon peasants, servants, and weak social classes". Add appropriate flavor text for the different alignments, treating the peasant's relation with peasants as a druid's relationship with nature: "Good Peasant's Champions only target evil nobles who are directly hurting the peasants with their political aims or selfish desires, while Evil Peasant's Champions will happily kill any noble out of spite, provided that it does not cause retaliation against the populace. Good Peasant's Champions are offered hospitality by the people wherever they go, while Evil Peasant's Champions will manipulate or even sacrifice individual peasants in order to further their goals -- sacrificing a few for the benefit of the many, as it were. If a Peasant's Champion strays too far from his goal of protecting the peasants by levelling the playing field, however, his fellows will make an example of him. The only thing worse than a selfish noble is a Peasant's Champion who has sold out and lost sight of the cause..."

 

[Felix]

If you like. Either way, Assassins are still Evil, eh?

I wasn't meaning to be abrasive (if I came off that way) I was just proposing a reason why Hexblades are mean as they are written. Then I noted that the same conversation about alignment restrictions has come up before concerning something more well defined... it's easier to define "why Evil" instead of "why non-Good". So I suggested that the flavor of the class came to define the class: the flavor was SOB, the rules become "must be non-Good". It's an answer to the original question, not a damning of house-ruling or homebrewed PrC's.

Why wouldn't a Paladin/Hexblade work? Why couldn't it indeed? I misremember if a hexblade loses his powers if he becomes good... if he doens't a reformed hexblade cum paladin might work out rather well. And by the rules that would work. If you lose your powers you could even give up the powers gained from your Hexblade levels and take levels of Paladin for in-character reasons. And if you want to change the rules to suit yourself, do so.

 

[takyris]

Felix,

If you're talking to me, I didn't think that you came off as abrasive at all, and I hope that I didn't, either. I was trying to bridge the gap between two different trains of thought here. One train says "He uses the class abilities, but not in an evil way," and the other train says "It's written there that he has to be." The way to solve the problem for both sides to be happy is to make a new class that is functionally identical to the Assassin but changes the flavor text into something that is open to different alignments.

One of my DM buddies wanted monk-like followers for a moon goddess, so he took the Shadowdancer, changed the flavor-text to reflect moonlight rather than shadow, and moved the names around. Ta-dah. Moondancer.

The Hexblade can become the Master of Redemption, one who weakens his foes through tricks and snares in order to see that they are captured safely. Sure, he's not the Hexblade anymore, but if you give him the same abilities and change one or two of the spells (moving away from the ones with the (Evil) Descriptor), you should be fine.

 

[hong]

The slayer of Domiel (?) prestige class in the BoED is basically a lawful good assassin.

Of course, the BoED also has good poisons, good diseases, and good undead. It's all a bit surreal.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

So, for the assassin, the Evil bit is because he kills for hire... "but what if he doesn't kill for hire?" Then he's not an Assassin. He might kill people for a living, but he doesn't have levels of Assassin.

For the Hexblade, he isn't Good because he's a selfish, cruel SOB who goes around wishing people ill... "but what if he doesn't wish people ill, and is Good?" Well, then he's not a Hexblade... he's some other kind of fighting arcanist.

The description may be fluff, but it does provide some very nice help for designing characters...

And here we come to the essential problem. I don't NEED help designing my characters' personality, motives, etc. I certainly don't need the kind of "help" that actually restricts the kind of characters I can make. I make a character concept and then I take the classes which best reflect MECHANICLY what that character is going to be doing. If I have a character concept that perfectly matches the mechanics of a particular class, but doesn't match the fluff, you bet your ass that I WILL be taking levels of that class. Your assertion that I should change my character to match the fluff or be unable to take class levels that actual work is, well just silly... (I do find you assertions abrassive, so I don't mind being a little in response. ) It basicly turns the game on its head by forcing the players to serve the game instead of vice versa.

All you have really said is "because the game says so." But this isn't Bridge we're playing here, and we aren't talking about the mechanical rules. Defining a character's personality by class is, IMHO very low level, introductory roleplaying. Its true that D&D attracts a lot of introductory roleplayers, so those guidelines may be useful to some. But once the player doesn't need them anymore, they can be tossed by the wayside... For the vast majority of the people on this board, mechanics are the only thing we need laid out for us. We can roleplay a character just fine without handholding. And when you try to turn the handholding into big stick enforcement? Sad. Thats all I can say.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Piratecat]

And when you try to turn the handholding into big stick enforcement? Sad. Thats all I can say.

You could have made your point perfectly well without the condescending insult. It was neither needed nor appropriate. Please avoid that in the future.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You could have made your point perfectly well without the condescending insult. It was neither needed nor appropriate. Please avoid that in the future.

wow, should have left in the actual condesending insults if I'm gonna do the same time for a much less insulting opinion than before the preview.

I will take your advice and avoid editing in the future... (kidding)

kahuna burger

 

[WizarDru]

As far as I can tell, it's mostly a flavor issue. Generally speaking, the hexblade was designed as a fellow who has developed his powers with the specific intent of using his them to cast hexes, curses or whatever you prefer to call them on his opponents. As he becomes more powerful, these hexes become more potent and vicious, and he eventually radiates an unlucky, unpleasant aura about him.

He could just as easily be good as evil, depending on the DM's feelings on the matter. By the same token, a paladin or monk could be non-lawful and multi-class freely, and a barbarian could be refined.

As KB says, we're not playing Bridge. So there is little harm in removing such a restriction from the class, if the DM is comfortable with it. But I don't see why there should be a big fuss either way. I mean, we're talking about an optional core class in an optional book. If folks are willing to tinker with the core classes in the core books, I can't see why the default setting should be a cause for concern either way.