PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Why an assassin must be evil?



Zerg Cookie
2009-03-15, 01:21 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm
Requirements
To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.

Alignment
Any evil.

Skills
Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks.

Special
The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

I can understand all the requirements, except for the "any evil" :smallconfused:
You'll probably say that assassins kill people, but even the most lawful good paladin kills people (Now you'll say that a paladin kills evil people, an assassin can kill evil people too)
You might say that assassins fight without honor. But as I see it, honor has nothing to do with the good/evil axis. Fighting with honor is far on the chaotic side, and assassins aren't any less honorable than rogues (both aren't honorable at all, using sneak attacks to finish off their enemies)

So help me, fellow playgrounders, why are assassins evil?

Draz74
2009-03-15, 01:28 PM
So help me, fellow playgrounders, why are assassins evil?

Because the Assassin PrC -- spellcasting and all -- was originally conceived of (in 3e) as members of a specific evil guild of assassins from Greyhawk, or so I've heard.

If you don't play in Greyhawk (or just don't use that guild)? No real reason for the evil restriction. (Unless perhaps if you're playing in a rather morally-ambiguous campaign, where you make most PCs be neutral-at-best, usually evil, for their violent lifestyles.)

Jack_Simth
2009-03-15, 01:30 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm
Requirements
To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.

Alignment
Any evil.

Skills
Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks.

Special
The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

I can understand all the requirements, except for the "any evil" :smallconfused:
You'll probably say that assassins kill people, but even the most lawful good paladin kills people (Now you'll say that a paladin kills evil people, an assassin can kill evil people too)
You might say that assassins fight without honor. But as I see it, honor has nothing to do with the good/evil axis. Fighting with honor is far on the chaotic side, and assassins aren't any less honorable than rogues (both aren't honorable at all, using sneak attacks to finish off their enemies)

So help me, fellow playgrounders, why are assassins evil?

Consider:
What is an assassin? Why, it's someone who goes around killing people for no other reason than gold. What's one of the other entry requirements? Killing someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. Of course you need to be pretty evil to join. What's the question?

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 01:30 PM
Because WotC said so.

Seriously, if you look for any deeper reason in D&D, you'll inevitably go mad.

Morty
2009-03-15, 01:31 PM
There's no real reason. Even WoTC seems to have admitted it, as one day they've put an Avenger class on their site which was pretty much an Assasin, except good-aligned.

Dacia Brabant
2009-03-15, 01:32 PM
The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. (emphasis added)

There's your answer right there. If you're using this as a requirement then it's a given that you have to be evil to do that.

Also, assassins will kill people just to get paid, regardless of whether the people they kill "deserve" it or not.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 01:33 PM
There's no real reason. Even WoTC seems to have admitted it, as one day they've put an Avenger class on their site which was pretty much an Assasin, except good-aligned.

Non-Chaotic, not Non-Evil.


There's your answer right there. If you're using this as a requirement then it's a given that you have to be evil to do that.

Also, assassins will kill people just to get paid, regardless of whether the people they kill "deserve" it or not.

Really? I don't see any Ex-Assassins section that says "you must kill people to get paid or you'll lose all your powers".

It also doesn't say the person you have to kill has to be non-deserving or non-evil.

Seriously, there is nothing other than an arbitrary decision by WotC that makes Assassins evil.

Zerg Cookie
2009-03-15, 01:35 PM
Can't I kill a bad guy to join?
And come on, I just want a death attack for my rogue :smallbiggrin:

RTGoodman
2009-03-15, 01:37 PM
There's no real reason. Even WoTC seems to have admitted it, as one day they've put an Avenger class on their site which was pretty much an Assasin, except good-aligned.

Er, about that... are you talking about this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a)? 'Cause that's an April Fool's Day article...

Morty
2009-03-15, 01:38 PM
Non-Chaotic, not Non-Evil.


Maybe, I don't remember it right off the bat. The point remains that it seems to be a joke saying "yeah, the evil requirement for Assasin is stupid". What with being posted on 1st of April and all that.


Can't I kill a bad guy to join?
And come on, I just want a death attack for my rogue

So ignore the fluff requirements and go with it, provided GM agrees.


Er, about that... are you talking about this? 'Cause that's an April Fool's Day article...

Yes, that's the class I'm talking about. And yes, I'm aware it's been posted on April Fools, which leads me to my conclusion that it's a joke about the "must be evil" requirement for Assasin.

Gorbash
2009-03-15, 01:41 PM
There's no real reason. Even WoTC seems to have admitted it, as one day they've put an Avenger class on their site which was pretty much an Assasin, except good-aligned.

That was an April's Fools joke.

Eldan
2009-03-15, 01:44 PM
Because of the way they are explained in the fluff: Assassins don't just kill, they kill people they barely know for money. Which is evil.

Morty
2009-03-15, 01:44 PM
That was an April's Fools joke.

Le sigh. Yes, I know. A joke that, to me, seems like WoTC poking fun at their own silly design decisions.

Spiryt
2009-03-15, 01:46 PM
Can't I kill a bad guy to join?


The point is, as I understand it, that you had to kill someone to become assasin, and then kill some people for money/other stuff. If victims are bad or not is irrevelant. You're killing strangers just for personal gain.

Of course, as others said, ou can skip that and just be someone who is able to kill people in sneaky way, If your DM agree.

Although it would look pretty weird.

"What are you doing with all those murdering skills?"
" Ummm, I kill.... bad pimps. And office workers."

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-15, 01:48 PM
Consider:
What is an assassin? Why, it's someone who goes around killing people for no other reason than gold. What's one of the other entry requirements? Killing someone for no other reason than to join the assassins. Of course you need to be pretty evil to join. What's the question?

What is a mercenary? Why, it's someone who goes around killing people for no other reason than gold.

Weirdly, mercenaries aren't Always Evil. Ain't that funny?


There's your answer right there. If you're using this as a requirement then it's a given that you have to be evil to do that.

Alignments aren't prescriptive, but descriptive; and one action does not an alignment make.


Also, assassins will kill people just to get paid, regardless of whether the people they kill "deserve" it or not.

Says who? There's an exalted PrC in BoED for an order of assassins who are discriminate, but are assassins in every way, including mechanically.

Heck, the Hashshashin were plenty discriminate - they were religiously motivated. (A secret cabal within a fringe cult of an outside sect of the less popular strain of Islam in the region at the time.) They didn't try to kill Salah Din because someone paid them, they tried to do it because they wanted him dead for political or ideological reasons. The word comes from an order who were not a guild of killers-for-hire - why should the PrC only apply to an Ankh-Morpork -style guild (who, incidentally, I wouldn't class as evil either).

D&D versions of people like Gavrilo Princip - should they manage to off more than one archduke, anyway - would definitely use a PrC like assassin, and definitely wouldn't have to be evil.


Although it would look pretty weird.

"What are you doing with all those murdering skills?"
" Ummm, I kill.... bad pimps. And office workers."

How about something, you know, more realistic?

"I kill tyrants and enemies of the faith/state."

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 01:49 PM
Because of the way they are explained in the fluff: Assassins don't just kill, they kill people they barely know for money. Which is evil.

This fluff thing... It is the same fluff that makes monks to be great combatants unarmed and unarmored and fighters masters of pure close combat, right?

Shame fluff doesn't always match the mechanics, then.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 01:50 PM
Assassins commit pre-meditated murder against innocent victims. That tends to be evil. :smalltongue: Paladins don't do that.

Now of course, if you clear it with your DM, you can play a good assassin who only goes around assassinating evil orc warchiefs or something (not for money), but as a general rule of thumb...assassins are evil.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 01:54 PM
Assassins commit pre-meditated murder against innocent victims. That tends to be evil. :smalltongue:

All murder is premeditated. It's the definition of murder - unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another.

No one said the victims had to be innocent. Assassins can kill anyone. Huh, weird, so can wizards.

Thurbane
2009-03-15, 01:54 PM
Can't I kill a bad guy to join?
And come on, I just want a death attack for my rogue :smallbiggrin:
There are a couple of other PrCs that offer death attack. The Dark Hunter (CW, p.20) is one, with no alignment requirements or restrictions.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 02:01 PM
All murder is premediated. It's the definition of murder - unlawful premediated killing of a human being by another.

No one said the victims had to be innocent. Assassins can kill anyone. Huh, weird, so can wizards.


Pre-meditated. And no, not all murder is pre-meditated. If you're going to claim something is a definition, you should at least check the definition. :smalltongue:

If I plan to kill you and do...I have committed pre-meditated murder. If I'm at a bar and you start annoying me and I get mad and stab you in the heart...that's not pre-meditated, but it's still murder. =)

Zerg Cookie
2009-03-15, 02:04 PM
There are a couple of other PrCs that offer death attack. The Dark Hunter (CW, p.20) is one, with no alignment requirements or restrictions.

That class seems nice (I looked it up at wizards), but where can I find more info, like class-features?

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 02:06 PM
Pre-meditated. And no, not all murder is pre-meditated. If you're going to claim something is a definition, you should at least check the definition. :smalltongue:

I did. Guess what it said. "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".

You're thinking of manslaughter, which is unlawful unpremeditated killing of one human being by another.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 02:11 PM
I did. Guess what it said. "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".

You're thinking of manslaughter, which is unlawful unpremeditated killing of one human being by another.

No...I assure you I'm not. You didn't check an authoritative source. :smallsmile:

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 02:13 PM
No...I assure you I'm not. You didn't check an authoritative source. :smallsmile:

Yes, I did. A law book. Well, rather, my lawyer parents.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 02:13 PM
Canada

As defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, murder is considered one type of culpable homicide, distinguished from the offences of manslaughter or infanticide. [45]

First and second degree

In Canada, murder is classified as either first or second degree.[46]

1. First degree murder is a murder which is (1) planned and deliberate, (2) contracted, (3) committed against an identified peace officer, (4) while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking), (5) while committing criminal harassment, (6) committed during terrorist activity, (7) while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, or (8) while committing intimidation. [47]
2. Second degree murder is all murder which is not first degree murder. It could be "spur of the moment".

Manslaughter and infanticide

1. Manslaughter is any culpable homicide which is not murder or infanticide. [48]
2. Infanticide is the killing of a newly-born child by its mother where the mother's mind was disturbed as a result of giving birth or of consequent lactation. It is a type of homicide but is excluded from murder.[49]




Your parents are out of practice. Trust a law student instead. :smallbiggrin:

chiasaur11
2009-03-15, 02:13 PM
Amusingly enough, Havelock Vetinari, the guy who comes most rapidly to my mind when I think "Assasin in a fantasy setting" wouldn't (probably) be able to take either of the prestige classes allignmentwise.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 02:14 PM
I can't help if you're living in a lesser country. :smallbiggrin:

Here, murder is premeditated. Otherwise it's manslaughter.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-15, 02:15 PM
If you have to derail the thread with pointless semantics, how about you explain by what definition assassins must kill innocents for money?


Amusingly enough, Havelock Vetinari, the guy who comes most rapidly to my mind when I think "Assasin in a fantasy setting" wouldn't (probably) be able to take either of the prestige classes allignmentwise.

Yeah, and the whole Guild would be Lawful Neutral if anything. Heck, the actual evil members - like Teatime - are actually feared.

The Hashashshin... alignments don't fit into the real world, but in a fantasy world, they'd be their deity's alignment, whatever it were - LG, LE, CE, N, whatever. (Cf. Blackflame Zealots and those exalted assassins.)

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 02:17 PM
If you have to derail the thread with pointless semantics, how about you explain by what definition assassins must kill innocents for money?

I asked that one previously. Can't believe I got an answer from anyone.

Dacia Brabant
2009-03-15, 02:18 PM
Really? I don't see any Ex-Assassins section that says "you must kill people to get paid or you'll lose all your powers".

I didn't say they had to do it now did I?


It also doesn't say the person you have to kill has to be non-deserving or non-evil.

But that doesn't matter because you're killing them for no other reason. Their alignment doesn't determine yours, only your own motivations and actions do.


Seriously, there is nothing other than an arbitrary decision by WotC that makes Assassins evil.

No more arbitrary than anything else they make up. The concept they had in mind with the design was pretty clearly the cold-blooded murderer-for-hire archetype. Sure you could reflavor it to something else and make up some other reason why they'd be the sorts to have training in poison use and a deathblow attack, but as written the PrC comes off as someone who doesn't value the lives of others.


I did. Guess what it said. "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".

Murder in the Second Degree is not legally defined as premeditated and yet it's still classified as murder because of the intent of the action, and intent does not equal planned. If you walk in on your spouse having an affair and kill both of them in a rage, you didn't plan to do it, it just happened, but your intent at that moment was to kill them. Now if you walked in, walked out, waited a few days or weeks as you planned out and executed your revenge, that's premeditation and qualifies as Murder in the First Degree, which either carries life imprisonment without possibility of parole or the death penalty, whereas Murder in the Second Degree get neither.


Can't I kill a bad guy to join?
And come on, I just want a death attack for my rogue

Ask your GM if you can reflavor it to not require evil alignments. Or be a Swordsage instead and get the deathblow from the Tiger Claw discipline at level 17. It's better than the Assassin's anyway: DC is 19+Str mod and you still get +20d6 damage if the target makes its save. Gotta make a successful Jump check vs. their AC though, but you can pull it off if you're already in melee whereas with Assassin you have to disengage first.


Tsotha-lanti: I'm not unversed in history and I hope you're not trying to tell me that the Hashashins weren't evil. Also I specifically meant assassins in regard to that particular prestige class, which is written as hired killer as I've already said; real historical assassins have nothing to do with that.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 02:21 PM
No more arbitrary than anything else they make up. The concept they had in mind with the design was pretty clearly the cold-blooded murderer-for-hire archetype. Sure you could reflavor it to something else and make up some other reason why they'd be the sorts to have training in poison use and a deathblow attack, but as written the PrC comes off as someone who doesn't value the lives of others.

As written the PrC comes off as a sneak attack artist with a death attack, poison use and some spells. None of them exactly scream "cold-blooded murderer-for-hire" to me.

I'd rather have my fluff supported by crunch than the other way around.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 02:22 PM
The mechanics do not require an evil act to be executed at any point in time, and even the gag variant is done in such a way that a freaking Stick-up-Butt paladin could PrC into it. If the abilities to Detect and Smite Evil are NOT a license to kill, I have no idea what is.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-15, 02:23 PM
What is a mercenary? Why, it's someone who goes around killing people for no other reason than gold.

Weirdly, mercenaries aren't Always Evil. Ain't that funny?
Do note:
Mercenaries are hiring themselves out as soldiers. Traditionally, they're hired by a ruler, at war, and are only killing other soldiers in the course of normal events, generally on the battlefield; any honest soldier knows he's liable to die for whatever cause/country/ruler he's fighting for. Both sides know about what's coming, one way or another. Individual actions for a mercenary can be good or evil based on the cause.

An assassin hires out as an assassin to take out someone who's inconvenient for the employer. It's very, very rare that the person the assassin works for has good motives. Additionally, the target of an assassination generally isn't a soldier on the battlefield, who knows to expect this sort of thing. While sure, some assassinations might be a good thing... most never will be. My history teacher in high school once showed my class the introduction for the USA's Assassin's handbook. One of the lines that stuck with me? "Assassination is seldom morally justified. This is not a profession for the squeamish."

In the requirements to join the guild, you have to kill someone "for no other reason than to join the assassins." If you're picking your target because he's evil, that's a reason other than to join the assassins, and the requirement isn't met. To qualify, it pretty much needs to be a random killing. How is that not evil?

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 02:27 PM
This is why I end up spending a lot of time homebrewing. When fluff determines crunch, you end up with the borked up balance and ability issues that dominate 3.5. Even in 4.0, everything is just so rigidly typecast.

There is no reason why a death attack, or poison use, is inherently "evil" aside from the game's stupid defined morality system.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 02:27 PM
In the requirements to join the guild, you have to kill someone "for no other reason than to join the assassins." If you're picking your target because he's evil, that's a reason other than to join the assassins, and the requirement isn't met. To qualify, it pretty much needs to be a random killing. How is that not evil?

According to the UA test-based entry requirements, it is definitely not random killing. They give you a specific target to be killed in a specific manner.

So you may not get to choose your target, but you can choose the guild which will give you your target.

Except any guild you choose will be evil, because WotC said so.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 02:29 PM
This is why I end up spending a lot of time homebrewing. When fluff determines crunch, you end up with the borked up balance and ability issues that dominate 3.5. Even in 4.0, everything is just so rigidly typecast.

There is no reason why a death attack, or poison use, is inherently "evil" aside from the game's stupid defined morality system.



To be fair...in real life death attacks and poisoning people tend to be considered evil too :smallwink:

Paramour Pink
2009-03-15, 02:29 PM
As already said, the alignment is hinged really heavily on the special requirement. The way it's worded makes it seem like an incredibly selfish task that shows a complete disregard for life. Almost a confirmation that you have enough disdain for life that you can go as far as need be (killing just for the sake of killing) to pursue your job. Maybe some incredibly rare, uniquely trained individual might painstakingly pick out someone that has a long line of irrefutable and irredeemable Evil behind them for the kill to become an assassin, but most won't. Not when the majority could kill the child of some farmer and let that be the end of it.

Thurbane
2009-03-15, 02:31 PM
That class seems nice (I looked it up at wizards), but where can I find more info, like class-features?
Well, if you don't have access to CW, you could try the Prestige Class PDF over at Crystalkeep (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/index.php)...

RebelRogue
2009-03-15, 02:33 PM
As is usually the case with "why is XXX evil?" type questions, it has to do with D&D supporting certain iconic images/stereotypes. The iconic assasins kills people for personal gain, which is Evil, hence assassins as a class happen to be Evil. Likewise with the old debate for animating dead: zombie-mongering necromancers are iconically Evil, hence the mechanics make them so, etc. Some like this, some don't, but it is a staple of D&D in many ways.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-15, 02:36 PM
There's no real reason. Even WoTC seems to have admitted it, as one day they've put an Avenger class on their site which was pretty much an Assasin, except good-aligned.
I was under the impression that the Avenger class was some sort of April Fool's joke. That it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. :smallconfused:

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 02:37 PM
Some like this, some don't, but it is a staple of D&D in many ways.

Which roughly means "because WotC said so".

Sadly, D&D does a terrible job of supporting the fluff with crunch. It expects them to work together, but they don't, so most people end up ignoring one or the other.

Morty
2009-03-15, 02:37 PM
I was under the impression that the Avenger class was some sort of April Fool's joke. That it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. :smallconfused:

For the third time... yes, it was an April Fool's joke. And I was under an impression the joke is on the Evil requirement for the assasin.

dspeyer
2009-03-15, 02:40 PM
I always figured that the definitive features of an assassin (the death attack and the spellcasting) were invented by an evil epic wizard//rogue in the far past, and the only way to learn them was to be trained by someone who already knows. The keepers of these secrets will only accept students who have demonstrated an absolute lack of conscience.

Why? Perhaps because that's the vision of the guild. Or because they will one day call upon you to repay their teaching with some small act no decent person would consider, and they aren't going to waste training on someone who will refuse when the time comes. Or perhaps they fear that any good person who learns their powers might reveal them to high-value innocent targets, allowing them to defend better.

Interestingly, there's no ex-assassin rule, so you can have a change of heart and continue to use all the techniques. Presumably anyone who does this will be constantly hunted by mainstream assassins and therefore unreachable by intended students.

Of course, if this *isn't* the backstory the DM likes, the alignment rule can be disregarded too.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 02:41 PM
Theodoriph: I recall watching a documentary on tribal sorts that used tarantula poison on their blow darts when hunting. Is that evil? Hell, are tarantulas? As for death attacks, how are they any different from massive damage or save or die spells? The approach is different, but the results are the same. A cleaver and a scalpel can both end a life, but just because a scalpel requires more precision doesn't make it the evil implement of the two. :smalltongue:

Paramour Pink: I hear this kind of argument from anti-gun people a lot. Just because something CAN be used for evil, doesn't mean that it inherently is. It's the someone that's the problem. If most people opting for those skills will happily kill innocents (and let's face the fact that many a person will due to humanity sucking a lot on a lowest-common-denominator-ish level) it is NOT a requirement to do so. It's a matter of personal choice. So once again, the requirement is the offspring of the simplistic mentality that set the alignment system up in the first place.

Gorbash
2009-03-15, 02:41 PM
D&D versions of people like Gavrilo Princip - should they manage to off more than one archduke

Gavrilo killed Ferdinand for ideological reasons, not for money.

Dacia Brabant
2009-03-15, 02:45 PM
As written the PrC comes off as a sneak attack artist with a death attack, poison use and some spells. None of them exactly scream "cold-blooded murderer-for-hire" to me.

I'd rather have my fluff supported by crunch than the other way around.

Oh I don't disagree with you there, but WotC's design philosophy for prestige classes was originally the other way around, as you're supposed to join up with an organization or similar and have requirements and mechanics based on that in-character decision. This did get really muddled though as people predominately wanted to do it the way you described, which also seesm to be the way the game works best.

But like I said, like any other PrC with a "role-playing" requirement or mechanic it can always be reflavored.


Interestingly, there's no ex-assassin rule, so you can have a change of heart and continue to use all the techniques. Presumably anyone who does this will be constantly hunted by mainstream assassins and therefore unreachable by intended students.

Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark actually did that with one of the major NPCs. Worked pretty well too.

RebelRogue
2009-03-15, 02:46 PM
Which roughly means "because WotC said so".
You can say that about any rule, really! It supports a given iconography, one that permeates the flavor of classic D&D IMO. I fail to see what is inherently wrong with that.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 02:47 PM
Gavrilo killed Ferdinand for ideological reasons, not for money.

Curious. Your point is?

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-15, 02:48 PM
Gavrilo killed Ferdinand for ideological reasons, not for money.

You apparently managed to both summarize and completely miss my point at the same time.

Assassin is more commonly politically or ideologically motivated - like the Hashshashin - than motivated by money. In fact, the word itself most strongly implies a political killing.

Paramour Pink
2009-03-15, 02:53 PM
Paramour Pink: I hear this kind of argument from anti-gun people a lot. Just because something CAN be used for evil, doesn't mean that it inherently is. It's the someone that's the problem. If most people opting for those skills will happily kill innocents (and let's face the fact that many a person will due to humanity sucking a lot on a lowest-common-denominator-ish level) it is NOT a requirement to do so. It's a matter of personal choice. So once again, the requirement is the offspring of the simplistic mentality that set the alignment system up in the first place.

