Originally posted by CharmQuark:
First Off, I play a lot of 3E D&D, and I am used to prestige classes designed for villans, so I don't really mind designing inherintly "evil" classes. Also, I think your rejection of classes based on the fact that other classes might be functionally capable of doing the same thing is shallow. Why have seperate merc, army, and marine classes if that is your line of thought?
________________________________________________
Your ADnD3e experience notwithstanding, Mr CharmQuark...May I add that I have played every version of AD & D since 1980 when I was a college freshman, and Gm'd since then in all of its variants/ edition since then? Not to flame, just to assure you my OPINION was not based in shallow moral relativism. ADn D 2e did away with the Assassin class, not for Shallow reasons, but that anyone who was paid to kill another could be an assassin. Mages killing mages for the spellbooks, rather than develop their own is a mainstay of Forgotten realm's(tm) history (ask Ed Greenwood--I did)..an example.
Killing for country/ nation/world/Imperium is not assassination. It is the unfortunate end result of WAR, sir. I have been to war (this is my third, btw). (I will now refrain from heat now...)[deleted passage].
________________________________________________
I have seen three primary uses of prestige class in standard d20 systems: specialization (D&D - Thief Acrobat), membership in group/guild (D&D: Harper Agent for example), or Metamorphasis (D&D stuff like blood mages and such; each level is a further progression in the change - pretty cool).
In the case above, many classes could potentially kill someone, so what? An assassin would get a bonus for attacking unaware targets, be able to use poisons, have access to a secret society and contacts, make cool ninja or street gang hand signs, or whatever. The object of the class is that by selecting it the character (or NPC villan) is streamlining his development towards one end while sacrificing perhaps some of their generality.