Why are Hexblades mean?

[Felix]

Kahuna Burger:

The question asked "Why is the Hexblade mean [non-Good]?"

I answered: Because the flavor says so. Is that the wrong answer? Assassins are Evil-only for the same reason... Because book says so. No, this isn't bridge, and yes, you can change anything you like about it. You can change it, like I said before to takyris, "if you like". But what's wrong with the answer of: "The guy who created it envisioned only SOBs doing this kind of thing and wrote that flavor into the class as a rule." Because that's a fairly straightforward answer without any dissembling. They are all SOBs.

 

[Unseelie]

Besides, the thread started out by asking why. People gave their reasons why they thought this was. If what you wanted was to see if people though changing it was a good or bad idea, you should have asked that instead.

 

[The Hanged Man]

The real question is, will anybody ever play a Hexblade instead of a Ftr/Wiz/Eldritch Knight? Looks like an NPC class to me.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Kahuna Burger:

The question asked "Why is the Hexblade mean [non-Good]?"

I answered: Because the flavor says so. Is that the wrong answer? Assassins are Evil-only for the same reason... Because book says so. No, this isn't bridge, and yes, you can change anything you like about it. You can change it, like I said before to takyris, "if you like". But what's wrong with the answer of: "The guy who created it envisioned only SOBs doing this kind of thing and wrote that flavor into the class as a rule." Because that's a fairly straightforward answer without any dissembling. They are all SOBs.

wow, this reminds me of my last "speak with dead" expereince... Its a non informative answer. Its the same as saying "because the spot under allignment says 'non good'". Its answering the question with the subject of the question.

IMHO to give an answer of that nature either deliberately sidetracks the discussion, or insults the questioner. To say "its non good because it was presented as non good" just isn't helpful, and to imply that its a valid answer to the question makes the question rediculous. The question is quite readily understood as shorthand for "what is the justification within the class mechanics for making it non good, and is there a reason outside of designer whim for it."

Besides, the thread started out by asking why. People gave their reasons why they thought this was. If what you wanted was to see if people though changing it was a good or bad idea, you should have asked that instead.

another word games answer. If the 'why' was as limited as that it would have been a question only a moron would ask. The value of changing/ignoring it is a implied question in even bringing the subject up and the natural topic of the conversation.

kahuna burger

 

[Farganger]

The real question is, will anybody ever play a Hexblade instead of a Ftr/Wiz/Eldritch Knight? Looks like an NPC class to me.

I can readily envision one of my players making a Hexblade PC, but then my players are mostly overworked theater types who pay very little attention to the mechanics of the various classes . . .

It's hard for me to even imagine one of my players figuring out the power differentials of differing class mixes (which I assume you are getting at here) or even bothering to ask, "At 12th level will my Hexblade be put to shame by a Ftr/Wiz/EldKnght of the same character level?"

 

[Unseelie]

wow, this reminds me of my last "speak with dead" expereince... Its a non informative answer. Its the same as saying "because the spot under allignment says 'non good'". Its answering the question with the subject of the question.

IMHO to give an answer of that nature either deliberately sidetracks the discussion, or insults the questioner. To say "its non good because it was presented as non good" just isn't helpful, and to imply that its a valid answer to the question makes the question rediculous. The question is quite readily understood as shorthand for "what is the justification within the class mechanics for making it non good, and is there a reason outside of designer whim for it."


another word games answer. If the 'why' was as limited as that it would have been a question only a moron would ask. The value of changing/ignoring it is a implied question in even bringing the subject up and the natural topic of the conversation.

kahuna burger

No, not at all... some people might have just been wondering what the flavor logic was, rather than assuming there must be some overriding balance issue or game issue. Some times, the answer is as simple as "That's how the author wrote it."

Seriously though, why ask why if all you're going to do is disagree with any reason given? Just do what you wanted to do and don't bother to ask.

Unless, of course, what you really wanted was a bunch of people to say things you disagree with so you have a reason to argue and attempt to prove your superiority...

 

[Ferret]

Two words that go with Good like "asphalt" and "castor oil" go with ice cream.

Don't knock it till you've tried it!

 

[I'm A Banana]

This wasn't a thread, I thought, about justifying why the alingment restriction was wrong....you can do that with any class. I can think of half a million chaotic monks, lawful barbarians, lawful bards, evil paladins, extreme druids, etc., from history, myth, and legend.

Giving an example that counteracts the alignment is EASY.

I was under the impression that we were wondering why the Hexblade has that particular alignment restriction.

The answer is because they are a class focusing on curses and the occult. They practice dark magic of a dooming nature, and would rather see their enemies suffer than sent to their Maker in a timely and efficient fashion. It's not EVIL, but you don't have to be EVIL if you're not good....hexblades as written are self-interested, cruel in their ability to weaken their foes without killing them, and users of magic that erodes free-will and life energy.

If you don't like that, fine. You're no different than people who want a Lawful bard. Just realize that the flavor is the flavor, and you can change it as you will.

And I, for one, am glad they include the basic flavor with the class. There's nothing quite as obnoxious as a mechanic without a role, and the fluff of the hexblade gives them an instant role. If you don't like it, change it. But don't call the original mistaken just because you can think of a counter-example. They're not mistaken. They're just choosing flavor.

 

[WizarDru]

If you don't like that, fine. You're no different than people who want a Lawful bard. Just realize that the flavor is the flavor, and you can change it as you will.

And I, for one, am glad they include the basic flavor with the class. There's nothing quite as obnoxious as a mechanic without a role, and the fluff of the hexblade gives them an instant role. If you don't like it, change it. But don't call the original mistaken just because you can think of a counter-example. They're not mistaken. They're just choosing flavor.

You may be a crazy dancing banana, but you're a pretty smart crazy dancing banana.

 

[Mercule]

You may be a crazy dancing banana, but you're a pretty smart crazy dancing banana.

Agreed.

I started the thread because I was a bit miffed that the only true arcane warrior had an alignment restriction that made no sense. Basically, what I was saying, without saying it was "Can someone explain to me why this apparently stupid, arbitrary restriction isn't stupid or arbitrary."

Well, KM nicely pointed out that it is arbitrary because the alternative would have been flavorlessness (which is bad, IMO). That's also why it's not stupid.

Thank you, sir (or is it ma'am -- can't remember?).