What are you talking about? :smallconfused:

I was speaking purely about a someone, not a something. I didn't mention poison, daggers, marbles, or any weapon or item that might make an assassin's job easier. My point was that the majority of assassin, as you say in the post I'm now quoting, will go for the easy kill. And I already pointed out that although it's not a requirement, only a rare person is going to go out of their way for someone that isn't an easy kill. So once again, the requirement points out what the majority of assassins are like. If they're cruel enough to go out and murder for purely selfish reasons, they stand as Evil.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 02:55 PM
What are you talking about? :smallconfused:

I was speaking purely about a someone, not a something. I didn't mention poison, daggers, marbles, or any weapon or item that might make an assassin's job easier. And my entire point was that the majority of assassin, as you say in the post I'm now quoting, will go for the easy kill. And I already pointed out that although it's not a requirement, only a rare person is going to go out of their way for someone that isn't an easy kill. So once again, the requirement points out what the majority of assassins are like. If their cruel enough to go out and murder for purely selfish reasons, they stand as Evil.

According to the intentions of WotC, they can't (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm#assassin). They can't even choose who they are going to kill.

So, no, they won't go for the easy kill. Whether they would or not is another matter entirely.

NEO|Phyte
2009-03-15, 03:03 PM
Because of the way they are explained in the fluff: Assassins don't just kill, they kill people they barely know for money. Which is evil.
This is is different from what most adventurers do how?

Paramour Pink
2009-03-15, 03:05 PM
According to the intentions of WotC, they can't (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm#assassin). They can't even choose who they are going to kill.

So, no, they won't go for the easy kill. Whether they would or not is another matter entirely.

Was looking in the DMG; it didn't mention that. Not that it matters, considering it's still for selfish reasons, still shows a disregard for life, and so is still Evil. But if nothing else, maybe his DM will allow him to side-step the requirement if he role-plays the test right.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 03:06 PM
Not that it matters, considering it's still for selfish reasons, still shows a disregard for life, and so is still Evil.

You just defined the actions of nearly every adventurer in D&D ever.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 03:15 PM
According to the intentions of WotC, they can't (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm#assassin). They can't even choose who they are going to kill.

So, no, they won't go for the easy kill. Whether they would or not is another matter entirely.

It's all a matter of bloody rp! If you start with levels in the class, your back history can be whatever the hades you want it to be. This includes the nature of the guild in which to received your training, which means the nature of the target you are sent to kill as well as the details therein. As far as taking the PrC in game, it's a matter of working with your GM to continue the story you want to tell. There is literally no reason that it's "evil". :smallannoyed:

Paramour Pink
2009-03-15, 03:18 PM
You just defined the actions of nearly every adventurer in D&D ever.

Only if your DM doesn't give any justification, or you don't roleplay to show you're not cold-hearted. But I agree with you. Sometimes I think the Good alignment is only put on the sheet so DMs are more comfortable with letting in characters that like to kill for shinies. It's the fault of the players that they don't like calling themselves Evil or Neutral, and the DMs that would hate to accept those alignments.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 03:18 PM
It's all a matter of bloody rp! If you start with levels in the class, your back history can be whatever the hades you want it to be. This includes the nature of the guild in which to received your training, which means the nature of the target you are sent to kill as well as the details therein. As far as taking the PrC in game, it's a matter of working with your GM to continue the story you want to tell. There is literally no reason that it's "evil". :smallannoyed:

So we agree WotC is stupid and prone to arbitrary rulings that make no sense however you cut it.

RebelRogue
2009-03-15, 03:22 PM
So we agree WotC is stupid and prone to arbitrary rulings that make no sense however you cut it.
Once again: they're not stupid! They're honoring a tradition!

There's no real reason why you couldn't change the alignment prereq, but the original one sets a certain tone.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 03:26 PM
Once again: they're not stupid! They're honoring a tradition!

There's no real reason why you couldn't change the alignment prereq, but the original one sets a certain tone.

Honoring a bloody stupid tradition is quite bloody stupid, you know.

I don't need WotC to define the mood of my game. I just need rules to work with. I can do the rest myself.

Since WotC fails to do that simple thing and tries (and also fails) to do what is not its business, it will forevermore be marked as stupid.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 04:07 PM
Handicapping "lawful" minded players for the sake of honoring an outdated tradition is no more or less stupid than "lawful" minded players handicapping themselves for the sake of following outdated traditions. :smalltongue:

The fact of the matter is that 3.5 was designed fluff, rather than crunch, first. Thus, the game ends up being distorted mix of subjective views being labeled in conflicting manners with all angles passed off as fact. So, OP, wave the limitation away. The players set their own story, and the GM should help them get there. There is no mechanical reason for it, so there's no conflict.

Dacia Brabant
2009-03-15, 04:13 PM
I don't need WotC to define the mood of my game. I just need rules to work with. I can do the rest myself.

You should play 4th Edition then, it seems to be designed explicitly for this way of gaming.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 04:17 PM
You should play 4th Edition then, it seems to be designed explicitly for this way of gaming.

Yeah, I also don't like 4th Edition because its rules encourage wargaming, not RP gaming.

That's why I play M&M and True20.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 04:40 PM
4th ed is for when you really just want to kick in that door and shoot things in the face. It's fun, but more like an excessively complicated board game based on D&D. :smalltongue: Classless systems like M&M are really the only way to go for free rp though.

Narmoth
2009-03-15, 04:46 PM
Actually, assassins have to be evil just as long as paladins need to be good. And yes, lifting the alignment restriction on paladin would make him somewhat more appealing than a blackguard

So yes, you can homebrew that an assassin can be good on initiation (there are in BoED prestige classes fro assassins turned to good) if you want, but then you should do the same for the paladin

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 04:47 PM
Actually, assassins have to be evil just as long as paladins need to be good. And yes, lifting the alignment restriction on paladin would make him somewhat more appealing than a blackguard

So yes, you can homebrew that an assassin can be good on initiation (there are in BoED prestige classes fro assassins turned to good) if you want, but then you should do the same for the paladin

I thought WotC already did that one.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 04:50 PM
I thought WotC already did that one.

They did indeed. :smallsmile:

Narmoth
2009-03-15, 04:52 PM
I'm thinking of 3.5, not 4th ed.
I don't think you have alignment restricted assassins in 4th ed.
Then again, I could be wrong

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 04:54 PM
I'm thinking of 3.5, not 4th ed.
I don't think you have alignment restricted assassins in 4th ed.
Then again, I could be wrong

I was thinking of 3.5 too. =)

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 04:54 PM
I'm thinking of 3.5, not 4th ed.
I don't think you have alignment restricted assassins in 4th ed.
Then again, I could be wrong

I was thinking of Paladin of Slaughter and Paladin of Tyranny, not 4th Edition. :smallbiggrin:

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 05:01 PM
I was thinking of Paladin of Slaughter and Paladin of Tyranny, not 4th Edition. :smallbiggrin:

Hehe yeah...I love those. Especially deadly touch instead of lay on hands =D Healing is nice and all...but inflicting is so much more fun :smallbiggrin:

@The poster who didn't Know about them

They're from Unearthed Arcana if you wanted to play one =)

Narmoth
2009-03-15, 05:03 PM
they have different powers, and the powers can be argued to be worse, since you'll have much less use for smite good than smite evil if you don't play a mirrored campaign (where you are a harmonizing group of evil characters burning the countryside and killing of the good paladins and clerics)

edit: because they have different powers, I don't normally think of them as paladins.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 05:04 PM
A Necropoliton Paladin of Slaughter is just such a garsh darn cool concept.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 05:10 PM
they have different powers, and the powers can be argued to be worse, since you'll have much less use for smite good than smite evil if you don't play a mirrored campaign (where you are a harmonizing group of evil characters burning the countryside and killing of the good paladins and clerics)

edit: because they have different powers, I don't normally think of them as paladins.


Your argument makes no sense because you can make the exact same argument against a good-aligned paladin relative to an evil-aligned paladin.

They have different powers.
You'll have less use for smite evil...unless...
You play a mirrored campaign where you're doing good and helping people.
Therefore because they have different powers and different uses...I don't think of them as paladins.

RebelRogue
2009-03-15, 05:11 PM
Yeah, I also don't like 4th Edition because its rules encourage wargaming, not RP gaming.
Sigh... I don't want yet another edition war but that's simply not true.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 05:15 PM
Sigh... I don't want yet another edition war but that's simply not true.

It is. I playtested it and everything. Players RP substantially less than they were in 3.5.

Narmoth
2009-03-15, 05:15 PM
Your argument makes no sense because you can make the exact same argument against a good-aligned paladin relative to an evil-aligned paladin.

They have different powers.
You'll have less use for smite evil...unless...
You have to play a mirrored campaign where you're doing good.
Ergo...I don't think of them as paladins.

But your argument makes perfect sence: you don't think of them as paladins because of <insert reason>, which is okay, because we aren't really discussing paladins, are we?
Which brings us to the original point: it you don't mirror the assassins abilities when you let him be good, then you shouldn't mirror the paladins powers either when lifting the alignment restriction (which is done for the paladin of slaughter and the paladin of tyrany)

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 05:17 PM
Yes, but Assassin abilities are not inherently evil. Paladin abilities are inherently tied to an alignment. Well, to be more precise, to the opposing alignment.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 05:20 PM
But your argument makes perfect sence: you don't think of them as paladins because of <insert reason>, which is okay, because we aren't really discussing paladins, are we?
Which brings us to the original point: it you don't mirror the assassins abilities when you let him be good, then you shouldn't mirror the paladins powers either when lifting the alignment restriction (which is done for the paladin of slaughter and the paladin of tyrany)


No my argument doesn't make sense. Because you can argue the exact same arguments against evil paladins based on a good paladins. :smallsmile:

And no...you got the original point wrong. The original point I was addressing is that you don't think they're paladins. I'm telling you you're wrong. :smallsmile:


And yes I am talking about paladins. I gave my viewpoint about assassins a long time ago. Because poisoning and assassinating people is generally considered evil in real life, WoTC made evil a requirement in the game. WoTC derived a lot of inspiration from real life when they created some of the D&D classes.

Assassins have a bad rap in real life...so they get a bad rap in D&D.

Narmoth
2009-03-15, 05:31 PM
No my argument doesn't make sense. Because you can argue the exact same arguments against evil paladins based on a good paladins.

I didn't object on that


And no...you got the original point wrong. The original point I was addressing is that you don't think they're paladins. I'm telling you you're wrong. :smallsmile:

No, I don't think of them as paladins. You do. That's beside the point I was trying to make.


And yes I am talking about paladins. I gave my viewpoint about assassins a long time ago.

If you want, you are welcome to start a new thread about paladins, but i believe that I was right in using the core paladin for the inductive argument about assassins, and I still see no flaw in it (except for not stating that I meant core paladins, since I didn't think about the variant paladins at time of writing)

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 05:45 PM
No, I don't think of them as paladins. You do. That's beside the point I was trying to make.

But relevant to the point I was addressing :smalltongue: You're wrong. Your argument made no sense. It's contradictory. And it's applicable. Obviously if your logic is wrong for Paladins...it's questionable for assassins. :smalltongue:



Maybe you're not communicating clearly. Tell me if I have this wrong.

1) You claim: Assassins have to be evil as long as paladins have to be good.


When confronted with the fact that paladins do not have to be good...you claim:

2) Because they have different powers, you don't consider them paladins

Then you say that your original point was that:

"Which brings us to the original point: it you don't mirror the assassins abilities when you let him be good, then you shouldn't mirror the paladins powers either when lifting the alignment restriction (which is done for the paladin of slaughter and the paladin of tyrany)"


Now that obviously wasn't your original point as you phrased it (unless I missed a post). And then you refer to paladins as including the variant paladins which you said you didn't consider paladins earlier...

which leaves me somewhat unsure as to what you're trying to say. So if you could kindly summarize your point of view, I'd be grateful =D

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-15, 05:51 PM
Assassins must be evil to enter the Assassins guild, which aside from being full of moustache twirling fiends, requires an act of needless slaughter to join.

Luckily, none of us are playing in Gary Gygax's campaign where the Guild exists, so we can safely ignore that part and just take the frelling prestige class. :P

ericgrau
2009-03-15, 06:00 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm
Requirements
To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.

Alignment
Any evil.

Skills
Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks.

Special
The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

I can understand all the requirements, except for the "any evil" :smallconfused:
You'll probably say that assassins kill people, but even the most lawful good paladin kills people (Now you'll say that a paladin kills evil people, an assassin can kill evil people too)
You might say that assassins fight without honor. But as I see it, honor has nothing to do with the good/evil axis. Fighting with honor is far on the chaotic side, and assassins aren't any less honorable than rogues (both aren't honorable at all, using sneak attacks to finish off their enemies)

So help me, fellow playgrounders, why are assassins evil?
The assassin's guild. That is all folks.

You don't even need grewhawk:


Special
The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

The assassins. It's a group. And specifically they kill people for less than moral reasons.

I like how in origin of PCs a paladin is miffed that he can't kill Durkon directly b/c he's a paladin. Says it's overly restrictive if you ask him.

IMO that's the good reason for all the alignment-restricted classes: roleplaying. But if you're not gonna have that (or that kind of roleplaying), or if you're gonna stereotype the alignments, then just make sure you remove alignments entirely from your game while you're at it. I'm not being cynical; many actually do remove alignments with good results. Just don't expect any story behind those classes anymore.

Renegade Paladin
2009-03-15, 06:03 PM
I can't help if you're living in a lesser country. :smallbiggrin:

Here, murder is premeditated. Otherwise it's manslaughter.
All state codes in the United States (fun fact: murder is not a violation of federal law) also draw the same distinction between first and second degree murder; murder in the second degree is by definition unpremeditated.

As for the actual question, it's been pointed out in the thread already, but the Special requirement is "The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." No, you can't kill a bad guy to do it; that would be a reason other than joining the assassins. The requirement specifies that you must kill someone for no other reason than to join, which means you must kill someone that, absent becoming an assassin, you would not otherwise kill (barring being an insane chaotic evil random serial killer). This is evil. Full stop.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 06:03 PM
The assassin's guild. That is all folks.

The assassins. It's a group. And specifically they kill people for less than moral reasons.

Which may or may not exist in my setting.

I like some classes' alignment requirements. Because they make sense as presented.

Blackguards? Make sense.

Assassins? Don't.

Dervag
2009-03-15, 07:33 PM
I could see a neutral-aligned assassin, but to stay neutral they'd have to be very picky about who they kill. In the circles assassins move in (underground criminal ones, most likely), a reputation for being picky about who you'll take money to kill isn't going to do you a lot of favors.

Are the skills of an assassin necessarily evil? Probably not. But for someone to practice the trade of an assassin, and to do so persistently, they would probably have to move towards evil over time.

Allowing someone to learn the skills of an assassin without showing them having to deal with the "slide into evil" is letting the character off too cheaply. It's possible for them to fight it and stay neutral, maybe even good, I guess... but they should have to struggle and it should clearly cost them when they're dealing with the sort of people who hire assassins.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 07:45 PM
Ugh, another problem with class based gaming. Classes stuff players into little holes and classify them. The way I see it, all fluff pre-reqs are suggestions as are the names of the classes. All we're looking at are the numbers and abilities on the chart. My character is who I say he is. If I want to be a mutliclassed gish monstrosity with a divine spin, I can still call myself a paladin. I'm not going to do what I am, I am what I do. By my actions you will know me, not my class list. :smallannoyed:

Dervag: I've taken martial arts for several years, and have been trained by family who've served in various armed forces. I have not killed a random passerby, nor am I anything close to something people would call "evil". Yet, I know how to strike so as to run the risk of stopping (at least for a moment) a person's heart (it's really not that hard), which is more than enough to run the risk of triggering a fatal heart attack. If that's too slow, did you know that it takes far less than the force of a solid punch to collapse the human throat? A chop, knife hand, or sudden mafia choke can kill a person quite dead in a VERY short period of time (we complex organisms are horrifyingly fragile). Those are "death" attacks and hitting someone when/where they are vulnerable (sneak attack) is a part of any worthwhile martial style. Is there something I'm missing?

Lycar
2009-03-15, 08:03 PM
People, seriously... you know what your problem is?

You want all those nifty killing powers of the Assassin class but can't bear to have that evil evil 'Alignement: XX Evil' on your character sheet.

Suck it up.

As far as D&D cosmology goes (as arbitrary and counterintuitive it may be), there is objective good and objective evil.

A paladin seeking out evil and confronting in openly in honourable combat, ideally after giving them a chance to surrender/redeem themselves first is the pinnacle of Lawful Goodnes.

An assassin who seeks out targets to dispose of them, without ever giving them a chance to fight back or redeem themselves is evil. Because he is taking the easy, convenient and practical way to solve a problem.

And to those of you who argue that Lord Havelock Vetinari is not evil, because of all the good he does: Mimes.

Seriously, that man is the poster child for 'The Good Sides of Lawful Evil'.

He runs an entire town in a way that allows people to lives their lives without undue complications. But his means to achieve this end are merely dictated by practicability and effectivenes, not morality. It is not to say that the Lord is an amoral person. He is very aware of morality. He merely chose to not let this cloud his judgement.

In D&D terms, however, this still makes him evil, no matter how much good he does.

To summarize: You can save the world and still be evil. You can be evil and still do good.

Or to really open up a can of worms: What about a sniper?

Oh this is good, isn't it? Certainly, a trained police sniper, who kills a hostage taker to save the life of a hostage has to be a good aligned hero?

As far as the D&D comology is concerned, not neccessarily so.

Outwardly, the guy waits for the order to take out a potential killer to save the life of an innocent person.

Internally, however, his motives can be very different:

A) ('Oh powers that, make that the negotiatior can talk the guy down, please. But so help me, if he fails, I will do what must be done.')

B) ('Right, this could go either way. Man, I sure hope this ends well. Let's hope the ****** down there rubs his two brain cells the right way and surrenders. Otherwise, well, that's what I'm here for.')

C) ('Come on, come on, let's waste that lowlife scum down there already. What do you want, talk him out of it? So the ****** just ends up in jail, mooching off my tax money? Yeah right.. come on, just give the signal and his brains are so splattered...')

Simplified and exaggerated? Damn straight. But that is the way it works.

Someone who seeks out the killing powers of the assassin wants to be able to apply the 'easy' solution to problems more effectivly: Simply kill off an NPC that is an obstacle instead of finding another way to deal with him.

This is, in the D&D cosmology, considered to be the 'evil' choice.

Because you put your own interests (be they gold or saving the world!) before the life of that individual.

Even good people will find it neccessary to kill at times. But they will seek to avoid killing if possible, accept surrenders and all that. Otherwise, they are not good. Neutral maybe, but not good.

All according to the D&D cosmology.

If you don't like that, screw the alignement system and play what you will.

But do not delude yourself into thinking that your character is somehow 'not evil', just because he is a PC.

Lycar

Yukitsu
2009-03-15, 08:07 PM
By that tenuous logic, any rogue, ranger, fighter, wizard, etc. that hits people from range while invisible, hidden or during a surprise round. Heck, an elven paladin using ranged smite is evil by your definition of it. Cowardly, pragmatic fighting isn't evil in the D&D cosmology.

You seem to assume that good has to take a large risk at losing innocent people to redeemable people, when to be honest, I'd say anyone that risks the innocent for the wicked is reckless and overconfident to the point of hubris.

bue52
2009-03-15, 08:12 PM
I'm not too sure if this was said before, but technically, an assassin (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Assassin)is a murderer who kills a person of political power, for fanatical or monetary reasons, hence why you can't just kill an evil dictator because if you were good, its the altruistic motive that is the main goal, the money is just an added bonus.

BlueWizard
2009-03-15, 08:21 PM
I thought an assassin could be neutral, this is allowed where I've always gamed.

RTGoodman
2009-03-15, 08:29 PM
I thought an assassin could be neutral, this is allowed where I've always gamed.

Nope. The Assassin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm) has the requirement of "any evil."

Lycar
2009-03-15, 08:57 PM
By that tenuous logic, any rogue, ranger, fighter, wizard, etc. that hits people from range while invisible, hidden or during a surprise round. Heck, an elven paladin using ranged smite is evil by your definition of it. Cowardly, pragmatic fighting isn't evil in the D&D cosmology.

You seem to assume that good has to take a large risk at losing innocent people to redeemable people, when to be honest, I'd say anyone that risks the innocent for the wicked is reckless and overconfident to the point of hubris.

Thats not tenuous logic, its the RAW. Deal.

By the RAW (and we all know, this only thing we ever possibly can discuss as a baseline after all), putting your own well-being over the well-being of others, at their detriment, is evil. Period.

If you have a problem, and killing is an easy solution, while not-killing is not, then taking the easy way is evil. Period.

If you absolutely have to fight something, then attacking from ambush is convenient, because ideally, it should allow you to neutralize your target without it ever having a chance to fight back.

That also means that, ideally, you deny your quarry any chance to surrender.

This may not be explicitly evil per se, but it is NOT good either.

That is why a paladin fights openly. He would rather not attack from ambush, so that his foe still has a chance to yield or surrender, and thus avoid bloodshed.

It puts the paladin in harms way. It may not be the smart thing to do.
But it is the right thing to do according to D&D cosmology and paladins are all about doing the right thing.

Your own views may disagree with this. But that is because your own philosophy is different from the one presented in the RAW.

Houserule away all you want. But don't delude yourself into thinking that your rogue is any less evil for murdering something that 'deserved' it or someone who 'had it coming'.

Heroes face their foes openly, because that is what heroes do. Only scoundrels and cowards attack from ambush.

Impractical? Yes. But being 'practical' means using the end to justify the means. And that, by RAW, is evil.

Again: Your murdering assassin can save the world with his actions. But if he goes about it in the assassin way, his actions are evil, no matter how much 'good' he does with them.

The D&D alignment system is meant to encourage heroic behavior. Sometimes heroes have to do stupid things, because they are the right thing to do. Because being a hero means doing what must be done, without sacrificing your principles. If you sacrifice your principles, you are a lot of things, a hero you are not. And if you don't have any principles, you never were a hero to begin with. Note that this technically also applies to evil people but the default player character is good or at least neutral.

