Bad Classes go Good

I don't believe any given class should be inherently 'evil'. Sure, a majority of the people who take the class can be evil - I get that, but the class itself? Let me give you a pair of examples.

1) An Assassin. They only kill the corrupt and vile. They won't take a job to kill someone who doesn't deserve it, and they won't inflict 'collateral damage' (such as staff, guards, etc), unless it's in self-defence (and even then, prefers non-lethal methods). Their purpose is to ensure those who believe they're above justice face justice. They're doing the same thing hired adventurers might do, only with a lot less death involved.

So, evil?

2) A Necromancer. They act as a go-between between the living and dead, act as a psychopomp, helping the dead find peace, eliminating undead, helping families grieve, and helping the ill or frail to pass on without pain. They're not raising undead, defiling graves, sucking the life force out of people, or anything like that.

So, evil?

No, one might ask, 'why play that class if you're not going to do the kind of stuff expected from that class'? Well, the answer's pretty simple: roleplaying. Just like you might make a cleric that isn't all about healing, or a fighter who uses only non-lethal tactics, or a wizard with no offensive because they're a scholar of magic rather than a spell-thrower, or a bard who doesn't have bardic inspiration because they're more a 'draw crowds and entertain' sort (a specific archetype I found in Pathfinder and love).

Sure, you can walk down the beaten path -- but you can also subvert the normal roles of a class and make something unique. So, why not?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Balancing Act

Balance Balance might be the #1 thing talked about in gaming when you go into game theory and play. We talk about balanced rules, balanced parties, balanced encounters... Here's the thing. Mechanical balance isn't possible. Not really. Not without harming the game itself. Because for true 'mechanical balance', you need to have the mechanics control the decisions that the players make - right at character creation. It needs to control the choices players can make in an encounter. It needs to control the choices the characters make in the setting. It needs to control the choices the characters make as they level up. What gear they get. What bonuses they get. Who they encounter. What they can get from each encounter. What they can gather out in the world. The characters get pushed into smaller and smaller boxes, with less and less choices, all in the name of 'balance'. And what this does is make the character sheet really bland, and the mechanics really bland. You ...
Read more

Magic and Technology

  Magic and Technology Don't Mix I've heard this many times, and I don't believe it. The conceit is that, since magic exists,  there's no reason for technology to advance. After all, magic does it better, does it easier, does it faster. Sure. Except that's not even remotely true. How much teaching does it take to get even a modicum of skill in magic? How much does it cost to get trained? Where do you need to go for that training? How many years to get good ? What are the restrictions on spell casting? Do you need to register to be a mage and be allowed to cast certain spells? How long to learn the proper spells? Sure. Developing certain technologies may take time, but the thing about technology is that it builds upon itself. And once something's been developed, it's not too hard to learn the foundations. For example? Steam technology existed in ancient Greece. They started doing all sorts of interesting things with steam. Given time and peace, who knows wher...
Read more

Corrupted vs Pure

 So, what's stronger?  Corruption or Purity? A trope I've seen often is that a region gets corrupted, the heroes come in, they destroy the corruption, but there's always some 'seed' of corruption that gets overlooked, and it spreads, and you have to deal with it all over again (Fern Gully's an excellent example).  Or, you defeat the corruption, and someone carries it within them.  Or whatever. It's like ... you can't just have purity. There's always got to be something . Which makes it feel like corruption is stronger than purity. (Another trope is 'I've cast this zone of purity, but the corruption's too strong, I can't keep it up!') I want to see the flip side of this.  Proof that purity is more the 'natural state', and as such the natural state always wins out in the end.  Without having to use outside influence. A corrupt zone with the manifestation of purity someplace, that slowly drives out the corruption and overtake...
Read more