Troll Lord Games

The assassin has always seemed like a troublesome class for me. Do you use the Assassin as a PC class? As an NPC class? What role do they play in an adventuring party? It doesn't take a Paladin to get uneasy around a sneaky poisoner.

To me, the assassin is part of old-school play. The kinds of players that cause inter-party conflict will do so regardless of what class they belong to.

Haven't had anyone who wants to play one. For non-city adventures they aren't as strong.

Yes.

There are multiple ways to play an assassin beyond the "I simply kill things for money." That is a nice side effect, perhaps, but not the only imaginable option.

But... we don't allow paladins. Not because of assassins, but because the paladin class is stupid.

(Not really stupid but far more prone to cause DM-player conflict.)

serleran wrote: But... we don't allow paladins. Not because of assassins, but because the paladin class is stupid.

serleran wrote:Yes.

There are multiple ways to play an assassin beyond the "I simply kill things for money." That is a nice side effect, perhaps, but not the only imaginable option.

But... we don't allow paladins. Not because of assassins, but because the paladin class is stupid.

(Not really stupid but far more prone to cause DM-player conflict.)

I allow it but it is too difficult to play for most people.

I allow it. I never saw the big deal. Assassins kill things by stealth, sometimes in exchange for money. Adventurers murder creatures in order to take their property, but usually in a non-stealthy way. I don't see much of a moral distinction in the abstract. One vision of an assassin is a character that will kill anyone in exchange for cash. That is not the only motif that fits the class skills. They also fit a sniper on a SWAT team or just an adventurer who prefers to kill monsters in a sneaky way rather than engage in melee with them. "Assassin" (in game terms) in a skill set, not a moral outlook.

I also ban paladins in my game, not least because they don't play well with others.

I allow Paladins, I play Paladins, but that is because I don't play, or allow them to be played, as stupid one dimensional black and white characters. I also currently have an Assassin in my games, along with a Paladin, of Thoth. They get along fine.

Yes. Why not?

In my games, PCs don't go around saying, "I'm a Bard," or "I'm a Barbarian," because they don't identify that way to the commoners in the world. If those words are applied to a PC by an NPC, they are used as descriptions of skill sets and capabilities. A commoner describing a PC by saying, "He's a real bard, read this poem he wrote!" is referring to a description of skill, not of character class. The same goes for fighter, barbarian, assassin, etc. Knight is similar, but since it is an actual title bestowed by a high ranking power, it is used more formally by commoners than the word fighter.

Most class names are skill set descriptions and nothing more. No one is going around and saying "I'm an assassin!" because that would describe a specific bit of behavior in-game that the commoners wouldn't look kindly upon. Most of the PCs in my games would present themselves as adventurers or mercenaries, and not mention the name of their character class.

TL;DR If I don't allow assassins, then I can't allow barbarians because they both have negative connotations - luckily my PCs aren't stupid enough to tell others that they are <insert class name here>.

I think it is the class name that causes a lot of consternation. The class can be played many ways. Just as can a fighter, rouge, etc. It can be played in any alignment.

Arduin wrote:I think it is the class name that causes a lot of consternation. The class can be played many ways. Just as can a fighter, rouge, etc. It can be played in any alignment.

Rouge is a color, rogue is a class...

Treebore wrote:

Arduin wrote:I think it is the class name that causes a lot of consternation. The class can be played many ways. Just as can a fighter, rouge, etc. It can be played in any alignment.

Rouge is a color, rogue is a class...

But, it can be any alignment.

In honesty, I don't particularly like any class with a dedicated alignment. In the cases where this has traditionally happened (paladin, druid, ranger, etc), I worked out ways to not require the established requirement -- they were the more dominant, of course, in the world, but the PC could be of difference because they should be.

But, I also find I don't really care for alignment anyway. Its a very loose "moral code" with too much native ambiguity leading to much heated discourse -- if I wanted a moral tale, I would play Aesop's Fables.

serleran wrote:
....

But... we don't allow paladins. Not because of assassins, but because the paladin class is stupid.

...

Hay, that hurts!

Aergraith wrote:

serleran wrote: But... we don't allow paladins. Not because of assassins, but because the paladin class is stupid.

I'll remember that when you need Alywine's help !

Treebore wrote:I allow Paladins, I play Paladins, but that is because I don't play, or allow them to be played, as stupid one dimensional black and white characters. I also currently have an Assassin in my games, along with a Paladin, of Thoth. They get along fine.

Rgr, a paladin is not lawful stupid!

Buttmonkey wrote:
I allow it. I never saw the big deal. Assassins kill things by stealth, sometimes in exchange for money. Adventurers murder creatures in order to take their property, but usually in a non-stealthy way. I don't see much of a moral distinction in the abstract. One vision of an assassin is a character that will kill anyone in exchange for cash. That is not the only motif that fits the class skills. They also fit a sniper on a SWAT team or just an adventurer who prefers to kill monsters in a sneaky way rather than engage in melee with them. "Assassin" (in game terms) in a skill set, not a moral outlook.

I also ban paladins in my game, not least because they don't play well with others.

That fits how I see them. Especially with the "SWAT" version, I'd argue they could be 'good'.

Absolutely, although I don't dictate alignment for it. Assassins were about the only thing I liked about AD&D when I was playing B/X back in the day.