Because the game assumes people play heroes, not villains.

The game also assumes that people are mature enough to tell the two apart.

Of course, the game also assumes that fighters and wizards and druids can co-exist peacefully in the same party. We all know that this only works if the players agree to the same assumptions as the game designers did.

It is the same thing with the alignement system. Play your assassin all you want. He can be a great character. A hero of good alignement he can't.

Not by RAW.

Lycar

The Glyphstone
2009-03-15, 09:00 PM
the UA Paladins of Tyranny/Slaughter have one significant thing going for them, in that they retain the Divine Grace class feature (untyped Cha to saves), but can freely PrC into Blackguard and get Dark Blessing (untyped Cha to saves) without losing their Paladin abilities. Add Hexblade levels for untyped Cha to saves vs. Spells, and you have some ridiculous save modifiers on a character who's actually very easy to justify RP-wise, since all three classes synergize in both fluff and ability.

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-15, 09:02 PM
My Brain hurts. >_>
[edit - The Following is in reply to Lycar]

So, I don't see where any of that is actually related to the Assassin PRC or even 'Assassins' in general.
So a Rogue who hides in shadows to enable his sneak attack class feature is evil, but an Assassin who gives his opponant a chance to surrender or repent up front, and faces them face to face, (Using flanking and bluff to enable his sneak attack, not bothering trying to use his Death Attack) would in contrast be, at least potentially, Good?

Jothki
2009-03-15, 09:08 PM
the UA Paladins of Tyranny/Slaughter have one significant thing going for them, in that they retain the Divine Grace class feature (untyped Cha to saves), but can freely PrC into Blackguard and get Dark Blessing (untyped Cha to saves) without losing their Paladin abilities. Add Hexblade levels for untyped Cha to saves vs. Spells, and you have some ridiculous save modifiers on a character who's actually very easy to justify RP-wise, since all three classes synergize in both fluff and ability.

Couldn't you achieve the same thing by starting out as a Hexblade, PrCing into Blackguard, and then switching to Paladin? It'd be harder to justify RPwise, unless your character has a change of heart when they start taking Paladin levels.

ericgrau
2009-03-15, 09:11 PM
Ugh, another problem with class based gaming. Classes stuff players into little holes and classify them. The way I see it, all fluff pre-reqs are suggestions as are the names of the classes. All we're looking at are the numbers and abilities on the chart. My character is who I say he is. If I want to be a mutliclassed gish monstrosity with a divine spin, I can still call myself a paladin. I'm not going to do what I am, I am what I do. By my actions you will know me, not my class list. :smallannoyed:

I'd actually agree to some extent. But for the same reason I don't like prestige classes at all, assassins included. I mean, if you think about it just about any prestige class has some fluff to it, otherwise it'd be hard to distinguish it from a base class. Prestige classes in general are supposed to be something special to get into, not something you just pick up a level of (though this tends to happen). Paladins are iffy, but I think they still work. It worked for Miko the monk / paladin "samurai" anyway. Without taking the "samurai" prestige or base class, mind you. A cleric / fighter OTOH gets clunky on the crunch side, as would a monk / cleric / fighter. But then maybe we need a fighter / wizard class for the poor elves, and so forth. Or there's the prestige classes for such, etc. It's a messy business in a system that's not to friendly to multi-classed casters.

Yukitsu
2009-03-15, 09:56 PM
Thats not tenuous logic, its the RAW. Deal.

By the RAW (and we all know, this only thing we ever possibly can discuss as a baseline after all), putting your own well-being over the well-being of others, at their detriment, is evil. Period.

And by that definition, all rogues, wizards, etc. that invest in any form of stealth, be it in the form of skills or magic, or magic items are evil, as sneaking in and taking that cheap shot is taking the easy way out, exactly as per what the assassin is doing. Note as well that sneaking in, using a finger of death while invisible isn't going to make a good or neutral wizard evil, as none of the parts are evil. Nor is a save or die, which allows no quarter considered evil at all.


If you have a problem, and killing is an easy solution, while not-killing is not, then taking the easy way is evil. Period.

And by this logic, all PC classes are evil. Note as well that once an individual is an assassin, they don't actually need to kill anyone. Paralysis is an alternative that is less lethal while maintaining full effect, to contrast to most class abilities, such as a wizard's phantasmal killer, which isn't evil.


If you absolutely have to fight something, then attacking from ambush is convenient, because ideally, it should allow you to neutralize your target without it ever having a chance to fight back.

That also means that, ideally, you deny your quarry any chance to surrender.

This may not be explicitly evil per se, but it is NOT good either.

It's not explicitly not good either. Otherwise there would be no good rogues. Complete scoundrel reinforces the point that tricky and clever individuals can indeed be of any alignment, lawful good included. And to reiterate, an assassin need not kill, as paralysis is a viable effect.


That is why a paladin fights openly. He would rather not attack from ambush, so that his foe still has a chance to yield or surrender, and thus avoid bloodshed.

It puts the paladin in harms way. It may not be the smart thing to do.
But it is the right thing to do according to D&D cosmology and paladins are all about doing the right thing.

A paladin doesn't need to fight openly. That's knights. In any event, most lawful good individuals don't need to adhere to the level of standards as a paladin, and paladins certainly don't need to adhere to the same level as exalted, which is exactly what you are describing. Offer of quarter to malicious or malign individuals is not a requirement of good. Acceptance of a plea for quarter may be, but certainly the offer of it in and of itself is not stated rules as written as necessary, save for exalted status.


Your own views may disagree with this. But that is because your own philosophy is different from the one presented in the RAW.

Houserule away all you want. But don't delude yourself into thinking that your rogue is any less evil for murdering something that 'deserved' it or someone who 'had it coming'.

Don't make statements about other people's view's accuracy while lauding your own as sacrosanct when you rely on implied standards that are never mentioned, such as the offering of quarter or the necessity of an honourable fight. Especially since I know that the offer of quarter isn't in the PHB as a necessary component to being good.


Heroes face their foes openly, because that is what heroes do. Only scoundrels and cowards attack from ambush.

Impractical? Yes. But being 'practical' means using the end to justify the means. And that, by RAW, is evil.

To reiterate, open and honourable combat is not stated as necessary for a good alignment. Also, I have to wonder at who is more evil? The man who does evil to see good done, or the man whose hubris strengthens evil, and allows the innocent to die.


Again: Your murdering assassin can save the world with his actions. But if he goes about it in the assassin way, his actions are evil, no matter how much 'good' he does with them.

Quote the passage indicating as such in the DMG. I'll note that the book of exalted deeds has an exalted prestige class that is necessarily an assassin. Which of course means RAW that your argument is bunk. Given a sufficient evil, assassination is not just good, it is exalted.


The D&D alignment system is meant to encourage heroic behavior. Sometimes heroes have to do stupid things, because they are the right thing to do. Because being a hero means doing what must be done, without sacrificing your principles. If you sacrifice your principles, you are a lot of things, a hero you are not. And if you don't have any principles, you never were a hero to begin with. Note that this technically also applies to evil people but the default player character is good or at least neutral.

And many adventurers have the principles of helping people, not blindly adhering to doing things in the least effective way. It's starting to sound as though you are a proponent of lawful stupid play, where you charge blindly no matter the consequinces to the people who will suffer for your failure.


Because the game assumes people play heroes, not villains.

The game also assumes that people are mature enough to tell the two apart.

I actually find black and white morality to no more mature than shades of grey morality, and I personally find shades of grey morality to be infinitely more cerebral than black and white morality.


Of course, the game also assumes that fighters and wizards and druids can co-exist peacefully in the same party. We all know that this only works if the players agree to the same assumptions as the game designers did.

It is the same thing with the alignement system. Play your assassin all you want. He can be a great character. A hero of good alignement he can't.

Not by RAW.

Lycar

You need to read the book of exalted deeds more then, as the good aligned assassin presented within is both rules as written and considered more good than your supposed lawful stupid paladin.

lsfreak
2009-03-15, 11:38 PM
If sneaking around is evil, Lycar, how do you explain the Shadowbane organization from Complete Adventurer? Entrance requirements for both classes require you to be both lawful good and have sneak attack, and the class features include both sneak attack and sacred bonuses to Hide and Move Silently.

Dervag
2009-03-15, 11:41 PM
Dervag: I've taken martial arts for several years, and have been trained by family who've served in various armed forces. I have not killed a random passerby, nor am I anything close to something people would call "evil". [goes on to describe expertise in beating-up-people-ology]
I don't think you understood me. First of all, the skills of an Assassin include more than just the aforesaid "good at causing fatal injury" abilities. Lots of D&D classes are good at causing fatal injuries in a variety of ways.

But the ability set of the Assassin class is geared towards, well, assassination. Towards sneaking up on people, surprising them, and killing them "with extreme prejudice." Poisons, infiltration, and such. His spell list and his skills make him good at that stuff.

In and of itself, that doesn't have to be evil, which is why I said "Are the skills of an assassin necessarily evil? Probably not." I should have made that clearer, because the answer to the question is no.

But there's a catch. One does not learn to be an assassin in a vacuum. Assuming you intend to be an assassin, sooner or later you have to come to terms with the nature of your career path. You're going to be dealing with a lot of dangerous rogues, in the literal sense. People will want to pay you money to kill people. If you get a reputation for pickiness ("I'll accept a contract on that guy, because he's evil, but not that guy, because he doesn't deserve to die"), the kind of people you work around aren't going to appreciate it. The last thing they want is an assassin who might decide at the last moment that he knows better than his employer whether the target should die.

And so you wind up having to make hard choices on subjects that affect your alignment.
_____

As I understand it, while you may have learned some martial arts stuff that could, theoretically, be used as an assassination weapon, you haven't been pursuing the job of "assassin." Therefore, you are not confronted with the aforesaid ethical choices.

If you were doing wetwork for a Mafia family, on the other hand, you would. And in that case, it would be very difficult to avoid having what would be, in D&D terms, an evil alignment.
_____

For a D&D assassin, the problem with holding on to a Good alignment isn't "Ohmigod having a sneak attack is evil!" It's a question of being able to reconcile your internal morals with your professional ethics.

Mikeavelli
2009-03-15, 11:47 PM
Quote the passage indicating as such in the DMG. I'll note that the book of exalted deeds has an exalted prestige class that is necessarily an assassin. Which of course means RAW that your argument is bunk. Given a sufficient evil, assassination is not just good, it is exalted.


Dude, this was on the first page of the thread:

In the DMG, under requirements to be an Assassin:




Special

The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.


This is an Evil act.

It doesn't matter if the person in question is a bad person, it doesn't matter if they deserve to die, if they spend their every waking moment torturing babies to death and eating them in front of their mothers; you're killing that person to get into the Assassin's guild.

That's why the Assassin Prestige class has the "must be evil" requirement.

It's not the abilities, it's not the lifestyle, it's not that they kill people for money, it's that they killed someone for no other reason than to get into the Assassin's guild.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-15, 11:58 PM
I think I see the problem we're having. I see the "classes" simply as collections of abilities given a stand in name so that players know what each other are talking about. You're seeing these as actual professions/jobs. That clears things up so far as why we're not going to see eye to eye on this. :smalltongue:

Yukitsu
2009-03-16, 12:15 AM
Dude, this was on the first page of the thread:

In the DMG, under requirements to be an Assassin:

Nothing to do with the honourable combat mentioned above. More relevantly, a single evil act often doesn't make a character of that alignment, meaning that such an individual need not be evil having accomplished that goal, some other considerations taken into account. So long as those actions are not perpetuated, or perhaps have reparations (resurrecting the deceased) I don't see how the assassin "must" be evil to enter the class, or to gain the skills.

Lycar
2009-03-16, 12:26 AM
And by that definition, all rogues, wizards, etc. that invest in any form of stealth, be it in the form of skills or magic, or magic items are evil, as sneaking in and taking that cheap shot is taking the easy way out, exactly as per what the assassin is doing. Note as well that sneaking in, using a finger of death while invisible isn't going to make a good or neutral wizard evil, as none of the parts are evil. Nor is a save or die, which allows no quarter considered evil at all.

Your original point was that a good character ough to be allowed to use stealth and ambush to save innocents.

I agree.

This does not change the fact that, by RAW, at the moment you decide to kill the hostage taker, you also decided that his life is not worth risking the death of the hostage, that his life is worth less.

This is not evil per se. If the hostage taker is prone to kill the hostage (for example, he has done so before or it is an evil creature), this is even the right decision. But if there is a reasonable chance to talk him/them out of it (maybe some bandits took hostages to ensure their getaway), then a good character ought to at least consider the option. Dismissing it right out of hand because it would 'spoil the element of surprise' is evil.

As far as your quoted passage goes:

The rogue or wizard are evil if they use stealth or magic to murder.

An assassin who uses stealth to avoid guards is neither good nor evil, he is merely acting out of self-interest.

A rogue who wants to, say, steal an artifact from an evil person and uses stealth to avoid guards is likewise not inherently good for doing so.

An evil/neutral character will do it to avoid getting hurt. A good character will do it to avoid hurting others.


And by this logic, all PC classes are evil.

Wrong. Important is what you do, not what you are.


Note as well that once an individual is an assassin, they don't actually need to kill anyone. Paralysis is an alternative that is less lethal while maintaining full effect, to contrast to most class abilities, such as a wizard's phantasmal killer, which isn't evil.

Irrelevant. You had to be evil to become an assassin. If your character afterwards has a change of heart (and alignement), he can be non-evil and still use his learned skills.

But as the RAW stands, you HAVE to commit an act of evil to be considerd for assassin training. Hence you have to be evil to become an assassin.

A good character simply can't kill an innocent in cold blood. A neutral character would have to have some very compelling reasons to do this. But the default setting is that only evil people have no qualms to do what is neccessary to becomeassassins.


A paladin doesn't need to fight openly. That's knights. In any event, most lawful good individuals don't need to adhere to the level of standards as a paladin, and paladins certainly don't need to adhere to the same level as exalted, which is exactly what you are describing. Offer of quarter to malicious or malign individuals is not a requirement of good. Acceptance of a plea for quarter may be, but certainly the offer of it in and of itself is not stated rules as written as necessary, save for exalted status.

The paladin code implies this, even if it is not spelled out.

To quote the PHB: "...Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poision, and so forth), ..."

Since ambushes are considered dishonourable, they are indeed covered by the paladin's requirement to act honourable.

And even while papaldins are held to higher standards then 'normal good' characters, let us take a look at what the RAW has to say about the good alignement, quoting page 104:

" 'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Not ambushing a foe is making a personal sacrifice (of the advantages an ambush would confer) to allow the foe to surrender. And you allow him the chance to surrender because you want to stop his evil, not neccessarily
kill him.

That is not to say that good characters can't ambush people when it is clear that they won't surrender.

But again: Dismissing the notion right out of hand because you don't want to lose the benefits of the ambush is a selfish action and thus neutral at best, as per RAW.

What does the RAW have to say about evil again? Oh yes:

" 'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. ..."


Don't make statements about other people's view's accuracy while lauding your own as sacrosanct when you rely on implied standards that are never mentioned, such as the offering of quarter or the necessity of an honourable fight. Especially since I know that the offer of quarter isn't in the PHB as a necessary component to being good.

I refer to the RAW. Your opinions about morality differ from those presented in this fantasy roleplaying game. As do mine.

But if you try to bring real-world morals into a game, you enter treacherous terrain. Don't.

And I already quoted the passage where the RAW very well DOES mention offering quarter and fighting honourable. They don't spell it out but being compassionate implies giving foes a chance to surrender.

The again, the RAW also don't spell out "don't abuse Candles of Invocation". :smallsigh:


To reiterate, open and honourable combat is not stated as necessary for a good alignment. Also, I have to wonder at who is more evil? The man who does evil to see good done, or the man whose hubris strengthens evil, and allows the innocent to die.

It is not spelled out but it is implied.

And for the evil: I don't care. That is for the philosophers to decide. As long as you don't delude yourself into thinking that any of them is not evil by RAW, just because your own moral codex says so.


Quote the passage indicating as such in the DMG. I'll note that the book of exalted deeds has an exalted prestige class that is necessarily an assassin. Which of course means RAW that your argument is bunk. Given a sufficient evil, assassination is not just good, it is exalted.

I do not have the Book of Exalted Deeds, therefore I can not comment on the content thereof. Personally I find the idea of a 'good assassin' an oxymoron and, frankly, appaling. But this is neither here nor there.

What I did say was: *Your murdering assassin can save the world with his actions. But if he goes about it in the assassin way, his actions are evil, no matter how much 'good' he does with them.*

Murder is evil, as defined by RAW, no matter how much good your murder does. Therefore an assassin is, by definition, evil. Thats the RAW for you.

I don't say that this makes much sense, especially not in our world, but I am merely discussing the RAW here. And by RAW assassins are evil because they murder, and murder is evil.

Why don't paladins just charge the keep of the evil baron and chop off his head? Even though hes lv 20 and totally can do that? Because it is chaotic and evil, thats why. Chaotic because he could as well ask the king to do something about him first. And evil because, if he's tough enough to waltz in and chop his head off, he is also tough enough to ask him to mend his ways to resign his position first.


And many adventurers have the principles of helping people, not blindly adhering to doing things in the least effective way. It's starting to sound as though you are a proponent of lawful stupid play, where you charge blindly no matter the consequinces to the people who will suffer for your failure.

Stop putting words in my mouth. :smallannoyed:

I am not proponing playing lawful stupid characters. I am pointing out how the RAW views certain things.

If you ambush a bunch of goblins (evil creatures) to save the hostages, that is certainly the only reasonable way to ensure the hostages' safety.

By RAW, ambushing people is dishonourable at best, possibly evil.

That is what I am saying.


I actually find black and white morality to no more mature than shades of grey morality, and I personally find shades of grey morality to be infinitely more cerebral than black and white morality.

You too? That makes at least two of us.

But the RAW alignement system doesn't work that way. It is a friggin game! It is not meant to be an introduction into morality, ethics or philosophy. Heroes do heroic things and don't do unheroic things. That is what the game is about.

Assassins are villains. Therefore, assassins are neccessarily evil.

Lycar

Mikeavelli
2009-03-16, 12:27 AM
Again, the skills are not evil. It's been amply demonstrated that there are nonevil ways of acquiring everything in the Assassin skillset. There is, as you pointed out, even an Exalted prestige class with the Assassin skillset! The debate isn't about the profession of being an Assassin (which you can do as a Wizard, or a Fighter, etc.) - nor is it about the skillset, it's about the Assassin prestige class from the DMG.

Honorable combat is a law vs. chaos debate, there's nothing inherently "good" or "evil" about ambush tactics. Also, D&D is inconsistent as all hell on that point. This thread has already touched on most of the reasons there.

If you seriously think you could kill someone for the sole purpose of getting into the Assassin's guild and still be good, there's really no point in continuing this conversation. That's not a good act. That's not something a good, or even neutral person would do.

I mean. Really. Are you seriously making that argument? Are you insane?

Lycar
2009-03-16, 12:57 AM
If sneaking around is evil, Lycar, how do you explain the Shadowbane organization from Complete Adventurer? Entrance requirements for both classes require you to be both lawful good and have sneak attack, and the class features include both sneak attack and sacred bonuses to Hide and Move Silently.

It is not the sneaking that is evil, it is the murdering part that is evil.

As for the class:

The fact that it appears in the Complete Adventuer sourcebook. :smalltongue:

Seriously: This book appeared years after the original 3.x rulebooks.

Years that have been filled with endless discussions and debates about the alignement system.

Years of arguing 'why can't good people be sneaky' or 'why can it not be good to kill off an evil being, even with underhanded means, if the result is saving the world from so much more evil?'.

As far as the class description goes however...

Quote: "... The oder advocates merciless aggression against evil, and its members train to detect and destroy evil creatures and individuals. Filled with fervor, an inquisitor knows only one solution to an infestation f evil: the sword. ..."

These guys are so not Lawful Good. :smallannoyed:

This is a direct violation of what 'good' is supposed to be according to the PHB. These guys are Neutral at best.

See this: "... Their relentless zeal and their overwhelming belief in their own righteousness allow shadowbane inquisitors to root out evil cleanly, even if it costs the lives of a few good creatures, without the moral doubt that other knights might feel. .."

And that, ladies and gentlebeings, is almost the definition of Lawful Evil. :smallannoyed:

Just more fuel for the alignement wars. :smallsigh:

Lycar

VirOath
2009-03-16, 12:59 AM
First off, the act of using Poisons is an evil act, and a class feature. Sorry, but being an Assassin is being trained in this, as it removes the chance of inflicting yourself with it. Assassins commonly use poisons. Now why is poisoning evil? It's an act with the intent to kill no matter any surrender or cries for mercy and to kill in a more painful than required way, or to weaken and cause pain to a subject without killing him (Aka, torture).

The Book of Exalted Deeds adds their own variance on it with their 'good' poisons. But unlike others, these don't affect good people, they only turn the evil acts that person has committed against their health by the corruption left on their soul.

Now, Assassins kill for money. And it's not for anything else. The requirement is "You must make a contract and kill someone for no other reason than the money." That means you CAN'T justify it with the person being bad, or with not liking him, or with the power he held. You did it because someone held a bag of money infront of your head large enough to sway you and said "Kill". That is an evil act.

Now add that it's less about doing it with honor, and more to do with killing him in the easiest way possible. That likely involves poisons. And you'll have poisons on your weapons because it is extra damage and cripples those that fight you should the fight go south. And you will likely resort to torture to get information out of someone on your mark.

Evil evil evil evil evil.

Wait a minute, aren't Mercs paid for the same thing? Well, some mercs are, and those mercs are often Lawful Evil. Lawful because they won't and can't go back on a deal otherwise they lose their clients and evil because they will take any job for the money.

But very few jobs are just kill these people. Most jobs are open ended for Mercs, if they wanted people dead they would hire assassins. It's often "Recover this" or "Protect this town" or "Deal with this threat" etc.

Much to an extent, Mercs and adventurers are close to the same. Quests are jobs and often worded the same way. They cover the same range of alignments too. They often cover the same bases in terms of magic and skill support, use similar tactics and play much the same. Only with Mercs someone is clearly in charge and their word is the end of it, otherwise you don't get paid.

Assassins are rogues that like to avoid all the messy stuff of morals and ethics and just get the job done however they can. But they deal in death, train to fill that role, use every dirty trick in the book to put themselves at the least risk (Kidnapping, torture and ransom to get the mark in the place if their choosing, poisoning from afar, using poisoned weapons, favoring soulstealers for the instant kill effect, all evil.). Assassins self centered to the point that the world can be damned, no one matters but who they choose.

If you take away the evil parts of the Assassin PrC, you are left with a bit of a sad rogue with HiPS and Deathstrike (Most combats end before you can use it against your target, or your target dies anyways in larger fights.). There are better ways of getting HiPS.



Edit:

One more thing, Alignment and Ambushes. A Good Character (Even Lawful Good, [And for these quotes, additional quotes for Paladins]) can set an ambush.

A good character can gather information on where a known evil criminal will travel, gather up a band loyal to the cause and set up an ambush. None of this effects alignment yet [Or codes].

The trick is when the trap is sprung. A good character can get away with springing a trap on the enemy without warning, provided there is no hostages and with a condition. Instead of the targets getting the ambush, you take out their combat advantage. You use nets, take out horses, bust wagon wheels and hitches, use disable spells like web.

(Lawful characters should normally declare before springing the trap. They don't have to spell out, but they should just say "It's over, surrender and it will go over easy." and they don't have to reveal anyone else, you give up the surprise round, but everyone on the ambush should be treated as though having a nat 20 on init. To explain, banter and speeches should be passed back and forth, totaling twelve seconds, that's enough combat rounds to 'evalulate the situation' <sp?> which gives you a nat 20 + bonus for init. So the Ambush will get first shot on the first round)

[Paladins MUST offer surrender, and combat on honorable terms, normally one on one. If they refuse, then you can feel free to spring the trap. But, A Paladin DOESN'T have to inform the target of the ambush. There are a few cases that this isn't needed, but they normally must stick to honorable codes of conduct.]

Now, if hostages are involved, then the safety of the hostages comes first. Normally those taking 'care' of the hostages should be dealt with first to save them, but more so the surprise is normally given up. You show your hand, show that they are outclassed, and if they leave the hostages they can leave untouched.

[Paladins need to do anything to make sure that the hostages are safe. Now this doesn't extend to giving over all power of the situation to the hostages, because a Paladin's word is his law, if he Vows to let a villain walk for a reason, he can not go against his word that. And this should be used for a bluff/diplomacy check, who do you trust, the Holy Warrior or the bandit kind?]


[YES! Paladins are more than just mindless killing machines! A Paladin doesn't have to be Lawful Stupid. They can think, and actually talk!]

Following these guidelines should protect your characters morals while letting them get the upper hand on the "baddies"

olentu
2009-03-16, 01:06 AM
First off, the act of using Poisons is an evil act, and a class feature. Sorry, but being an Assassin is being trained in this, as it removes the chance of inflicting yourself with it. Assassins commonly use poisons. Now why is poisoning evil? It's an act with the intent to kill no matter any surrender or cries for mercy and to kill in a more painful than required way, or to weaken and cause pain to a subject without killing him (Aka, torture).

It is only poisons that deal ability damage that are evil if I am remembering correctly.

Hawriel
2009-03-16, 01:15 AM
Theodoriph: I recall watching a documentary on tribal sorts that used tarantula poison on their blow darts when hunting. Is that evil? Hell, are tarantulas? As for death attacks, how are they any different from massive damage or save or die spells? The approach is different, but the results are the same. A cleaver and a scalpel can both end a life, but just because a scalpel requires more precision doesn't make it the evil implement of the two. :smalltongue:

Paramour Pink: I hear this kind of argument from anti-gun people a lot. Just because something CAN be used for evil, doesn't mean that it inherently is. It's the someone that's the problem. If most people opting for those skills will happily kill innocents (and let's face the fact that many a person will due to humanity sucking a lot on a lowest-common-denominator-ish level) it is NOT a requirement to do so. It's a matter of personal choice. So once again, the requirement is the offspring of the simplistic mentality that set the alignment system up in the first place.

The following coments are not at Hadrian specificly. I just think her/his comments some up the 'good' assassin opinions.

Thank you for defining the use of Zyklon B as non evil.


It is only poisons that deal ability damage that are evil if I am remembering correctly.It is only poisons that deal ability damage that are evil if I am remembering correctly.

You right. Drugs/poisons that only effect the mind are non evil. Like some date rape drugs.

Talic
2009-03-16, 01:20 AM
Thats not tenuous logic, its the RAW. Deal.

By the RAW (and we all know, this only thing we ever possibly can discuss as a baseline after all), putting your own well-being over the well-being of others, at their detriment, is evil. Period.

If you have a problem, and killing is an easy solution, while not-killing is not, then taking the easy way is evil. Period.

If you absolutely have to fight something, then attacking from ambush is convenient, because ideally, it should allow you to neutralize your target without it ever having a chance to fight back.

That also means that, ideally, you deny your quarry any chance to surrender.

This may not be explicitly evil per se, but it is NOT good either.

That is why a paladin fights openly. He would rather not attack from ambush, so that his foe still has a chance to yield or surrender, and thus avoid bloodshed.

It puts the paladin in harms way. It may not be the smart thing to do.
But it is the right thing to do according to D&D cosmology and paladins are all about doing the right thing.

Your own views may disagree with this. But that is because your own philosophy is different from the one presented in the RAW.

Houserule away all you want. But don't delude yourself into thinking that your rogue is any less evil for murdering something that 'deserved' it or someone who 'had it coming'.

Heroes face their foes openly, because that is what heroes do. Only scoundrels and cowards attack from ambush.

Impractical? Yes. But being 'practical' means using the end to justify the means. And that, by RAW, is evil.

Again: Your murdering assassin can save the world with his actions. But if he goes about it in the assassin way, his actions are evil, no matter how much 'good' he does with them.

The D&D alignment system is meant to encourage heroic behavior. Sometimes heroes have to do stupid things, because they are the right thing to do. Because being a hero means doing what must be done, without sacrificing your principles. If you sacrifice your principles, you are a lot of things, a hero you are not. And if you don't have any principles, you never were a hero to begin with. Note that this technically also applies to evil people but the default player character is good or at least neutral.

Because the game assumes people play heroes, not villains.

The game also assumes that people are mature enough to tell the two apart.

Of course, the game also assumes that fighters and wizards and druids can co-exist peacefully in the same party. We all know that this only works if the players agree to the same assumptions as the game designers did.

It is the same thing with the alignement system. Play your assassin all you want. He can be a great character. A hero of good alignement he can't.

Not by RAW.

Lycar

Wrong. A paladin is not prohibited from denying his opponent the opportunity to surrender.

Take this, for example:
Rothgar the Vile strode into his antechamber, furious. The townspeople were revolting, again. It seemed that the last display of force wasn't sufficient. "Very well", he thought, "I'll just have to do better."

"ANTIUS!" The bellow rang clearly several rooms away, and moments later, an armored figure entered the antechamber, dressed in the familiar red and gold of Rothgar's trusted advisors.

"Antius, old friend. The rabble is at the gates again. It seems that our last demonstration didn't work as well as expected. I'd like you to go to the fields, and raze every third farmstead. If no man can return home without seeing either his livelihood or the livelihood of a neighbor destroyed, perhaps they will re-evaluate the consequences of throwing rocks at my home." Rothgar turned, pacing to the window, looking at the peasants gathered below. "Vermin really," he mused. "They're lucky that I even bother to shield them from the goblin uprisings in the area. Maybe I'll scale my guard back. After all, if these ingrates are busy defending their farms from the green-skins, they'll not have time to shout about the taxes. That sounds like a..."

Rothgar halted, gurgling a bit in shock, as the blade entered his back, before quickly withdrawing. "I am not Antius," the figure remarked. "No, he was brought to justice earlier this day, just as I will do to you."

Rothgar roared in anger, hand moving to his blade, but a misstep took him to a knee. The figure in Antius's garb continued, "You need not struggle. My blade was laced with a poison. Quite rare, actually, you should be honored. It seems the denizens of the underdark have perfected the art of brewing a toxin that forces sleep upon its victims. No, Rothgar. You will be held accountable for your actions, and when you die, it will be by the judgement of the very people you oppress."
Deception, disguise, ambush, and poison use are all used above... By the good guy. And yet his actions are good. (poison is only evil if it causes ability damage to a physical stat).

The PHB outlines that destroying evil for the sake of destroying evil is a good act. Even if you look to your own safety while you do so. By your logic, it's unethical for a paladin to wear armor. After all, being harder to hit means he is more likely to live and defeat his foes, which qualifies as looking to his safety to the detriment of others (those he engages in battle with).

Oslecamo
2009-03-16, 02:07 AM
Wrong. A paladin is not prohibited from denying his opponent the opportunity to surrender.

...

Deception, disguise, ambush, and poison use are all used above... By the good guy. And yet his actions are good. (poison is only evil if it causes ability damage to a physical stat).


And ironically, the paladin class is also forbidden by RAW from using poison.

The assassin on the other hand is evil because he's someone who kills just for the sake of money(the prc says you have to kill someone to join the assassin organization that kills people for money). Definetely evil. If you're willing to take the life of your own just for some gold, then you have little or no conscioness.

Your paladin isn't an assassin. It's not even a paladin anymore. Just a featless fighter.

Lycar
2009-03-16, 02:21 AM
Wrong. A paladin is not prohibited from denying his opponent the opportunity to surrender.

He IS because denying an opponent the chance to surrender is dishonourable. Honourable behavior is covered in the paladin's code of conduct.



Take this, for example:
Rothgar the Vile strode into his antechamber, furious. The townspeople were revolting, again. It seemed that the last display of force wasn't sufficient. "Very well", he thought, "I'll just have to do better."

"ANTIUS!" The bellow rang clearly several rooms away, and moments later, an armored figure entered the antechamber, dressed in the familiar red and gold of Rothgar's trusted advisors.

"Antius, old friend. The rabble is at the gates again. It seems that our last demonstration didn't work as well as expected. I'd like you to go to the fields, and raze every third farmstead. If no man can return home without seeing either his livelihood or the livelihood of a neighbor destroyed, perhaps they will re-evaluate the consequences of throwing rocks at my home." Rothgar turned, pacing to the window, looking at the peasants gathered below. "Vermin really," he mused. "They're lucky that I even bother to shield them from the goblin uprisings in the area. Maybe I'll scale my guard back. After all, if these ingrates are busy defending their farms from the green-skins, they'll not have time to shout about the taxes. That sounds like a..."

Rothgar halted, gurgling a bit in shock, as the blade entered his back, before quickly withdrawing. "I am not Antius," the figure remarked. "No, he was brought to justice earlier this day, just as I will do to you."

Rothgar roared in anger, hand moving to his blade, but a misstep took him to a knee. The figure in Antius's garb continued, "You need not struggle. My blade was laced with a poison. Quite rare, actually, you should be honored. It seems the denizens of the underdark have perfected the art of brewing a toxin that forces sleep upon its victims. No, Rothgar. You will be held accountable for your actions, and when you die, it will be by the judgement of the very people you oppress."
Deception, disguise, ambush, and poison use are all used above... By the good guy. And yet his actions are good. (poison is only evil if it causes ability damage to a physical stat).

You are missing the point. The guy in your example didn't kill the evildoer, he captured him. Or did I misread something?

Again: Stealth is NOT evil. Murder is. Your guy used stealth, but to capture, not to kill.

This action is good. Chaotic good. If your paladin goes on about his evil-smiting this way however, he better be a paladin of freedom, else he risks his paladinhood for violating his code of conduct as far as RAW is concerned.

Personally I think that that is a beautiful example of what a paladin ought to be allowed to do. But RAW doesn't work that way. And RAW is all I am discussing here.



The PHB outlines that destroying evil for the sake of destroying evil is a good act. Even if you look to your own safety while you do so. By your logic, it's unethical for a paladin to wear armor. After all, being harder to hit means he is more likely to live and defeat his foes, which qualifies as looking to his safety to the detriment of others (those he engages in battle with).

This is a non-argument. :smallannoyed:

If your only response is to extend the meaning of 'to the detriment of others' ad adsurdum, then there is nothing worth discussing with you.

The point is: Destroying/defeating evil is good, but this does not neccessarily mean killing. If you, say, go forth and kill bandits, then making the roads safer for travellers is a good thing. But if you go out of your way to kill them, without giving them the chance to surrender, that is NOT good behavior. It is at best neutral, if you do it because you don't want to risk your own hide by giving away the advantages of an ambush.

An evil character might go out killing bandits as well. But he does it for the money. Or because it is a chance for him to kill sentient beings without being hanged for it.

If your aim was to capture, not to kill, then an ambush is actually a good action, because it increases your chances to capture the bandits unharmed. Well, for a given value of 'unharmed' anyway. :smalltongue:

Using ambushes is dishonourable, not evil. But you usually use an ambush to increase your chances to kill things. Hence ambushing people is associated with evil behavior. Therefore Heroes should avoid such behavior.

I do not say that heroes have to act stupid. But the RAW make ambushing out to be a despicable tactic, fit for cowards and scoundrels, not heroes.

That that doesn't really make sense is another thing. But that is what house rules are for. And there is nothing wrong with that. We just need to remember that they are houserules.

Play a neutral assassin all you want. More power to you. They are just not compatible with the RAW.

Neither are Shadowbane Inquisitors for that matter. Or Greyguards. But hey, I think we all agree here that the alignement rules are a mess. :smallamused:

Lycar

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-16, 02:41 AM
"But hey, I think we all agree here that the alignment rules are a mess.:smallamused:"

That line pretty much sums the thread up quite neatly.

As for the crack about Zyklon B and the suggested misuse of Flunitrazepam:

Note how when NOT abused, both of those poisons had practical applications that were NOT evil? Z was used to be rid of bugs, are you now saying that the Orkin Man is a Blackguard in disguise? As for F, it is supposed to be an insomnia medication. It's not the chemicals themselves that are evil, but the people misusing them. In a world where true evil can be detected via supernatural x-rays, the use of either one can easily be a good act.

As a side note, a Nazi reference was BOUND to happen during this conversation. There is no way to discuss a matter of good and evil online without it. :smalltongue:

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 02:44 AM
But relevant to the point I was addressing :smalltongue: You're wrong. Your argument made no sense. It's contradictory. And it's applicable. Obviously if your logic is wrong for Paladins...it's questionable for assassins. :smalltongue:


1) You claim: Assassins have to be evil as long as paladins have to be good.

No, as long as paladins have different powers when they are evil from the power they have when they're good, so should the assassin.
My example of power change: blackguard, but your example of variants from Unearthened Arcana can be used as well


When confronted with the fact that paladins do not have to be good...you claim:

2) Because they have different powers, you don't consider them paladins

No, I don't, because they have different powers than the core paladin, just like champion of freedom. Thus, they are not the same class as the PHB paladin. My point 1 still applies

[/QUOTE]Then you say that your original point was that:


"Which brings us to the original point: it you don't mirror the assassins abilities when you let him be good, then you shouldn't mirror the paladins powers either when lifting the alignment restriction (which is done for the paladin of slaughter and the paladin of tyrany)"

Now that obviously wasn't your original point as you phrased it (unless I missed a post). And then you refer to paladins as including the variant paladins which you said you didn't consider paladins earlier...[/QUOTE]

I rephrased it to include the variant paladins, who were not in the original argument. My argument is still valid.

In it's final form it is:
Since in 3.5 D&D, the alignment tied powers of the PHB paladin are changed when alignment is changed (examples: blackguard, champion of freedom, variant paladins from Unearthened Arcana),I think the powers the assassin that are considered evil should be changed as well.
Since poison use is considered evil, he should have to use the alternate poisons, called rakes and afflictions, from BoED, he should loose his Sneak Attack, which is given to a lot of evil prestige classes, like the blackguard, and given an alternate attack form

If you don't want to change the powers of the assassin, and give him assess to other alignment on entering the class, you should allow paladins with the powers of the PHB 3.5 paladin with other alignments.


My Brain hurts. >_>
[edit - The Following is in reply to Lycar]

So, I don't see where any of that is actually related to the Assassin PRC or even 'Assassins' in general.
So a Rogue who hides in shadows to enable his sneak attack class feature is evil, but an Assassin who gives his opponant a chance to surrender or repent up front, and faces them face to face, (Using flanking and bluff to enable his sneak attack, not bothering trying to use his Death Attack) would in contrast be, at least potentially, Good?

Except by letting them surrender, you won't get paid, and are thus not an assassin.

Zen Master
2009-03-16, 03:00 AM
So help me, fellow playgrounders, why are assassins evil?

You're confusing the prestige class Assassin with being an assassin.

To play an Assassin, you must be evil.

To play an assasin, you simply must kill people for money.

But it all works out in the end. Because if you kill for money, you DM will adjust your alignment to suit :)

Stormageddon
2009-03-16, 03:53 AM
Instead of all this, why not just be evil? If you do it right playing an evil character doesn't have to disrupt the game.

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 03:57 AM
Instead of all this, why not just be evil? If you do it right playing an evil character doesn't have to disrupt the game.

Indeed. .......................................

Dervag
2009-03-16, 04:28 AM
I think I see the problem we're having. I see the "classes" simply as collections of abilities given a stand in name so that players know what each other are talking about. You're seeing these as actual professions/jobs. That clears things up so far as why we're not going to see eye to eye on this. :smalltongue:There's a strong implication in some of the class names that the members of that class have done something in particular. Fighters fight, rangers range, thieves thieve. Sorcerors use sorcery, dwarven defenders defend, duelists duel, and initiates of the Sevenfold Veil are initiated in some kind of veil that probably has about seven folds.

So it strikes me as odd to argue that assassins do not, in fact, assassinate.:smallconfused:


The following coments are not at Hadrian specificly. I just think her/his comments some up the 'good' assassin opinions.

Thank you for defining the use of Zyklon B as non evil.Ding! Godwin.

Seriously, though, using Zyklon B as intended (insecticide?) Probably not evil. Using it to kill millions of people? Evil.

Likewise, using rocks? Probably not evil in and of itself. There are lots of things you can do with rocks that are not at all evil. Using them to kill millions of people? Evil.

I believe that no physical substance without some kind of bizarre magical properties can be inherently evil. A trap or a vial of poison does not have moral alignment. It may be harder to use poisons without doing evil than it would be to use rocks or swords or fire, but it's very hard for me to believe that it's impossible.

Theodoriph
2009-03-16, 04:35 AM
@Narmoth

Ah, I see now.

There's one major difference between Paladins and Assassins that you haven't taken into account though.

Paladins derive all of their powers from their deity.

The change of a Paladin's powers between alignments is not a result of the difference in alignments, but of the difference between worshipping a good deity and an evil deity.

To illustate: Without DM intervention, a paladin of tyranny who worships the same god, but becomes lawful good doesn't suddenly develop the "LG" paladin abilties. Even if the paladin switched Gods...he still wouldn't get the powers without DM intervention (and likely a quest of some sort to prove his faith) Why? Because his powers aren't tied to his alignment. They're tied to his deity. Gods are the determining factor, not alignment. Another proof of this are the rules for falling.

A paladin doesn't fall for switching alignment...they fall for displeasing their god and knowingly performing an evil/good act. This act doesn't need to shift their alignment, and often won't. And yet, they're still deprived of their powers. Again, because the determining factor is their deity.



Assassins don't require deities for their powers. They don't even require deities for their spells (being arcane casters). So there isn't a need to change their powers. Basing class abilities off of alignment alone would be troublesome as alignment is variable and gaining different powers as a result of performing a few good/evil acts is not ideal. That's likely why for paladins, their special abilities are tied to their god.

That's one reason why the Paladin comparison doesn't quite work. It's not an alignment thing. It's a god thing.

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 04:46 AM
Paladins derive all of their powers from their deity.

No, they can derive their powers from philosophy or force as well.
Also, your argument is on fluff, and mine is on mechanics: if you change A, and have B similar to A, B should be changed as well.
Also, you have the prestige class Ordained Champion (which is more for clerics, but can be taken by paladins and blackguards as well)
There, the ordained champion of Hextor and Heironeus get the same powers.

Khanderas
2009-03-16, 04:55 AM
Lycar makes alot of sense.
Also, assassins are evil in DnD because they kill sentient beings for money. That is what an assassin is, and what an assassin does. Not for greater good. Not for lord or leige. Not for king and country. Not to defend the weak. Not to save the world. Not because the target deserves it. Not because the target is Evil / whatever alignment. Not to survive. Not because he is unfit for any other job (if you are fit enough to kill, you are fit enough to be a farmhand/barmaid/any non-academic work).

An assassin kills for some gold, so he can buy a bigger house and have a couple more beers in the pub. That is why he is evil.

IF you want the abilities of the assassin class, just be an assassin that quit. Atonement optional. Faked death optional. Killed off his previous guild to avoid persuit optional. Telling your teammates of this optional. Your alignment is optional (as you could have done a great deal of atoning since the folleys of your youth).
The fluff is plenty well defined. Change the restriction if you want and call it homebrew / houserule but don't rave about how wrong it is that assassins has to be evil.

Theodoriph
2009-03-16, 05:02 AM
No, they can derive their powers from philosophy or force as well.


No...their powers are granted via a god. Whether or not they worship that god or are devoted to righteousness...is an entirely different issue. I know...the PHB is weird that way. :smalltongue:

Further I disagree with your claim that it's fluff. Seems more like a game mechanic to me. :smalltongue:

Shademan
2009-03-16, 05:06 AM
Dude, this was on the first page of the thread:

In the DMG, under requirements to be an Assassin:



This is an Evil act.

It doesn't matter if the person in question is a bad person, it doesn't matter if they deserve to die, if they spend their every waking moment torturing babies to death and eating them in front of their mothers; you're killing that person to get into the Assassin's guild.

That's why the Assassin Prestige class has the "must be evil" requirement.

It's not the abilities, it's not the lifestyle, it's not that they kill people for money, it's that they killed someone for no other reason than to get into the Assassin's guild.

you know... you could TELL the assassins you kill him just because you wanna get into the guild and hang wit the cool guys BUT you do it to stop his baby-munching. they don't need to know. and besides, if you save the world once every two years and rescue entire cities each day and murder ONE guy in cold blood your alignment won't turn into evil in that instant.
so assassins shouldn't be forced to be evil, but their entry-test/exam/whatever can be evil.

why do he have to join the assassins!? can't he be self-teach'd?