To me, just as an illusionist is a specialized wizard, and a druid is a specialized cleric, an assassin is a specialized thief. He's got a very specific skill set that, if left unable to utilize that skill set, is going to not be a very effective character (not to mention a very bored player!). As a CK, it's my job to give that player a chance to shine - whether they actually do or not is another story. But I've never restricted a player's choice of character, alignment, or concept. I should have a few times, but I haven't...meaning, if something's played well, it should be okay.

Yes, always willing to give it a try, though my most recent experience resulted in lot of party tension that was starting to get nasty. Perhaps easier to deal with face to face but less so using VOIP and a VT.

It started with a new RPer rolling up the Assassin, no issue, was actually doing quite well, he linked up with the Assassin's guild and decided to kill the Baron of Botkinburg. He was quite successful, though questioned by the authorities in the subsequent hunt for the killer. It was while he was in protective custody that things started to go south. He attacked the Sheriff and nearly succeeded in a death attack. The player switched over to playing a bard, so other party members would NPC him, and everyone who played him did as a psycho-path. The last player to run him was doing things true to form as well. As a CK, it kept me on my and feet and was hilarious, but the tension between a few of the players got way out of hand. Ultimately after talking off-line we resolved it with having the Assassin take off in search of a plot hook somewhere (the Golden Shingle for those of you in know) and the other player rolled up a Monk/Cleric.

I'd still allow an Assassin, but the goals would have to be in line with the Party's not to betray the party. I allow Assassins of all alignments as a House Rule.

I'm one of those people who have had ugly experiences with evil aligned characters, so forbid it in general. Under special circumstances, talked out beforehand, I will, occasionally, allow an Evil PC, with the understanding that I, the CK, will strike the PC dead with a bolt of Blue Lightning from the sky, no matter how far under ground they may be at the time, if they ever go outside the parameters we agree too. Which says the other PC's are off limits, among other things.

Treebore wrote:I'm one of those people who have had ugly experiences with evil aligned characters, so forbid it in general. Under special circumstances, talked out beforehand, I will, occasionally, allow an Evil PC, with the understanding that I, the CK, will strike the PC dead with a bolt of Blue Lightning from the sky, no matter how far under ground they may be at the time, if they ever go outside the parameters we agree too. Which says the other PC's are off limits, among other things.

I require the agreement of all players in order to have someone play an evil PC.

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:I'm one of those people who have had ugly experiences with evil aligned characters, so forbid it in general. Under special circumstances, talked out beforehand, I will, occasionally, allow an Evil PC, with the understanding that I, the CK, will strike the PC dead with a bolt of Blue Lightning from the sky, no matter how far under ground they may be at the time, if they ever go outside the parameters we agree too. Which says the other PC's are off limits, among other things.

I require the agreement of all players in order to have someone play an evil PC.

Yeah, I wasn't going to try and recall all the conditions I put on the player playing an Evil PC. The main thing was, as soon as they did something that I felt would harm the fun of the others, LIGHTNING BOLT FROM THE HEAVENS!!!

Yes, definitely!

I like them as good aligned monster specialty killers/snipers. I played one about 9 years ago in a PBP game and it was excellent. I also had one of my players do the same a few years back in my ftf game.

Rhuvein wrote:Yes, definitely!

I like them as good aligned monster specialty killers/snipers. I played one about 9 years ago in a PBP game and it was excellent. I also had one of my players do the same a few years back in my ftf game.

So you ran around hunting flumphs, blink dogs, and angels?

Aergraith wrote:

Rhuvein wrote:Yes, definitely!

I like them as good aligned monster specialty killers/snipers. I played one about 9 years ago in a PBP game and it was excellent. I also had one of my players do the same a few years back in my ftf game.

So you ran around hunting flumphs, blink dogs, and angels?

Aergraith wrote:

Rhuvein wrote:Yes, definitely!

I like them as good aligned monster specialty killers/snipers. I played one about 9 years ago in a PBP game and it was excellent. I also had one of my players do the same a few years back in my ftf game.

So you ran around hunting flumphs, blink dogs, and angels?

Hehe, well a professional has to start somewhere and get practice! Hmm, blink dogs would be great practice, methinks!

I've had/have two players in my games play assassins.

The first one turned out to be a bad experience, the PC assassinated one of the other PCs. That turned into a real problem, of which I wont get into specifics here.

The second one is played by Aramis in my Castle Whiterock campaign (actually an assassin/wizard). He's only assassinated a few NPCs, but they were really powerful and it helped the party out a lot, and it was fun to play out.

So yes, I do allow assassins, but I have a new rule that you cannot assassinate other PCs, unless you are forced to with some kind of enemy magic of course.

If a player in any of my games wants to run an assassin, or another class with an evil alignment selected, I make it clear that the characters need to be able to coexist and work together since

1. Time is scarce for this social endeavor so let's not be a disruptive d-bag and ruin it for everyone by being a jerk.
2. I will throw plenty of stuff at the party so working together benefits the group.
3. The player of an assassin or other evil character, especially if the player is younger / less experienced, should understand at some point the characters will depend on each other. In other words, "Don't shit where you lay."

If a player can't understand, or won't abide with, what I telling him about this topic then the player is not a good fit for what I'm running. My time is too precious to waste on disruptive d-bags.