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 05:11 AM
yeah, Shademan, and he's self practiced as well, not learning his craft by killing others, only trying it out on himself

Shademan
2009-03-16, 05:19 AM
he can kill goblins. :smalltongue:
killing goblins are always OK. everyone knows that.
or he could train on Illithids!
those are nasty!

or be trained by a assassin who's not in the guild! he can learn all the moves and stuff, he don't have to be evil to do so. heck, when I trained ninjutsu one of the first things we learned was how to ram a knife in someones heart. we never used it, but we knew how.
my point is: a assassin should be able to learn the way of the assassin without being forced to be evil.

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 05:21 AM
Then you are homebrewing. And that's ok. But that will be up to the Dm, and not a rule imbalance from the beginning

Also, I think the assassin assign you a target.

Shademan
2009-03-16, 05:22 AM
and thats pretty much exactly what i did in my campaign.
:smalltongue:

live and let live, and if someone cant abide that, drag the bastard out in the streets and shoot him.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-16, 05:25 AM
Dervag: :smallconfused: You'd think that wouldn't you? :smallamused: Then again... -if such a connection were entirely accurate, Monks wouldn't be more aptly named Corpse Gatherers (all good resistances / AC bonus / increased movement) or Prostitutes (Immune to Disease / Flurry of Blows). :smallbiggrin:

Sergeantbrother
2009-03-16, 08:59 AM
Its funny that 5 pages of discussion can just be put to rest with your DM saying - OK, you don't have to be evil. I mean, RAW isn't holy canon, its one arbitrary sentence that can be changed with zero effort on the part of the DM. What's the big deal?

Khanderas
2009-03-16, 10:18 AM
Its funny that 5 pages of discussion can just be put to rest with your DM saying - OK, you don't have to be evil. I mean, RAW isn't holy canon, its one arbitrary sentence that can be changed with zero effort on the part of the DM. What's the big deal?
You would think that it would, but it won't.:smallamused:
Your statment is a fact we all know, but what is the point of being right if I cannot correct those who are wrong :smallbiggrin:

Renegade Paladin
2009-03-16, 11:14 AM
the UA Paladins of Tyranny/Slaughter have one significant thing going for them, in that they retain the Divine Grace class feature (untyped Cha to saves), but can freely PrC into Blackguard and get Dark Blessing (untyped Cha to saves) without losing their Paladin abilities. Add Hexblade levels for untyped Cha to saves vs. Spells, and you have some ridiculous save modifiers on a character who's actually very easy to justify RP-wise, since all three classes synergize in both fluff and ability.
Except they don't get divine grace... or any of their other abilities, for that matter. Why? Because their code of conduct is the same as the paladin's (remember, only things specifically changed are altered from the class, and the code of conduct was not included in the changes), and that says they must be lawful good to retain their abilities. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2009-03-16, 11:24 AM
Except they don't get divine grace... or any of their other abilities, for that matter. Why? Because their code of conduct is the same as the paladin's (remember, only things specifically changed are altered from the class, and the code of conduct was not included in the changes), and that says they must be lawful good to retain their abilities. :smallbiggrin:

O Rly? stealthtext



Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good.



Code of Conduct
A paladin of slaughter must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits a good act. Additionally, a paladin of slaughter's code requires that she disrespect all authority figures who have not proven their physical superiority to her, refuse help to those in need, and sow destruction and death at all opportunities.

Associates
While she may adventure with characters of any evil or neutral alignment, a paladin of slaughter will never knowingly associate with good characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin of tyranny may accept only henchmen, followers, and cohorts who are chaotic evil.




Code of conduct
A paladin of tyranny must be of lawful evil alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits a good act. Additionally, a paladin of tyranny's code requires that he respect authority figures as long as they have the strength to rule over the weak, act with discipline (not engaging in random slaughter, keeping firm control over those beneath his station, and so forth), help only those who help him maintain or improve his status, and punish those who challenge authority (unless, of course, such challengers prove more worthy to hold that authority).

Associates
While he may adventure with characters of any evil or neutral alignment, a paladin of tyranny will never knowingly associate with good characters unless it serves his needs, nor will he continue an association with someone who consistently offends his moral code. A paladin of tyranny may accept henchmen and followers of any alignment, but may only accept cohorts who are lawful evil.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-16, 11:44 AM
O Rly? stealthtext

Renegade Paladin made a silly mistake. He meant the Ex-Paladins section.

So we know WotC is stupid. That's the entire reason this thread started in the first place.

Kaiyanwang
2009-03-16, 11:55 AM
IMHo, Lycar is simply right.

Anyway, April's fool or not, I use the Avenger for my party and it simply works fine.

The evil requirement substitution with a charge from autority makes it flavourful, workable and not out of control.

And I couldn't care less of the source, simply works fine :smallbiggrin:

Da'Shain
2009-03-16, 11:56 AM
I'm fine with the fluff explanation, myself.

You don't need to be evil in order to be an assassin, because an assassin is simply one who assassinates. I've never seen why assassination is considered inherently evil anyway; to me, it seems by far morally preferable to assassinate an enemy leader than to go to war and kill his subjects so that you can imprison him and put him on trial, but that's just me.

In order to be an Assassin, though, you must be accepted into the Assassin's Guild (or equivalent) which only accepts people who view others' lives (and deaths) as mere tools for their own advancement. Which they ensure by Detect Evil (or equivalent).

Nothing prevents a GM from removing the Evil alignment prereq, of course. But the Assassin PrC is designed for a specific group of assassins, not all of those who train to kill specific targets stealthily and with no chance for a "fair fight."

Samb
2009-03-16, 12:04 PM
Assassins were taken out of 3.x because they messed with gameplay. And when think about that makes sense. Making them evil WotC's way to make them NPC onry.

If you feel that assassins don't mess up gameplay then by allmeans use them. The reason they were not included as a base class this edition as opposed to theolder edition is based on gameplay not morality per say.

Xuincherguixe
2009-03-16, 12:38 PM
This thread is painful.

I see nothing wrong with adjusting the Assassin prestige class. The motivations to kill can be pretty varied. And while there seems to be an assumption that they're to be hired goons to attack the party, nothing in their abilities explicitly states that they are hired goons.

As to alignment. D&D assumes a simple world, with simple morality. Recognizing that, and being pragmatic in your approach probably means you'll be something other than lawful good. Situations like "Do I kill the baby to save the world?" aren't supposed to show up.

Which makes for a more boring game mind you. When doing the right thing is easy, why choose evil? It's only in the bleak, depressing worlds where it's hard to be good that it actually means something.

Still, one thing I find myself asking more and more, why is it that so many people seem to have so much against playing actually nice characters? I'm not talking about good or evil here. I mean, why aren't there PCs that when approached with a group of rampaging goblins, on of the PCs doesn't give one of them a sandwich?

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-16, 12:40 PM
Instead of going assassin, I've found that something like:
Warrior2 Paladin(Slaughter)2 Warblade1 Avenging Executioner5 Ghost-Faced Killer10

-is the better build. What's not to love about Sapphire Nightmare Blade potentially being an encounter ending maneuver at ECL 20? Slippers of Battledancing and a focus on bumping one's Charisma only serves to add nearly across the board. Yes warrior is cheese, but it beats alignment discussion.

Xuincherguixe: There are players like that, they tend to generate more work for the rest of the party though. So, they are scarce.

lsfreak
2009-03-16, 12:46 PM
I'm fine with the fluff explanation, myself.

You don't need to be evil in order to be an assassin, because an assassin is simply one who assassinates. I've never seen why assassination is considered inherently evil anyway; to me, it seems by far morally preferable to assassinate an enemy leader than to go to war and kill his subjects so that you can imprison him and put him on trial, but that's just me.
I'd just like to point out that rarely does assassination make for a better outcome. Usually only when the people are on the verge of rebellion themselves and the people have only been under that type of rule for a very short time. Once you get people who've spent the majority of their lives under the rule, they come to power and when things get tough they fall back on tyranny, because it's the only form of government they know. And if the people aren't on the verge of rebelling anywho, then you'll likely have a long and drawn-out power struggle, or you're going to have open war between the nation that assassinated and the people whose beloved leader was just assassinated.

Da'Shain
2009-03-16, 01:01 PM
I'd just like to point out that rarely does assassination make for a better outcome. Usually only when the people are on the verge of rebellion themselves and the people have only been under that type of rule for a very short time. Once you get people who've spent the majority of their lives under the rule, they come to power and when things get tough they fall back on tyranny, because it's the only form of government they know. And if the people aren't on the verge of rebelling anywho, then you'll likely have a long and drawn-out power struggle, or you're going to have open war between the nation that assassinated and the people whose beloved leader was just assassinated.
I wasn't advocating assassination as the only choice, certainly. In a situation where you actually want to better the people of the enemy country's lives, for example, assassination would be a horrible way to get them on your side, although I'd still argue that in some cases it would be the best course if the leader is a war-hungry lunatic.

If, on the other hand, you're looking out for your own country's safety first, and the vocal leader of the enemy country is pushing war, then I see nothing wrong with simply killing him when peace talks fail. Worst case, you have open war anyway, and the people of the enemy country hate you for killing their beloved leader, where before they hated you anyway; it just so happens that the leader is dead, though, and will serve as an example to others who wish to push war. Best case, without the leader to drive it forward, the war effort collapses on itself as people vie to fill the power vacuum.

Like I said, though, assassination is not the best choice in all such situations; I simply find it a far preferable alternative to open war, which seems to be viewed far more favorably than assassination.

Yukitsu
2009-03-16, 01:02 PM
Your original point was that a good character ough to be allowed to use stealth and ambush to save innocents.

I agree.

This does not change the fact that, by RAW, at the moment you decide to kill the hostage taker, you also decided that his life is not worth risking the death of the hostage, that his life is worth less.

Or that the risk he presents to a potentially larger number of individuals than himself is greater than the summed risk you present to the hostage takers. Also note, evil people are prioritized as worth less than neutrals or goods in most D&D societies. Many evils can be killed for being evil, so long as they present any realistic threat. (orc babies, for instance, may ping as evil, but they aren't much of a threat.)


This is not evil per se. If the hostage taker is prone to kill the hostage (for example, he has done so before or it is an evil creature), this is even the right decision. But if there is a reasonable chance to talk him/them out of it (maybe some bandits took hostages to ensure their getaway), then a good character ought to at least consider the option. Dismissing it right out of hand because it would 'spoil the element of surprise' is evil.

*Party face* Are you sure you won't walk away quietly, and peacefully?
*jerk* no
*Party face* OK, take him down Jimmy.

You assume assassination and negotiation are mutually exclusive. If, given a weeks negotiation with an evil overlord, and he doesn't budge, if he should suddenly die of defenestration sometime before his big sweeping, world conquering campaign, both conditions of assassination and negotiation were conformed to.


The rogue or wizard are evil if they use stealth or magic to murder.

An assassin who uses stealth to avoid guards is neither good nor evil, he is merely acting out of self-interest.

A rogue who wants to, say, steal an artifact from an evil person and uses stealth to avoid guards is likewise not inherently good for doing so.

An evil/neutral character will do it to avoid getting hurt. A good character will do it to avoid hurting others.

I don't see why not getting hurt and not hurting others is mutually exclusive for one, and I also fail to see why good people must avoid hurting evil people. Paladins have smite evil instead of *divine diplomacy evil* for a reason, and that's because standard good aligned individuals are active agents that fight evil. I don't endorse smite on site, but if my party paladin gets all uppity about me assassinating a pit fiend general, I'm probably going to question his sanity and leave the party for saner pastures.


Wrong. Important is what you do, not what you are.

This is my point really. Any class can do exactly what an assassin does. What matters is how the assassin composes himself.


Irrelevant. You had to be evil to become an assassin. If your character afterwards has a change of heart (and alignement), he can be non-evil and still use his learned skills.

But as the RAW stands, you HAVE to commit an act of evil to be considerd for assassin training. Hence you have to be evil to become an assassin.

A good character simply can't kill an innocent in cold blood. A neutral character would have to have some very compelling reasons to do this. But the default setting is that only evil people have no qualms to do what is neccessary to becomeassassins.

A singular evil act doesn't automatically change an alignment to evil, even according to poorly written books, like the fiendish codexes. Nor does your target have to be innocent. You can houserule that the target is chosen by the guild, but that's not RAW. By the RAW, I can go out, and bag an imp with the intention of getting into the assassins guild.


The paladin code implies this, even if it is not spelled out.

To quote the PHB: "...Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poision, and so forth), ..."

Since ambushes are considered dishonourable, they are indeed covered by the paladin's requirement to act honourable.

Where does it say that ambushes are dishonourable? Are we being forced to use your definition of honour here? Because my definition of honourable certainly doesn't imply "poor tactician". You can't claim RAW by saying that it's implied by using an "etc" to assume all your arguments are by default correct.


And even while papaldins are held to higher standards then 'normal good' characters, let us take a look at what the RAW has to say about the good alignement, quoting page 104:

" 'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

Not ambushing a foe is making a personal sacrifice (of the advantages an ambush would confer) to allow the foe to surrender. And you allow him the chance to surrender because you want to stop his evil, not neccessarily
kill him.

How does not ambushing people help anyone? It doesn't. It makes battles long, and needlessly costly on both sides, as opposed to on one. It also increases the odds that any prisoners are executed, and that you fail your mission, ending in evil prevailing. And again, your assumption that one must offer quarter has not appeared in the rules.


That is not to say that good characters can't ambush people when it is clear that they won't surrender.

But again: Dismissing the notion right out of hand because you don't want to lose the benefits of the ambush is a selfish action and thus neutral at best, as per RAW.

Not wanting to die at the cost of a fair fight against evil isn't a selfish-neutral act. This hinges on lawful stupid. "Oh, of course I'm reformed, I'll never do anything bad again." "You said that the last 15 times." "But I really mean it this time. And I definitely won't try to knife you in the back as you slap the cuffs on."


What does the RAW have to say about evil again? Oh yes:

" 'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. ..."

And an assassin need not conform to any of these parameters, and it's notable that an individual can kill an evil creature without any blow to alignment. That's why paladins have smite evil.


I refer to the RAW. Your opinions about morality differ from those presented in this fantasy roleplaying game. As do mine.

But if you try to bring real-world morals into a game, you enter treacherous terrain. Don't.

And I already quoted the passage where the RAW very well DOES mention offering quarter and fighting honourable. They don't spell it out but being compassionate implies giving foes a chance to surrender.

See, implies means RAI, and only tenuously. I see compassion as helping those that deserve it, not those that don't. By RAI, your paladin that puts the redemption of evil above the lives of the innocent is, in my RAI, evil. Don't spout off on "implied as" and tenuous personal definitions of good while saying that my definitions aren't RAW. I know that your implied standards are not rules as written.


It is not spelled out but it is implied.

And for the evil: I don't care. That is for the philosophers to decide. As long as you don't delude yourself into thinking that any of them is not evil by RAW, just because your own moral codex says so.

And implied statement means you are now using your own judgement of morals, and have strayed from the rules as written.


I do not have the Book of Exalted Deeds, therefore I can not comment on the content thereof. Personally I find the idea of a 'good assassin' an oxymoron and, frankly, appaling. But this is neither here nor there.

What I did say was: *Your murdering assassin can save the world with his actions. But if he goes about it in the assassin way, his actions are evil, no matter how much 'good' he does with them.*

Murder is evil, as defined by RAW, no matter how much good your murder does. Therefore an assassin is, by definition, evil. Thats the RAW for you.

By the rules as written, an individual can commit an assassination and remain exalted. You can't selectively make up rules, claim that they are both implied and RAW, while ignoring non implied rules as written. I can make a world saving assassin, and because of his actions, he is exalted.


I don't say that this makes much sense, especially not in our world, but I am merely discussing the RAW here. And by RAW assassins are evil because they murder, and murder is evil.

And to reiterate,
all assassinations are murder
Some assassinations are exalted
No evil deed is an exalted deed
Therefore, some murders are not evil.


Why don't paladins just charge the keep of the evil baron and chop off his head? Even though hes lv 20 and totally can do that? Because it is chaotic and evil, thats why. Chaotic because he could as well ask the king to do something about him first. And evil because, if he's tough enough to waltz in and chop his head off, he is also tough enough to ask him to mend his ways to resign his position first.

Because paladins are held to a higher standard than anyone else. Also, an assassin, in theory, would need a higher authority's consent to perform such a hit, so asking a king if he could do it may be on either an assassin's or a paladin's agenda. Also, diplomacy doesn't work that way. While many paladins are good at said task, not all paladins are good talkers. A level 20 paladin may be far more competent at killing the man than talking him down.


Stop putting words in my mouth. :smallannoyed:

I am not proponing playing lawful stupid characters. I am pointing out how the RAW views certain things.

If you ambush a bunch of goblins (evil creatures) to save the hostages, that is certainly the only reasonable way to ensure the hostages' safety.

By RAW, ambushing people is dishonourable at best, possibly evil.

That is what I am saying.


No, it's not rules as written. It's RAISTAYCPO. I've pointed out again and again that your assumptions are not the RAW.


You too? That makes at least two of us.

But the RAW alignement system doesn't work that way. It is a friggin game! It is not meant to be an introduction into morality, ethics or philosophy. Heroes do heroic things and don't do unheroic things. That is what the game is about.

Assassins are villains. Therefore, assassins are neccessarily evil.

Lycar

Define a heroic thing without simply restating your position such that I can look it up in my dictionary, and it will conform to the terms. To you, a hero must be honourable, but that's only your definition. The actual "RAW" of real life is that a hero is someone of character that makes him stronger than the typical person, or the male lead of a fictional work. By this definition, James Bond, who is an assassin in many instances, is a hero, as he is the male lead of a ficticious work, and he has many qualities that make him stronger than the typical man.

Mr.Shmatt
2009-03-16, 01:27 PM
for clarification, it may help to investigate the origins of the assassins (and this drawn from my studies in both war and terrorism, and crusades 1095-1187) - a muslim sub-sect during the middle ages.
this group survived persecution from both christian crusaders and the muslim saladin through targetted assassinations, should a ruler attempt to destroy them, his death can cause sufficient instability to end the threat. basically, they killed political leaders as a method to dissuade groups from attacking them.
as a noteworthy point, this group only came under a tangible threat from the Order of the Temple, whose leader is elected and so the method of assassination would cause few political problems and so be insufficient to stop the Templars on their mission (which allowed the Templars to force a tithe/tax from them).

The problem i can see, is that we are using modern-day ethics that consider killing an evil act, whereas in medieval times, as well as before and for a debatable time after, killing and death was accepted as part of life.

Under these conditions, acceptance into the assassin prestige class would depend on the direction of the assassins as a group, are they out to kill for the hell of it? or is it a group aiming for survival, for power (like all kingdoms and realms in the D&D world, which can still maintain a positive alignment despite wars/attacking etc), or for other goals?

Samb
2009-03-16, 01:52 PM
Assassins were taken out of 3.x because they messed with gameplay. And when think about that makes sense. Making them evil WotC's way to make them NPC onry.

If you feel that assassins don't mess up gameplay then by allmeans use them. The reason they were not included as a base class this edition as opposed to theolder edition is based on gameplay not morality per say.

Yeah I'm quotng myself, because the fact that TSR/WotC took it out when it made 3rd edition should be a big sign as to why assassins are evil now when they were not in AD&D. If you want to play a killer then house rule it or play 2nd edition.
Again people: was playable in 2nd, not playable in 3rd. Stated explicitily due to gameplay and team dynamic issues.

hamishspence
2009-03-16, 01:57 PM
actually, in second edition DMG, it said something like "assassination is a reprehensible mindset" and "Hiring assassins is not a good or a lawful act"

(spells considered evil in 3.5 had "casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil casters use it regularly")

So, there were discouragements in 2nd ed, as well.

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 02:00 PM
Yeah I'm quotng myself, because the fact that TSR/WotC took it out when it made 3rd edition should be a big sign as to why assassins are evil now when they were not in AD&D. If you want to play a killer then house rule it or play 2nd edition.
Again people: was playable in 2nd, not playable in 3rd. Stated explicitily due to gameplay and team dynamic issues.

I just love how our groups assassin waits in 3 rounds to take a death attack while the rest of the group butchers the assailants. Usually, the person he started to observe in the first round is long gone by the third round

Tensu
2009-03-16, 02:04 PM
killing goblins are always OK. everyone knows that.

Except Tarol Hunt, of course.

Grommen
2009-03-16, 06:22 PM
Can't I kill a bad guy to join?
And come on, I just want a death attack for my rogue :smallbiggrin:

Yes no evil detected here .. \\sarcasm\\

The alignment system is relative. People make far to much out of it. if you openly plan to kill people for profit, kinda makes you the bad guy. At least in our culture. Now we have a far more strict set of rules in our society. Back in the day we killed a lot of innocent people just because they believed in the wrong ideal, religion, etc.

Just off the top of my head pretty much every culture hates assassins. So I'm gonna have to go with "Evil" in my book.

Samb
2009-03-16, 06:54 PM
I just love how our groups assassin waits in 3 rounds to take a death attack while the rest of the group butchers the assailants. Usually, the person he started to observe in the first round is long gone by the third round
Honestly, by the time your DC for the death attack is high enough most enemies' fort save will beat it.

The observe for 3 turns is kinda vague. It says that the assassin can still do stuff as long as the "mark" doesn't detect him as an enemy. So he doesn't have to just sit there, he could hide and apply poisons, cast spells (oh like greater invisible or fox's cunning to boost DC on death).

Also the situation you just mentioned is why assassins don't work well in a group. An assassin isn't a front line fighter. He observes and waits, he does his best work alone without loud fighters and pallies.

It's easy to see your 5 non-assassin PC gang rape an encounter, but an assassin would prefer to "ghost" opponents in one decisive blow (once every 3 turns) before they even know what hit them.

Or imagine it the other way around. The party is hacking away at fodder while the assassin just dimension doors up to the boss and death attacks him? Where is the excitement in that?

Again if you want to play assassin just ask your DM, but assassin as evil is more of a determent than an absolute no no. Besides evil assassins adds so much more flavor.

chiasaur11
2009-03-16, 07:09 PM
Yes no evil detected here .. \\sarcasm\\

The alignment system is relative. People make far to much out of it. if you openly plan to kill people for profit, kinda makes you the bad guy. At least in our culture. Now we have a far more strict set of rules in our society. Back in the day we killed a lot of innocent people just because they believed in the wrong ideal, religion, etc.

Just off the top of my head pretty much every culture hates assassins. So I'm gonna have to go with "Evil" in my book.

Every?

Ankh Morpokh's Disc famous assassin's guild would have words with you.

Myrmex
2009-03-16, 07:35 PM
Because of the way they are explained in the fluff: Assassins don't just kill, they kill people they barely know for money. Which is evil.

"Hey, that dragon has black scales! Let's slay it and take it's stuff!"


Do note:
Mercenaries are hiring themselves out as soldiers. Traditionally, they're hired by a ruler, at war, and are only killing other soldiers in the course of normal events, generally on the battlefield; any honest soldier knows he's liable to die for whatever cause/country/ruler he's fighting for. Both sides know about what's coming, one way or another. Individual actions for a mercenary can be good or evil based on the cause.

An assassin hires out as an assassin to take out someone who's inconvenient for the employer. It's very, very rare that the person the assassin works for has good motives. Additionally, the target of an assassination generally isn't a soldier on the battlefield, who knows to expect this sort of thing. While sure, some assassinations might be a good thing... most never will be. My history teacher in high school once showed my class the introduction for the USA's Assassin's handbook. One of the lines that stuck with me? "Assassination is seldom morally justified. This is not a profession for the squeamish."

In the requirements to join the guild, you have to kill someone "for no other reason than to join the assassins." If you're picking your target because he's evil, that's a reason other than to join the assassins, and the requirement isn't met. To qualify, it pretty much needs to be a random killing. How is that not evil?

Historically, most war was paid for in the blood of peasants. A couple douchebag politicians getting stabbed in the dark is a far better thing than being drafted to fight for resource acquisition or getting shelled because you happen to be in the way. And don't forget the taxes.

And when was the last time anyone a soldier worked for had good intentions? It's all either "go there and kill those people so we can take their stuff," or "we've decided you need to go there and kill those people because they're different from us. Also, take their stuff."


To be fair...in real life death attacks and poisoning people tend to be considered evil too :smallwink:

So shooting someone in the legs until they die is less evil than shooting them in the head until they die?


...there's a catch. One does not learn to be an assassin in a vacuum. Assuming you intend to be an assassin, sooner or later you have to come to terms with the nature of your career path. You're going to be dealing with a lot of dangerous rogues, in the literal sense. People will want to pay you money to kill people. If you get a reputation for pickiness ("I'll accept a contract on that guy, because he's evil, but not that guy, because he doesn't deserve to die"), the kind of people you work around aren't going to appreciate it. The last thing they want is an assassin who might decide at the last moment that he knows better than his employer whether the target should die.

And so you wind up having to make hard choices on subjects that affect your alignment.

Where in the assassin class description does it say you must hang out with shady rogue types and kill for money? Taking up the mantle of assassin to rid your holy lands of infidel interlopers isn't evil; especially when the interlopers are cultists of Erythnul.

Even if you do hang out with shadowy characters, and happen to be choosy about what you kill, how does that make you evil? How does that make you any different from any other PC in the party?. Being in a situation where your character has a moral dilemma doesn't mean the outcome necessarily makes him evil (unless your DM's a tool). Then that would make all the classes evil.


If you seriously think you could kill someone for the sole purpose of getting into the Assassin's guild and still be good, there's really no point in continuing this conversation. That's not a good act. That's not something a good, or even neutral person would do.

I mean. Really. Are you seriously making that argument? Are you insane?

It's not a good act, but it also won't make someone automatically evil. Your argument would work if you had to kill an "innocent". But you don't. So not all cases are evil, therefore, none of the entry requirements require you to actually be evil.

If Tordek the fighter kills a chromatic dragon for no other reason than to take its stuff, is he evil? No, of course not. He's a D&D character. It's ok to do whatever you want to do to a creature that's listed as "always evil".


Thank you for defining the use of Zyklon B as non evil.

Developed as an insecticide. The hundreds of tons of crops it saved from devouring pests fed millions.


You right. Drugs/poisons that only effect the mind are non evil. Like some date rape drugs.

Developed, like most narcotics, to lessen pain and dull the senses for operations.


Are you seriously arguing that inert substances are inherently evil? Really?

Samb
2009-03-16, 07:54 PM
"Hey, that dragon has black scales! Let's slay it and take it's stuff!"



Historically, most war was paid for in the blood of peasants. A couple douchebag politicians getting stabbed in the dark is a far better thing than being drafted to fight for resource acquisition or getting shelled because you happen to be in the way. And don't forget the taxes.

And when was the last time anyone a soldier worked for had good intentions? It's all either "go there and kill those people so we can take their stuff," or "we've decided you need to go there and kill those people because they're different from us. Also, take their stuff."
I'm pretty sure WWI was started by an assassin who killed a noble. Wonder how that hurt your argument.....And most soldiers are so evil, since they joined the military to defend something they hold dear, or to get a good education without paying tuition. God how selfish.




So shooting someone in the legs until they die is less evil than shooting them in the head until they die?
Ummmm yes it is. If you shoot someone in the leg usually you just want to disable them anyways



If Tordek the fighter kills a chromatic dragon for no other reason than to take its stuff, is he evil? No, of course not. He's a D&D character. It's ok to do whatever you want to do to a creature that's listed as "always evil". Lets see how that worked out for V.......




Developed as an insecticide. The hundreds of tons of crops it saved from devouring pests fed millions.



Developed, like most narcotics, to lessen pain and dull the senses for operations.


Are you seriously arguing that inert substances are inherently evil? Really?You have a point here.

Lycar
2009-03-16, 08:32 PM
Or that the risk he presents to a potentially larger number of individuals than himself is greater than the summed risk you present to the hostage takers. Also note, evil people are prioritized as worth less than neutrals or goods in most D&D societies. Many evils can be killed for being evil, so long as they present any realistic threat. (orc babies, for instance, may ping as evil, but they aren't much of a threat.)

What is your point? Is is a good or evil act to slaughter helpless orc babies?

Also, the individual moral standards of various in-game societies still have to measure up vs. the absolute morality presented in the PHB.

By the black-and-white fairy-tale morality of the alignement system, fighting, defeating and destroying evil is an act of good.

BUT. defeating evil does not neccessarily mean killing. You also 'defeat' an evil by redeeming it. If you come to the conclusion that redemption is not possible, you destroy. But dismissing the possibility right out of hand is an act of evil.



*Party face* Are you sure you won't walk away quietly, and peacefully?
*jerk* no
*Party face* OK, take him down Jimmy.

You assume assassination and negotiation are mutually exclusive. If, given a weeks negotiation with an evil overlord, and he doesn't budge, if he should suddenly die of defenestration sometime before his big sweeping, world conquering campaign, both conditions of assassination and negotiation were conformed to.

Your example has nothing to do with what you are saying. :smallmad:

That example is a confrontation that turned into a fight.

And an assassination taking place after a failed negotiation, as in your text is still an assassination.

Your example would only be relevant if the weapons are drawn right at the table. Which then would not be an assassination.

Your argument is invalid.


I don't see why not getting hurt and not hurting others is mutually exclusive for one,
I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth! :smallmad:

The point is that good people try to avoid inflicting unneccessary suffering.

Evil people don't give a damn about other people, they only are interested in their own wellbeing.

But under certain circumstances, good and evil people will do the same things, albeit for different reasons.


and I also fail to see why good people must avoid hurting evil people.
Good people avoid hurting people if they can help it. Whether these people are good or evil is totally irrelevant.

Sometimes they can't help it. Then they fight. But even then *good* people will give quarter if asked.


Paladins have smite evil instead of *divine diplomacy evil* for a reason, and that's because standard good aligned individuals are active agents that fight evil.
The smiting is for when talking doesn't get the job done.

That does NOT mean that a paladin will not seek a non-violent solution for a problem. You know, the *good* part of Lawful Good.

But if the evildoers don't repent, the holy wrath is upon them.


I don't endorse smite on site, but if my party paladin gets all uppity about me assassinating a pit fiend general, I'm probably going to question his sanity and leave the party for saner pastures.
You are again inserting your own views about morality into the game world.

Assassination is NEVER a good act. Assassination is murder, murder is evil, end of discussion.

You have a problem with that, and so have I. Assassinating the pit fiend is a much better solution then fighting it openly and risking people getting killed.

But as far as the alignement system as presented in the PHB is concerned, murder is evil, period.


This is my point really. Any class can do exactly what an assassin does. What matters is how the assassin composes himself.
An assassin is, by definition, a murderer for hire. A hitman. A hired killer. It does not matter if he happens to have levels in the Assassin prestige class.

An assassin is, by definition, an evil person. Even if he kills pit fiends for a living.

Heck, even a state-sponsored assassin, who executes .. I dunno, enemies of the state or something, is still an assassin. And therefore evil.


A singular evil act doesn't automatically change an alignment to evil, even according to poorly written books, like the fiendish codexes. Nor does your target have to be innocent. You can houserule that the target is chosen by the guild, but that's not RAW. By the RAW, I can go out, and bag an imp with the intention of getting into the assassins guild.
Your rules-lawyering is getting obnoxious. :smallannoyed:

The entry in the Assassin class description states that

"The character must kill someone for no other reason then to join the assassins."

Good luck getting your 'bagged imp' past any sane DM.

And again: Innocence or guilt of your victim are of no concern for the matter at hand whatsoever. As others have already pointed out: You kill for your own benefit, entry into the guild. You murder. Murder is evil.

The ONLY sensible scenario where a non-evil person would seek entry into the assassins guild is if he/she seeks to infiltrate it to destroy it from the inside. And then, arguably, the murder was committed to infiltrate the guild, not to actually become an assassin.

Evil people could do that too of course. They won't mind if your murder victim gets raised or not either.


Where does it say that ambushes are dishonourable? Are we being forced to use your definition of honour here? Because my definition of honourable certainly doesn't imply "poor tactician". You can't claim RAW by saying that it's implied by using an "etc" to assume all your arguments are by default correct.

Your interpretation of honour is as irrelevant as is mine. The sole source for the discussion is the RAW. However, since some things are not explicitly spelled out, we have to use common sense to fill in the blanks.

If you do not know what is or is not honourable behavior, I can not help you.

Except maybe, point out that the code of conduct of the paladin is modeled after the chivalric code of conduct. Google it. It is the baseline for what does constitute honourable behavior in western societies. Which the game is modeled after.


How does not ambushing people help anyone? It doesn't.
Wrong. It helps good people maintain their good alignement for reasons already pointed out numerous times.


It makes battles long, and needlessly costly on both sides, as opposed to on one. It also increases the odds that any prisoners are executed, and that you fail your mission, ending in evil prevailing. And again, your assumption that one must offer quarter has not appeared in the rules.
The presence of hostages would change a situation insofar as saving their lives takes precedence.

The standard scenario does not include hostages however.

And again, if you can not see why it is a good action to offer a foe a chance to surrender before you go about hacking him to bits, then I can not help you.



Not wanting to die at the cost of a fair fight against evil isn't a selfish-neutral act. This hinges on lawful stupid. "Oh, of course I'm reformed, I'll never do anything bad again." "You said that the last 15 times." "But I really mean it this time. And I definitely won't try to knife you in the back as you slap the cuffs on."
If you do that, then you are stupid indeed.

You offer surrender and/or redemption. if he turns it down, you smite him. End of discussion.


And an assassin need not conform to any of these parameters, and it's notable that an individual can kill an evil creature without any blow to alignment. That's why paladins have smite evil.
Except the bolded part where it says 'kill without qualm if it is convenient'. :smallsigh:

Like, you know, getting paid for the job.

That is what an assassin does, it is what makes him an assassin in the first friggin place!


See, implies means RAI, and only tenuously. I see compassion as helping those that deserve it, not those that don't. By RAI, your paladin that puts the redemption of evil above the lives of the innocent is, in my RAI, evil. Don't spout off on "implied as" and tenuous personal definitions of good while saying that my definitions aren't RAW. I know that your implied standards are not rules as written.
Neither are yours if that is the case.

And again: If you can't see why compassion neccessarily also extends to thos 'who do not deserve it', that is something that I can not help you with.


And implied statement means you are now using your own judgement of morals, and have strayed from the rules as written.
I can not discuss this with you in any meaningful way if your definiton of 'compassionate' 'good' and 'honourable' are different from mine. I refer to the RAW as they are presented in the book and to the concepts of 'compassion' and 'honour' as defined by modern day western society and christian believes.

What are yours?


By the rules as written, an individual can commit an assassination and remain exalted. You can't selectively make up rules, claim that they are both implied and RAW, while ignoring non implied rules as written. I can make a world saving assassin, and because of his actions, he is exalted.
I can not comment on the BoED.

I should point out, however, that the alignement rules solely appear in the PHB and the Assassin prestige class solely in the DMG.

You know, 'Core Material'.

If any splatbooks appearing after the core rules books differ from the definitions as presented in the PHB and DMG, that is the fault of the splatbook.

And these splatbooks are likewise irrelevant for the question 'Why must an (DMG) Assassin be evil?'.


And to reiterate,
all assassinations are murder
Some assassinations are exalted
No evil deed is an exalted deed
Therefore, some murders are not evil.
Faulty logic. Murder is always evil. Therefore murder CAN NEVER BE a good act.

Call it an execution if you must. But MUDER CAN NEVER BE GOOD.

Page 104, PHB: '"Evil" implies ... killing others.'

Right there, RAW, nothing needs to be implied.

Also, an assassin, in theory, would need a higher authority's consent to perform such a hit,
Why would an assassin need any authorities consent? That is a matter of law and chaos, not good and evil.


Also, diplomacy doesn't work that way. While many paladins are good at said task, not all paladins are good talkers. A level 20 paladin may be far more competent at killing the man than talking him down.
And that does stop him from trying how?


No, it's not rules as written. It's RAISTAYCPO. I've pointed out again and again that your assumptions are not the RAW.
What the hell does RAISTAYCPO mean? :smallconfused:

And your own assumptions appear to be formed by a desire to force your own real-world morality onto the game. Don't, it doesn't work.

Take the alignement rules for what they are: Oversimplicistic, black-white fairy-tale morals. Then gently put them to rest and work out something that fits your desires. That makes the game work much better.

But if you want to discuss the mess that the alignmenet rules are, stop bending and breaking them to fit your own desires.


Define a heroic thing without simply restating your position such that I can look it up in my dictionary, and it will conform to the terms. To you, a hero must be honourable, but that's only your definition.
It is the definition of the friggin game!


The actual "RAW" of real life is that a hero is someone of character that makes him stronger than the typical person, or the male lead of a fictional work.
Wrong. THAT definition would also apply to most villains.

It is not being 'better then average' that makes you a hero, it is what you do.

Even a Joe Average can be a hero.

And Superman could as well be a villain. He just choses to apply his superpowers to do good. That is what makes him a hero. Not his powers.


By this definition, James Bond, who is an assassin in many instances, is a hero, as he is the male lead of a ficticious work, and he has many qualities that make him stronger than the typical man.
And by the RAW, as an assassin, for all his world-saving, he is still evil.

Lycar

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-16, 09:18 PM
Just a point, I'm pretty sure that An Assassin, by RAW, is not actually someone who murders for money.

Because at no point does it say that to be, or even become an Assassin, must you murder people for money.

If we're going to argue RAW like this, things will just get silly. By RAW, if you are awkward enough, the pre-requisit doesn't even make sense! Okay, you have to be evil to take the prestige class exclusively because it is written. Also, you have to kill someone for no reason other than 'joining the assassins'. Which has no relevance to 99% of characters.

It doesn't, if we're being stuborn here, require you to actually join the assassins. It doesn't require you to receive training. It doesn't require you to kill for money to take the class. One kill, that doesn't even have to be approved by 'The Assassins', (as long as you do it so you can, in theory, join them), is all it takes to fullfill the RAW.


RAW is stupid, especially in this case.


Also, just fyi, an assassin is by definition;

1. One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person.
2. Assassin A member of a secret order of Muslims who terrorized and killed Christian Crusaders and others.


So, money, lack of respect for life, all of those arguments you have been using to argue that, by definition, an Assassin must be evil, don't actually count. Not by definition. :)

[note - Murder]
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See synonyms at flock1.

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 09:32 PM
Because of the way they are explained in the fluff: Assassins don't just kill, they kill people they barely know for money. Which is evil.

Really!
So you're saying soldiers are mostly evil. Afterall they kill people they don't know because the person/govt paying them tells them to.

I don't think so.

Stephen E

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-16, 09:35 PM
Really!
So you're saying soldiers are mostly evil. Afterall they kill people they don't know because the person/govt paying them tells them to.

I don't think so.

Stephen E

Actually, an assassin doesn't kill people for money, unlike a Soldier, because an Assassin, (By definition, no less!) Is someone who (Unlawfully) Kills someone by Suprise Attack.

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 09:36 PM
Assassins commit pre-meditated murder against innocent victims. That tends to be evil. :smalltongue: Paladins don't do that.



Assassins don't generally kill innocent people because most innocent people don't piss off anyone enough to go to the trouble of hiring an assassin to kill them.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 09:52 PM
As for the actual question, it's been pointed out in the thread already, but the Special requirement is "The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." No, you can't kill a bad guy to do it; that would be a reason other than joining the assassins. The requirement specifies that you must kill someone for no other reason than to join, which means you must kill someone that, absent becoming an assassin, you would not otherwise kill (barring being an insane chaotic evil random serial killer). This is evil. Full stop.

The requirement is that you kill someone solely for the reason of joining the assassins guild.
The requirement isn't to kill a random person.
Therefore I can choose my target to be an evil person and meet the requirements.
I'm not killing them because they're evil, but because I want to join the guild.
I choosing a evil person who deserves death because I find it more palatable, but that doesn;t change the reason WHY I';m doing it.

So you're left claiming that killing an evil person who desrved death is evil because the reason I choose to kill wasn't because he deserved to die.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 10:09 PM
If you seriously think you could kill someone for the sole purpose of getting into the Assassin's guild and still be good, there's really no point in continuing this conversation. That's not a good act. That's not something a good, or even neutral person would do.

I mean. Really. Are you seriously making that argument? Are you insane?

By DnD standards, and indeed most real world standards, a single evil act does not make one evil.

And yes killing someone for the sole purpose of entering the assassins guild, if you selectively choose the target, isn't necessarily evil, probably not good, but not evil. Note that choosing the target doesn't nullify WHY the killing is been done so still meets the requirements.

Evil killing someone who didn't desrve it can be covered by the "ends justify the means" path. Not something I buy into a lot myself, but something that has strong support by many, and not a phiolosphy that I consider inherently evil (although not good either).

But I agree with you in one aspect. If you can't understand any of this and can only see things from your narrow moralistic view point you probably should be having this discussion. Leave it to those of us less self-righteous (insane) people. :-|

Stephen E

Theodoriph
2009-03-16, 10:10 PM
Assassins don't generally kill innocent people because most innocent people don't piss off anyone enough to go to the trouble of hiring an assassin to kill them.

Stephen E

Obviously I'm not referring to innocent as in baby-innocent. But rather as in, that they've done nothing to warrant assassination. Hell, most of them haven't even done anything to warrant being arrested...else they would have been and there would be no need for an assassin :smalltongue: Assassins tend to target people who are personal inconveniences as opposed to people who have committed acts so heinous that their murder is warranted and just.

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 10:17 PM
And ironically, the paladin class is also forbidden by RAW from using poison.



Paladin's are forbidden poison because it's against the code, not because it's evil.

Can anyone find a RAW quote labeling the use of poison as definitively evil?

A number of people have claimed it is, but I don't recall ever seeing this, and the claimers seem to miss providing quotes.

Stephen E

Yukitsu
2009-03-16, 10:19 PM
What is your point? Is is a good or evil act to slaughter helpless orc babies?

Even if they are evil, they can't be active agents of evil, so it most certainly can't be good. Killing adult war orcs on the other hand is fine. I won't take the time to say "Oh, please put that poor baby down. I understand that you enjoy eating them, but it would be much more ideal if you put it down and we discussed this in a civil rational manner."


Also, the individual moral standards of various in-game societies still have to measure up vs. the absolute morality presented in the PHB.

By the black-and-white fairy-tale morality of the alignement system, fighting, defeating and destroying evil is an act of good.

BUT. defeating evil does not neccessarily mean killing. You also 'defeat' an evil by redeeming it. If you come to the conclusion that redemption is not possible, you destroy. But dismissing the possibility right out of hand is an act of evil.

And that caveat of possibility does not imply necessity. Defeating through non-violence is sufficient, but not necessary. Dismissing the possibility of negotiation when innocent lives may be at stake can be just as good. And the whole point of an enemy being evil is that they are a threat to peoples lives.


Your example has nothing to do with what you are saying. :smallmad:

That example is a confrontation that turned into a fight.

And an assassination taking place after a failed negotiation, as in your text is still an assassination.

Your example would only be relevant if the weapons are drawn right at the table. Which then would not be an assassination.

Your argument is invalid.

I do have to question as to whether or not you understand what validity means. An individual is given the chance to drop the conflict and the weapons, giving in to authority. This is an offer of quarter. They failed to accept said quarter, and as this method failed, they were taken out. A demonstration as to how even given your absurd notion of mechanical honour, an assassin need not be evil.


I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth! :smallmad:

The point is that good people try to avoid inflicting unneccessary suffering.

Evil people don't give a damn about other people, they only are interested in their own wellbeing.

But under certain circumstances, good and evil people will do the same things, albeit for different reasons.

An assassin, played in a particular way can very easily avoid unecessary suffering.


Good people avoid hurting people if they can help it. Whether these people are good or evil is totally irrelevant.

Sometimes they can't help it. Then they fight. But even then *good* people will give quarter if asked.

And no where in the rules is this implied, and as well, in real life ethics, you have decided on the completely Eurocentric chivalrous honour, which has nothing to do with the good alignment. Keep your real life definitions of honour out of this debate.


The smiting is for when talking doesn't get the job done.

So is hiring an assassin.


That does NOT mean that a paladin will not seek a non-violent solution for a problem. You know, the *good* part of Lawful Good.

But if the evildoers don't repent, the holy wrath is upon them.

Wonderful in theory, but given how often a paladin gets duped into letting a villain who is "reformed" go free only to butcher more innocent people in the future is fairly appaling.


You are again inserting your own views about morality into the game world.

Assassination is NEVER a good act. Assassination is murder, murder is evil, end of discussion.

Provide a quote please. I can in fact back up my position that not all murders are evil, while you cannot.


But as far as the alignement system as presented in the PHB is concerned, murder is evil, period.

No, it's not.


An assassin is, by definition, a murderer for hire. A hitman. A hired killer. It does not matter if he happens to have levels in the Assassin prestige class.

An assassin is, by definition, an evil person. Even if he kills pit fiends for a living.

Heck, even a state-sponsored assassin, who executes .. I dunno, enemies of the state or something, is still an assassin. And therefore evil.

For what reason?


Your rules-lawyering is getting obnoxious. :smallannoyed:

As are your claims of adherence to the rules as written.


The entry in the Assassin class description states that

"The character must kill someone for no other reason then to join the assassins."

Good luck getting your 'bagged imp' past any sane DM.

If the reason I killed the imp for no reason other than to join the assassins, he has no RAW complaint that he can invoke.


And again: Innocence or guilt of your victim are of no concern for the matter at hand whatsoever. As others have already pointed out: You kill for your own benefit, entry into the guild. You murder. Murder is evil.

Show that to be true.


Your interpretation of honour is as irrelevant as is mine. The sole source for the discussion is the RAW. However, since some things are not explicitly spelled out, we have to use common sense to fill in the blanks.

If you do not know what is or is not honourable behavior, I can not help you.

Except maybe, point out that the code of conduct of the paladin is modeled after the chivalric code of conduct. Google it. It is the baseline for what does constitute honourable behavior in western societies. Which the game is modeled after.

The game is also based around eastern societies. The saphire guard in the OotS are an example of paladins willing to rely on less than open and direct combat to defeat an enemy. They use the Eastern philosophy of honour, rather than the western. The code of conduct was left ambiguous precisely for this reason.


Wrong. It helps good people maintain their good alignement for reasons already pointed out numerous times.

So you're doing it to keep your alignment. :smallsigh: Who is it helping in any non-circular argument?


And again, if you can not see why it is a good action to offer a foe a chance to surrender before you go about hacking him to bits, then I can not help you.

While it may be a good action to do so, not doing so does not equate to evil, nor even neutrality. As there is no rules as written statement that mere good must offer quarter, I don't have to assume your personal opinion or real life moral theory to be relevant.


If you do that, then you are stupid indeed.

You offer surrender and/or redemption. if he turns it down, you smite him. End of discussion.

Even if he asks for quarter?


Except the bolded part where it says 'kill without qualm if it is convenient'. :smallsigh:

Like, you know, getting paid for the job.

That is what an assassin does, it is what makes him an assassin in the first friggin place!

Nothing explicit within the assassin class demonstrates that they recieve any money for their services.


I can not discuss this with you in any meaningful way if your definiton of 'compassionate' 'good' and 'honourable' are different from mine. I refer to the RAW as they are presented in the book and to the concepts of 'compassion' and 'honour' as defined by modern day western society and christian believes.

What are yours?

Blank, as per the rules as written. They never state what any of those terms mean. I also draw upon dictionary definitions.

I can not comment on the BoED.


I should point out, however, that the alignement rules solely appear in the PHB and the Assassin prestige class solely in the DMG.

The distinction in any moral sense is academic at best.


You know, 'Core Material'.

If any splatbooks appearing after the core rules books differ from the definitions as presented in the PHB and DMG, that is the fault of the splatbook.

Except, you seem insistent that there are rules within the PHB that simply don't exist. Such as what honour is, or what compassion is. These are terms not included in the PHB.


And these splatbooks are likewise irrelevant for the question 'Why must an (DMG) Assassin be evil?'.

Faulty logic. Murder is always evil. Therefore murder CAN NEVER BE a good act.

Call it an execution if you must. But MUDER CAN NEVER BE GOOD.

Page 104, PHB: '"Evil" implies ... killing others.'

This is affirming the consequince, and is always a fallacy.

Evil implies killing others
Someone is killing others
Therefore, the someone that is killing others is evil.

This is always false, as anyone that is evil may kill others, but those that kill others are not necessarily evil. They are merely possibly evil. To demonstrate how this is always false:

If it is raining, the ground will be wet.
The ground is wet
Therefore, it is raining.

Clearly this is erroneous, as the ground can be wet if I pour water over it, or if a sprinkler is on, or if it rained, but stopped.

As it is demonstratable that not all murders are necessarily evil, the RAW argument that elaborates on murders that some are also exalted must be true, as it does not contradict the PHB.


Right there, RAW, nothing needs to be implied.

Only with the help of a formal fallacy.


Why would an assassin need any authorities consent? That is a matter of law and chaos, not good and evil.

He's not a very good assassin if he isn't working off a contract, now is he?


And that does stop him from trying how?

In that by trying, he is actively giving the enemy more time to assassinate him during the minute of talking, removing all opportunities of ending the threat. You know, that whole lawful stupid thing.


What the hell does RAISTAYCPO mean? :smallconfused:

Rules as I see them and you can't prove otherwise. Especially in regards to the notion of "RAW" honour and compassion, and that murder is always evil.


And your own assumptions appear to be formed by a desire to force your own real-world morality onto the game. Don't, it doesn't work.

My "real world" moral stance is actually utilitarianism, which I haven't been arguing, as I can't imagine anything anyone does could actually make any of the mud dwelling peasants happy.


Take the alignement rules for what they are: Oversimplicistic, black-white fairy-tale morals. Then gently put them to rest and work out something that fits your desires. That makes the game work much better.

But if you want to discuss the mess that the alignmenet rules are, stop bending and breaking them to fit your own desires.

I haven't. I have also added no assumptions of things such as honour, compassion or whatever.



It is the definition of the friggin game!

Where can you quote this?


Wrong. THAT definition would also apply to most villains.

The origins of the word stem from greek times, when gods, heroes, etc. were largely seen as a-moral. Achilles is considered a hero in both senses, despite not fighting for any of the things you mentioned. He was merely an individual of higher than normal capabilities. Hector by contrast is not a hero, despite his attempts to save his city.


It is not being 'better then average' that makes you a hero, it is what you do.

Even a Joe Average can be a hero.

That is a definition of hero that is rather modern. In a medieval setting, the same definition doesn't really apply.


And Superman could as well be a villain. He just choses to apply his superpowers to do good. That is what makes him a hero. Not his powers.


And by the RAW, as an assassin, for all his world-saving, he is still evil.

These statements seem mutually exclusive. Either you are judged by what you do (save the world) which both superman and the supposed assassin do, or you are judged by the methods, and if shooting a man who has no chance of hurting you with lazer eye beams that burn him to living slag is more good than knifing an evil despot in the back, then you probably need to go over the RAW one more time.

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 10:29 PM
Just off the top of my head pretty much every culture hates assassins. So I'm gonna have to go with "Evil" in my book.

There are a couple of racial/ethnic groups that have been hated by most cultures that had contact with them. While Hitler agreed with your logic I think most people don't buy that argument these days.

Stephen E

tyckspoon
2009-03-16, 11:14 PM
Paladin's are forbidden poison because it's against the code, not because it's evil.

Can anyone find a RAW quote labeling the use of poison as definitively evil?

A number of people have claimed it is, but I don't recall ever seeing this, and the claimers seem to miss providing quotes.

Stephen E

The Book of Exalted Deeds proposes the idea that poison is not in itself evil, but inflicting torture on other creatures while you attempt to kill them is (this bit tends to cause a little bit of :smallconfused: but most people can understand it). So stuff like Drow Sleeping Poison is generally fine, and stat damage by way of anesthetic is probably acceptable, but things that cause major pain (most classes of high-powered Str/Con/Dex poisons) are Evil. So is attacking with diseases, normally, in addition to being a hilariously inefficient way to kill things. In this regard, the universal Code stricture against poison is probably a misplaced honor concern rather than a Good/Evil thing. It fits better with the Knight, whose code is concerned mostly with "fighting fair". From the viewpoint of Good and Evil a Paladin should be able to use incapacitating poisons in exactly the same way he can use nonlethal damage.

'course, the BoED then goes on to introduce Ravages and Afflictions. Which operate exactly like poisons and diseases, down to the descriptions of how unpleasant they are for their targets to experience. But they're ok to use, because they only affect Evil beings! That tends to get a rather larger :confused: from anybody who stops to think about it, and is probably one of the major reasons people tend to dismiss the book's ideas about how alignment works.

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 11:18 PM
ISometimes they can't help it. Then they fight. But even then *good* people will give quarter if asked.

PHB pg 105 top - "Alhandra, a Paladin that fights evil without mercy"

Try again.



You are again inserting your own views about morality into the game world.

The delicious irony of some peoples posts.


Assassination is NEVER a good act. Assassination is murder, murder is evil, end of discussion.

And the RAW to support this... or are you "You are again inserting your own views about morality into the game world."


But as far as the alignement system as presented in the PHB is concerned, murder is evil, period.

Lacking quotes for your RAW claims again.




Your rules-lawyering is getting obnoxious. :smallannoyed:

And your claiming of RAW without quotes which IMO has more to do with your personal views than any RAW isn't?


Your interpretation of honour is as irrelevant as is mine. The sole source for the discussion is the RAW. However, since some things are not explicitly spelled out, we have to use common sense to fill in the blanks.

Aside from "honour" having nothing to do woth "evil" I notice you consider your commonsense superior to others who hold opposing views.


If you do not know what is or is not honourable behavior, I can not help you.

Except maybe, point out that the code of conduct of the paladin is modeled after the chivalric code of conduct. Google it. It is the baseline for what does constitute honourable behavior in western societies. Which the game is modeled after.

It might help you a bit if you showed some more depth of knowledge in what you're holding up. The chivalric code was designed to promulate a certain class structure. To hold that class structure as particuly abmirable beyond a surface look takes a certain world outlook that many would have problems with handling in the same sentance with terms such as "good" or "honourable".


Except the bolded part where it says 'kill without qualm if it is convenient'. :smallsigh:

I suggest you check what "qualm" means. I don't think you're using it correctly, or at best you're been very picky about which sliver of it's definition you're using.


I can not discuss this with you in any meaningful way if your definiton of 'compassionate' 'good' and 'honourable' are different from mine. I refer to the RAW as they are presented in the book and to the concepts of 'compassion' and 'honour' as defined by modern day western society and christian believes.

If you can't discuss anything meaningful with someone unless they agree with you then you don't have much ability to discuss things. You're basically restricting yourself to self-righteous mutual backslapping.

I have scanned much of your posts going through this thread and while you've continously claimed to be going by RAW I've seen precious few quotes or indication you actually are going by RAW. As for applying modern western socity and christian beleifs (which are somewhat contradictory in themselves and often opposed to each other) to definitions for non-modern/christian world..., that's like those people who'll tell you what evil people James Cook and Chistopher Columbus were, based on modern standards.


Faulty logic. Murder is always evil. Therefore murder CAN NEVER BE a good act.

Call it an execution if you must. But MUDER CAN NEVER BE GOOD.

Page 104, PHB: '"Evil" implies ... killing others.'

Right there, RAW, nothing needs to be implied.

At last you provide a quote, and get it wrong.

The statement is ""evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
Note "implies". This is not the same as "equals". And just to top it off you then turn around and disagree with the RAW you quoted while claiming RAW.


And your own assumptions appear to be formed by a desire to force your own real-world morality onto the game. Don't, it doesn't work.

More delicious irony. Compalining about someone doing exactly what you're doing.

We all know by the RAW of the class Assassin's must be evil because it's in the alignment restrictions. Unless the original poster is particuly stupid I'm pretty sure he wants to know if there is any logical reason beyond the RAW alignment restriction.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 11:26 PM
Obviously I'm not referring to innocent as in baby-innocent. But rather as in, that they've done nothing to warrant assassination. Hell, most of them haven't even done anything to warrant being arrested...else they would have been and there would be no need for an assassin :smalltongue: Assassins tend to target people who are personal inconveniences as opposed to people who have committed acts so heinous that their murder is warranted and just.

Actually RL assassinations are mostly of criminals or of powerful political figures (who tend to be responsible for pretty nasty acts or significant numbers of deaths). These people aren't in jail because the authorities can't get sufficient evidence against them, or they ARE the authorities. Sometime they're also witnesses in criminal trials, but even these people are often less than stirling characters. i.e. the reason they're a witness is that they were involved in criminal activities.

"innocent" targets do occur but they seem to be a small minority.

Stephen E

gabado
2009-03-17, 12:25 AM
[pointed+coughing]assasin's creed[/pointed+coghing] :smalltongue:

He wasn't evil, he was "manipulated."

Stephen_E
2009-03-17, 12:33 AM
[pointed+coughing]assasin's creed[/pointed+coghing] :smalltongue:

He wasn't evil, he was "manipulated."

I've just looked at the Assassin class again and I can't find a section "assassin's creed" in the class mechanics.

Care to point it out?

Stephen E

quick_comment
2009-03-17, 12:47 AM
Yet, I know how to strike so as to run the risk of stopping (at least for a moment) a person's heart

No you dont. Yes, its possible to stop a heart with a strike. You need to deliver ~ 25J of energy during a certain part of the repolarization phase of the heart. Unless you have your victim hooked up to an EKG and have superhuman reflexes, you arent going to pull this off by anything other than a lucky accident. In D&D terms, think triple confirmed critial hit. Except less likely than that.


If that's too slow, did you know that it takes far less than the force of a solid punch to collapse the human throat? A chop, knife hand, or sudden mafia choke can kill a person quite dead in a VERY short period of time (we complex organisms are horrifyingly fragile).

No it doesnt, and even if it did, a heart attack is still faster.


Those are "death" attacks and hitting someone when/where they are vulnerable (sneak attack) is a part of any worthwhile martial style. Is there something I'm missing?

Yes. Realism.

Stephen_E
2009-03-17, 02:07 AM
My understanding is that blows to the heart can kill via 2 methods.
1) You upset the rythym of the heart beat leading to heart stopping. This is a "maybe" form of death with some people more vunerable to this than others through pre-existing complaints. This is not a reliable way to kill someone outside of maryial art movies.
2) The blow has enough force and speed to break the surrounding bones and drive them into the heart.

It should be noted that stabing someone in the heart is a far from certain way to kill them. Even back in the days of sword duels there were incidents of people been stabbed in the heart and going on to win and then recover from the wound. There is a discussion on this in the RL weap0ns ect thread.

Re: crushing the larynx or kinking in the windpipe.
Yes this is doable, but the death is by suffocation, which by DnD standards isn't quick (although by DnD standards very few injuries would count as 1 turn kills).
If the windpipe is merely kinked in, it can be unkinked. While I've heard someone claim that you could do that to yoursel I'd deem this ynlikely, making self-applying the heimlich manuvere look easy.
If the layrnx/windpipe is crushed then barring emergency traconoctomy <sp?> they'll suffocate.
Both require a reasonable degree of applied force, but if the force is precisely applied it would be easily within the capacity of most adults.

While neither death is quick by DnD terms most people will panic and stop taking any activity unrelated to trying to breath if they're suffocating.

Short of Decapatation, brain destruction or complete severing of the upper (above shoulder) spinal cord, I'm not aware of any injuries guaranteed to be "quick kills" ala death strike.

Stephen E

Fjolnir
2009-03-17, 02:32 AM
1) the "victim" to join the assassins is not someone you choose, but rather someone the guild of assassins chooses for you, more than likely to ensure that you are a heartless bastard they will probably choose someone like "Ol' Jim, breeder of the cutest puppies in all the lands and helper of beggars"
2) breaking the hyoid bone causes the windpipe to immediately crush itself, though death is fairly slow the methods you mentioned do such a thing
3) the flavor prerequisites imply that you are seeking out a master to train you in these arts, either from a militia, thieves guild, or mages guild of some sort, therefore ALL the flavor requirements are basically null if your DM is just handing them out rather than giving over skill testing or something similar (Ie the wise bowman will check if you're an elf before teaching you to be an arcane archer, the thieves guild will ensure that you're evil before teaching you to kill without mercy and the extra-planar fiends want blood sacrifices in their name before your fallen paladin can become a blackguard)
4) "good" assassins aren't good they're LAWFUL, they're still cold heartless bastards who kill without mercy or regret but because they believe in a higher cause, they take their orders very seriously and don't just use their abilities on the guy who refuses to pay big tony's protection money

Stephen_E
2009-03-17, 02:43 AM
1) the "victim" to join the assassins is not someone you choose, but rather someone the guild of assassins chooses for you, more than likely to ensure that you are a heartless bastard they will probably choose someone like "Ol' Jim, breeder of the cutest puppies in all the lands and helper of beggars"

And your RAW to support this is?


3) the flavor prerequisites imply that you are seeking out a master to train you in these arts, either from a militia, thieves guild, or mages guild of some sort, therefore ALL the flavor requirements are basically null if your DM is just handing them out rather than giving over skill testing or something similar (Ie the wise bowman will check if you're an elf before teaching you to be an arcane archer, the thieves guild will ensure that you're evil before teaching you to kill without mercy and the extra-planar fiends want blood sacrifices in their name before your fallen paladin can become a blackguard)

Why would a thieves guild care if you're evil. Pay your dues. Even if the guild is "evil" it doesn't mean they actively promulating evil. Indeed doing so is somewhat outside the scope of evil which is largely based on overbearing "self-interest".


4) "good" assassins aren't good they're LAWFUL, they're still cold heartless bastards who kill without mercy or regret but because they believe in a higher cause, they take their orders very seriously and don't just use their abilities on the guy who refuses to pay big tony's protection money

You're making assumptions that the killing is done without mercy or regret.
And as I quoted in a earlier post, the PHB makes clear that "without mercy" can be an attribute of a "good" person, specifically a paladin.

Stephen E

Narmoth
2009-03-17, 02:57 AM
Because paladins are held to a higher standard than anyone else. Also, an assassin, in theory, would need a higher authority's consent to perform such a hit, so asking a king if he could do it may be on either an assassin's or a paladin's agenda. Also, diplomacy doesn't work that way. While many paladins are good at said task, not all paladins are good talkers. A level 20 paladin may be far more competent at killing the man than talking him down.


On lvl 14, with 20 ranks in diplomacy charisma-boosting divine spells, and by use of the rules for diplomacy that The Giant made, I can still get almost any person to bend over backwards for my paladin.
It's childs play to get the same done by raw.
Combine it with intimidate at same magnitude, and your paladin can get demons and devils to surrender to you.
By using BoED, you can then try to redeem them
And it's not a theoretical character. I'm playing him in Shademans campaign

Lycar
2009-03-17, 03:18 AM
(Wall of text spoilered)



Even if they are evil, they can't be active agents of evil, so it most certainly can't be good. Killing adult war orcs on the other hand is fine. I won't take the time to say "Oh, please put that poor baby down. I understand that you enjoy eating them, but it would be much more ideal if you put it down and we discussed this in a civil rational manner."
Then we agree on this, and the alignement rules support this too.

If the ork is about to bite off the babies head, saving its life supersedes giving the ork a chance to surrender.

If hes not, then giving him one chance to surrender is what a *good* alignement calls for.


Dismissing the possibility of negotiation when innocent lives may be at stake can be just as good. And the whole point of an enemy being evil is that they are a threat to peoples lives.
Yes but in that case you have dismissed the notion of negotiating after considering what it might mean for the lives of the hostages.

A good person decides that he would like to end the situation without bloodshed, but previous experience tell him that this is not going to happen. So no negotiating but immediate attack to save the lives of the hostages.

An evil person doesn't bother with negotiations, because for him killing is the easy way. That is the difference.


I do have to question as to whether or not you understand what validity means. An individual is given the chance to drop the conflict and the weapons, giving in to authority. This is an offer of quarter. They failed to accept said quarter, and as this method failed, they were taken out. A demonstration as to how even given your absurd notion of mechanical honour, an assassin need not be evil.
If you remember, the original argument was that assasination is evil, among other things, because an assassin attacks from ambush, without giving his target any chance to surrender/save it's live. Disregard for the lives of others, part of the definition of what Evil is in the PHB.

Whether this assassination happens because of orders that were issued after, say, a round of peace negotioations failed, is irrelevant.

And your example was something totally different from your text. Your example was a party facing a bunch of goons and asking them to surrnder. They don't, so a fight starts.

This has nothing to do with assassinations.


An assassin, played in a particular way can very easily avoid unecessary suffering.
Which doesn't makes his assassiantions any less evil. He merely avoids commitiing more acts of evil on top of that.


And no where in the rules is this implied, and as well, in real life ethics, you have decided on the completely Eurocentric chivalrous honour, which has nothing to do with the good alignment. Keep your real life definitions of honour out of this debate.
Then what IS your definition of honour?

What is the '... and so forth.' part of the paladin's code of conduct?

What other benchmark do we have then the eurocentric chivalrous honor, when the game was modeled after it?


So is hiring an assassin.
Except that the paladin at least tries to avoid bloodshed.

The assassin doesn't care.

Or in other words: Good people send paladins, evil people send assassins.
Yes that is an oversimplification but you get the point across.


Wonderful in theory, but given how often a paladin gets duped into letting a villain who is "reformed" go free only to butcher more innocent people in the future is fairly appaling.
Are you talking about experiences from your own gaming table?

A villain can get away with faking redemption.

Once.

Then comes the smite.

Also I suppose you don't like Batman, what with him never doing the 'right' thing and killing the Joker, but merely locking him up, so he can escape and kill more people.


Provide a quote please. I can in fact back up my position that not all murders are evil, while you cannot.
The very definition of murder is that it is an unlawful, unjust killing.

This can never be good.

If you look for a just, socially sanctioned killing, you want an execution.


For what reason?
If assassinations are evil, then everybody who commits those is neccessarily committing acts of evil and therefore is, or will very shortly become, evil.


If the reason I killed the imp for no reason other than to join the assassins, he has no RAW complaint that he can invoke.
Yes, and that is the kind of argument that gives rules lawyers a bad name.

You are technically correct, but try this at any real-life table and you risk being shown the door.


Show that to be true.
You do not kill for any other purpose then to gain entrance to the assassins guild. That is a selfish objective, hence you kill for a selfish gain with disregard for the live of your victim. That is evil as defined in the PHB.

Whether your victim did or did not 'deserve' to die is irrelevant.


The game is also based around eastern societies.
Where do you get this from? :smallconfused:


The saphire guard in the OotS are an example of paladins willing to rely on less than open and direct combat to defeat an enemy. They use the Eastern philosophy of honour, rather than the western. The code of conduct was left ambiguous precisely for this reason.
I like the OotS as much as most people on this forum. But they are irrelevant for discussing the alignement rules in the PHB.

Sure help to show the many holes and flaw in them though.

And I dare say the paladin code of conduct was not 'left ambiguous', they game designers just didn't want to fill an entire page with it. They assumed that their target audience would have at least some familiarity with it.

You know, what with the game being based on heroic fantasy and all that.


So you're doing it to keep your alignment. :smallsigh: Who is it helping in any non-circular argument?
Right then: Good people give their foes a chance to surrender, because they respect the fact that their foes are living beings too. Therefore they want to avoid killing if possible. And that is to the benefit of the evil people, who get a chance to save their lives, and possibly their souls (if they repent and change alignement).

If good people wouldn't do that, they wouldn't be good in the first place. Neutral maybe, but not good.


While it may be a good action to do so, not doing so does not equate to evil, nor even neutrality. As there is no rules as written statement that mere good must offer quarter, I don't have to assume your personal opinion or real life moral theory to be relevant.
Compassion implying offering quarter is not my personal opinion but the definition of all western societies I am aware of.

Show me a society where it is not considered compassion to offer a foe quarter?


Even if he asks for quarter?
You misunderstand: You offer surrender before the fight begins. When the enemy surrenders afterwards, then a good character is obliged to accept that surrender.

If the foe in question is an evil creature/person, who has already proven to be beyond redemption, then even a good character is justified in putting him out of his misery. But ideally, he should capture him, bring him before the proper authorities and have him tried and convicted.

Although that last part is more a matter of being lawful, whereas chaotic characters would prefer 'frontier justice' and execute him on the spot.

Note the use of the word 'execution'.


Nothing explicit within the assassin class demonstrates that they recieve any money for their services.
Technically assassins could, like their historical inspiration, be members of a cult or political organisation. So they would not kill for money, but for the glory of their god (Thuggee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee) anyone?) or what have you.

Receiving money was merely one example for how they kill for their convenience. If they kill to raise in the hierarchie of their sect/order/whathaveyou, they are likewise committing murder for their own benefit.


Blank, as per the rules as written. They never state what any of those terms mean. I also draw upon dictionary definitions.
Oh come on! :smallmad:

Is that your argument? Seriously? The rules don't define 'table' either!

Are you actually saying that it is asking too much to expect a human being to have an idea about such concepts as 'compassion' and 'honour'?

The actual definitions may vary, depending on the culture the human being in questionw as raised in, but the default setting is eurocentric western values, simply because that were the societies the game designers grew up in!


I can not comment on the BoED.
This is strange seeing that you are the one who brought it up in the first place.


The distinction in any moral sense is academic at best.
Then why did you bring the BoED into this in the first place. :smallmad:


Except, you seem insistent that there are rules within the PHB that simply don't exist. Such as what honour is, or what compassion is. These are terms not included in the PHB.
There are a lot of things that are not explained in the PHB. Tables for example. Because some things, you are supposed to know about.

Without an idea what 'compassion' or 'honour' is, you simply can not function in society. As disfunctional individuals supposedly don't play D&D to begin with.


This is affirming the consequince, and is always a fallacy.

Evil implies killing others
Someone is killing others
Therefore, the someone that is killing others is evil.

This is always false, as anyone that is evil may kill others, but those that kill others are not necessarily evil. They are merely possibly evil. To demonstrate how this is always false:

If it is raining, the ground will be wet.
The ground is wet
Therefore, it is raining.

Clearly this is erroneous, as the ground can be wet if I pour water over it, or if a sprinkler is on, or if it rained, but stopped.

As it is demonstratable that not all murders are necessarily evil, the RAW argument that elaborates on murders that some are also exalted must be true, as it does not contradict the PHB.
That is just one of the many cases where the alignement rules, as written, don't make sense.

Murder, by its very definition, is evil.

But we do not consider, say, the hanging of a convicted murderer, to be evil.

Therefore we call it an execution to distinguish it from a murder.

But as written, the alignement rules call all killing evil.

Therefore, by RAW, even an execution would be an act of evil. Mitigated by the fact that it is sanctioned by society, but still evil.

And that just doesn't make sense. But that is what the RAW say.


He's not a very good assassin if he isn't working off a contract, now is he?
Not in the sense of assassin as a hired contract killer, no.

But if you argue that anyone who commits assassinations is an assassin, regardless of what prestige classes he does or does not have, a vigilante who kills for his own reasons is still an assassin, simply because he commits assassinations.


In that by trying, he is actively giving the enemy more time to assassinate him during the minute of talking, removing all opportunities of ending the threat. You know, that whole lawful stupid thing.
Do I really have to tell you that there is still quite a bit of a difference between 'challenging the evil baron to stop his evildoing or be smitten' and 'allowing assassins to sneak up, study you for 3 rounds, and then let them kill you'?

Do I really?


Rules as I see them and you can't prove otherwise. Especially in regards to the notion of "RAW" honour and compassion, and that murder is always evil.
Look, there are a lot of ways how a person kill another and it is not evil. But none of those are murder. Executions, self-defese... and yet, by RAW, even an execution is not good, and if one goes by the definition of 'sanctioned by society' still can be evil, if the society in question is evil.

But the point remains that the VERY DEFINITION of murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) makes it an evil act.

And you have not proven otherwise, because your examples of 'non-evil' killings simply are not murder.


My "real world" moral stance is actually utilitarianism, which I haven't been arguing, as I can't imagine anything anyone does could actually make any of the mud dwelling peasants happy.
Utilitarianism put simple: The end justifies the means.

According to the alignement rules, 'the end justifies the means' is a lawful evil philosophy.

Even if your results are good, if you use evil means to achieve those goals, you are evil.

Look at the fictional Lord Havelock Vetinary: He does a lot of good. His results are definitly good. But his means are evil and therefore, by the D&D alignement system, he is evil.

But that explains why you (and many other people, including me!) are so upset which that system. Certainly some evil is acceptable, when the resulting good more then outweights the evil neccessary to achieve that good. The concept of 'neccessary evil' and all that.

But the D&D alignement system doesn't work that way! That's the whole point!

It doesn't care that the assassin, by killing the evil king, prevented a war that would have cost thousands of lives! It only cares about the assassin committing murder, and that act of evil makes the assassin evil!

That guy would be a hero by your standards, and by mine as well!

But not by RAW, and that is why the system just doesn't work for most people.

Not unless you play down to the black/white fairy-tale style morailty where the good guys always fight open and honourably and never stoop to such underhanded tactics as ambushes.


I haven't. I have also added no assumptions of things such as honour, compassion or whatever.
Fine. What are your assumptions about such things as honour and compassion?

They CAN'T be 'blank', otherwise you simply don't have any idea whatsoever about these concepts!


Where can you quote this?
PHB, page 104, right under 'Good vs. Evil'


The origins of the word stem from greek times, when gods, heroes, etc. were largely seen as a-moral. Achilles is considered a hero in both senses, despite not fighting for any of the things you mentioned. He was merely an individual of higher than normal capabilities. Hector by contrast is not a hero, despite his attempts to save his city.

That is a definition of hero that is rather modern. In a medieval setting, the same definition doesn't really apply.
Nice history lesson but unfortunately, not helpful.

The game D&D, is a modern day invention. Hence it uses the term 'hero' in it's modern meaning.

Also, modern values are projected onto a faux-medieval setting.

So while in a real medieval style society the definition of a 'hero' might as well be different, for the purpose of the game it is not.


These statements seem mutually exclusive. Either you are judged by what you do (save the world) which both superman and the supposed assassin do, or you are judged by the methods, and if shooting a man who has no chance of hurting you with lazer eye beams that burn him to living slag is more good than knifing an evil despot in the back, then you probably need to go over the RAW one more time.
The point is that Superman does not kill people. Nobody can really hurt him (let's ignore Kryptonite for the sake of argument please?), therefore if he would ever use anything but nonlethal force, he would be using excessive force.

The point is: He can end most threats without using any violence whatsoever. And he doesn't. Even though it would be a lot easier. But he goes that extra mile and that is what makes him a hero.

An assassin who kills the 'evil leader' is doing something good, but the act of assassination itself is unheroic.

So both do something with good results, but one goes about achieving these results in a good way, and the other in an evil way.

In real life, both should be considered heroes. By the standards of the D&D alignement system however, the assassin is not a hero, he is a murderer.

#####

PHB pg 105 top - "Alhandra, a Paladin that fights evil without mercy"

Try again.
This is just one of the many, many instances where the actual contents of the books contradict their own damn alignement rules.

By their own rules, a 'good' person can not be merciless.

And yet... this... :smallsigh:


And the RAW to support this... or are you "You are again inserting your own views about morality into the game world."
Sure does. Killing is associated with evil. Murder is evil because, by the very definition of murder, there are no mitigating circumstances.

Good characters who kill evil beings are considered to do good, when they defend innocents from the harm the evil creature would have otherwise inflicted.

Killing an evil being just for being evil is still not an act of good.

The greedy merchant may well be evil, but this does not justify killing him. So killing him is still murder, an therefore evil.

Not how the RAW say that 'Good characters... protect innocent life'.

How they go about protecting the innocents is irrelevant. Some are diplomats who try to resolve conflicts by negotiation rather then force of arms. Others kill evil creatures in defense of the innocents.

But a good person does NOT murder.

And no, nowhere in the PHB is explicitly spelled out 'murder is evil'. Because the very definition of murder already includes the evil.


And your claiming of RAW without quotes which IMO has more to do with your personal views than any RAW isn't?
What do you want? A complete copy of an entire page of the PHB?

All things I refer to are right there, PHB page 104.


Aside from "honour" having nothing to do woth "evil" I notice you consider your commonsense superior to others who hold opposing views.
So evil people can be honourable too. Because 'honour' is a law s. chaos thing, not good vs. evil, duh. :smallmad:

The point is: The paladin's code of conduct is listed in in 6 1/2 lines of text. That is hardly exhaustive. So what does the 'and so on.' part mean?

We have to extrapolate from from what we have. Common sense tells us that this code is derived from the medieval chivalric code of honour. Which also considers ambushes to be dishonourable. It is therefore not a stretch of imagination to include this into the list of things paladins are not supposed to do.


It might help you a bit if you showed some more depth of knowledge in what you're holding up. The chivalric code was designed to promulate a certain class structure. To hold that class structure as particuly abmirable beyond a surface look takes a certain world outlook that many would have problems with handling in the same sentance with terms such as "good" or "honourable".
D&D is a game. A fantasy game. In a heroic fantasy setting, knights and paladins are honourable because they are the good guys, the heroes.

Not because they make the rules about what is and is not honourable to favour them and allow them to remain the ruling class.

The chivalric code as presented in the game is a romantisised version of the real thing. As is the entire fantasy life. Or the game would contain a lot more rules about diseases and vermin.

And still, up to this day and age, the ideal of the knight in shining armour is the model for honourable conduct. At least in eurocentric western societies. Which the game is based upon.


I suggest you check what "qualm" means. I don't think you're using it correctly, or at best you're been very picky about which sliver of it's definition you're using.
As far as I know it means 'without any scruples'. As in: Doesn't even miss a beat considering how the murder affects others.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though, after all, english isn't my first language.


If you can't discuss anything meaningful with someone unless they agree with you then you don't have much ability to discuss things. You're basically restricting yourself to self-righteous mutual backslapping.
If I want to discuss the implications of the alignement system, I need to be clear on the meaning of the terms it refers to. If these are already ambiguous, unclear or contested, I do not have a basis for discussion.


I have scanned much of your posts going through this thread and while you've continously claimed to be going by RAW I've seen precious few quotes or indication you actually are going by RAW. As for applying modern western socity and christian beleifs (which are somewhat contradictory in themselves and often opposed to each other) to definitions for non-modern/christian world..., that's like those people who'll tell you what evil people James Cook and Chistopher Columbus were, based on modern standards.
Well? What other standards would you apply then? This is a game! A fantasy game at that! And the designers grew up in a modern western society with (predominantly) christian believes. So they designed the game with those concepts in mind.

There are games out there which explore the myriad variations in morality and ethics. D&D is not one of them.

And by our modern standards, James Cook and Christopher Columbus are pretty controversial characters. What is your point?



At last you provide a quote, and get it wrong.

The statement is ""evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."
Note "implies". This is not the same as "equals". And just to top it off you then turn around and disagree with the RAW you quoted while claiming RAW.
I merely left out the parts about hurting and opressing because they were not relevant for the context in which I used the quote.

The point is: Evil is hurting others. Whether this is by hurting, abusing (emotionally or physically) or outright killing people doesn't matter.

Murder is just the ultimate abuse, denying another living being the right to exist, for no good reason.

If a person is put to death, because society has decided that the right of the society to be protected from that individual's predations outweights the individuals right to live, it is called an execution.

No, it is not spelled out in the PHB that murder is evil. Because that is inherent in the definition of murder.


More delicious irony. Compalining about someone doing exactly what you're doing.
Wrong. I am trying to point out the morality as presented in the game.

I assure you, it is quite different from my own moral codex in several points.

But that is the point, see? 'We' would consider someone who kills off an evil dictator or something a hero. By the RAW, he would be evil unless he had

A) exhausted all possibilities for a non-violent conflict beforehand and

B) faced the evil dictator in 'honourable' combat instead of, say, offing him with a sniper rifle.

Should a paladin, paragon of virtue that he is supposed to be, be allowed to use underhanded means to bring down a great evil?

I think he should. By RAW he isn't. That is what I am saying. I am NOT saying that that is a good thing. Quite the contrary.



We all know by the RAW of the class Assassin's must be evil because it's in the alignment restrictions. Unless the original poster is particuly stupid I'm pretty sure he wants to know if there is any logical reason beyond the RAW alignment restriction.

Stephen E
Well... in that case we have to look at the metagame level.

Cliches (SP?). That's it. Knights are good, bandits are evil and assassins are especially evil. Also craven cowards who don't have the spine to face their foes in honourable combat.

A real hero walks in and starts hacking. Cowards backstab. And assassins make a living out of that. Eeeeviiil!

Real-world morality doesn't apply. Simple as that really. :smallsmile:


Lycar

Narmoth
2009-03-17, 03:23 AM
The requirement is that you kill someone solely for the reason of joining the assassins guild.
The requirement isn't to kill a random person.
Therefore I can choose my target to be an evil person and meet the requirements.
I'm not killing them because they're evil, but because I want to join the guild.
I choosing a evil person who deserves death because I find it more palatable, but that doesn;t change the reason WHY I';m doing it.

So you're left claiming that killing an evil person who desrved death is evil because the reason I choose to kill wasn't because he deserved to die.

Stephen E

Obviously, any dm worth the title would demand that the assassins guild choose the person, not the PC if he didn't rule out the requirement.
But no, by RAW it's not stated who chooses the person.
Then again, RAW states that assassins have to be evil.

I've played with a neutral assassin character, and it's not a problem at all, so this is an easy homebrew.
Beware that the assassin class sucks big time in classic encounters

Lycar
2009-03-17, 03:27 AM
I've just looked at the Assassin class again and I can't find a section "assassin's creed" in the class mechanics.

Care to point it out?

Stephen E

Uhm... I think he means the game Assasin's Creed (http://www.assassinscreed.com/) :smallwink:

The main character is an assassin who goes around killing various people of... er... 'questionable' morale, all the way thinking he's doing the 'greater good'.

Of course there is a plot twist... :smallamused:

Nice game by the way, although the missions are a bit repetitive.

Lycar

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-17, 03:46 AM
1: a. That is the common reference to the heart strike, and also highly dependent upon a target's preexisting vulnerability to such forced irregularities in rhythm. b. This is the manner of strike I'm referring to. It's essentially an upward shot to the ribs, to the left of the sternum. If done correctly, the blow is supposed to target a relative "soft spot" in the bone, momentarily flexing it just enough to cause serious damage to the tissue at the base of the heart. Of course, I only "know" the effectiveness of this in theory seeing as how I've yet to make an attempt on somebody's life. I hope to avoid situations that would merit such actions like the plague if possible.

2. Just how long is a turn supposed to be in DnD terms? :smallconfused: Given how the health system is an abstraction, I was under the impression that -10/death covered a broader state of being than "waiting for rigor to set in".

Stephen_E
2009-03-17, 03:47 AM
Obviously, any dm worth the title would demand that the assassins guild choose the person, not the PC if he didn't rule out the requirement.
But no, by RAW it's not stated who chooses the person.
Then again, RAW states that assassins have to be evil.

I've played with a neutral assassin character, and it's not a problem at all, so this is an easy homebrew.
Beware that the assassin class sucks big time in classic encounters

I agree most DMs worth the title would have the guild name the target. Equally most DM's worth the title would drop the evil-only restriction.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-17, 03:52 AM
2. Just how long is a turn supposed to be in DnD terms? :smallconfused: Given how the health system is an abstraction, I was under the impression that -10/death covered a broader state of being than "waiting for rigor to set in".

A combat round is 6 secs. I think -10/death has to be considered "waiting for rigormortis" given that you can no longer be healed and you can only be got mobile by "bring back from the dead", "create undead" and "revive you for "x" rounds before you go down for good" magic means.

Stephen E

Khanderas
2009-03-17, 04:03 AM
If you kill sentient life for no other reason then getting paid then you are an assassin. That kill may be on a real bastard that tortures kittens for fun but if you did it for the money, that is not important, alignmentwise.

If you are getting paid, but have duties that is more then killing (guarding an area, win a war), you are a mercinary.

If you kill a single target for a reason (he is a tyrant, his death will save countless more by preventing war) you are a vigilante.


It is not the act of killing a single target from stealth that is evil. It is the motivation.
An assassin that is out adventuring can use his skills freely and without extra weight towards evil for death attacks. But his training came from an assassins guild and within an assassins guild you kill for money alone... and therefore evil.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-17, 04:22 AM
A combat round is 6 secs. I think -10/death has to be considered "waiting for rigormortis" given that you can no longer be healed and you can only be got mobile by "bring back from the dead", "create undead" and "revive you for "x" rounds before you go down for good" magic means.

Stephen E

Huh... Astounding the things that slip under the radar at this time in the morning. :smallbiggrin:

SmartAlec
2009-03-17, 05:06 AM
PHB pg 105 top - "Alhandra, a Paladin that fights evil without mercy"

Doesn't say that she kills evil beings without mercy. Only that she fights evil, which could well mean evil the concept, or preventing evil deeds.

Could even make a case that Alhandra always offering quarter and opportunities for surrender towards her opponents is all part of her merciless and relentless opposition to Evil, the externalised alignment/cosmic force.

Stephen_E
2009-03-17, 06:01 AM
Doesn't say that she kills evil beings without mercy. Only that she fights evil, which could well mean evil the concept, or preventing evil deeds.

Could even make a case that Alhandra always offering quarter and opportunities for surrender towards her opponents is all part of her merciless and relentless opposition to Evil, the externalised alignment/cosmic force.

Uh huh..., go for it. I don't buy it, but if you put that up to a GM around me I'd try and keep Po-faced while chuckling internally, unless you were trying to dictate MY PCs behaviour.

That still doesn't get around that some people have been claiming that by RAW not showing mercy is "Evil".

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-17, 06:16 AM
If you kill sentient life for no other reason then getting paid then you are an assassin. That kill may be on a real bastard that tortures kittens for fun but if you did it for the money, that is not important, alignmentwise.


If you're talking about "assassins" in the broad sense then you're flat out wrong. The term assassin comes from, and is still commonly used, for political killing ussually with little money motivation.

If you're talking about the Assassin class then again, wrong. The Assassin class has no mechanic that requires you to kill only because you're getting paid. The Bloodhound class does have a class feature vaguely along those lines.

I'm also not aware of any RAW that says killing for money is "evil". I'd agree that killing anyone for mpney without any other consideration would probably be covered under "evil", but it would also be covered under "stupid" and "dead assassin". Just because you're doing the job for money doesn't mean money is the only criteria you apply when deciding on the job.

Stephen E

SmartAlec
2009-03-17, 06:31 AM
That still doesn't get around that some people have been claiming that by RAW not showing mercy is "Evil".

Stephen E

What is mercy? I'm just going to hop on over to Dictionary.com here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mercy

3 and 5 don't quite apply to situations in which a character shows mercy to another in a combat situation, so let's look at 1, 2 and 4.

- compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence

- the disposition to be compassionate or forbearing

- an act of kindness, compassion, or favor

The key word that comes up here is compassion. Mercy is an expression of compassion.

According to the PHB,


Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

To kill without compassion - to kill without the possibility of mercy, if you will - is therefore an evil trait by RAW.

Stephen_E
2009-03-17, 07:49 AM
What is mercy? I'm just going to hop on over to Dictionary.com here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mercy

3 and 5 don't quite apply to situations in which a character shows mercy to another in a combat situation, so let's look at 1, 2 and 4.

- compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence

- the disposition to be compassionate or forbearing

- an act of kindness, compassion, or favor

The key word that comes up here is compassion. Mercy is an expression of compassion.

According to the PHB,

Originally Posted by PHB, page 88
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.



To kill without compassion - to kill without the possibility of mercy, if you will - is therefore an evil trait by RAW.

The PHB indicates that one tendancy of evil is to have no compassion for others. While Compassion is an element of Mercy, having no compassion is not the same as been without mercy. The RAW makes clear that good people can be without mercy. Says it in balck and white. Therefore a lack of mercy is not prinafacie proof of evil.

End of story by RAW.

As a general (non-RAW) comment -
I'd also note that the definition of mercy doesn't preclude a person without compassion been able to show mercy.

Stephen E

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-17, 02:32 PM
By Dictionary Definition and RAW, Murder is not Evil.

BECAUSE murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another person.

Therefor - Murder is Chaotic, not, by RAW, Evil.

Therefor an Assassin cannot be evil purely because he commits murder, because murder isn't in and of itself Evil by RAW.

An Assassin is not Evil because he kills for money, because an Assassin doesn't have to kill by money to fit the definition of an Assassin, nor the Rules as Written for the prestige class.

The RAW does not say who must or may choose the person an Assassin must kill, so clearly, it is, by RAW, up to the DM. As it's up to the DM (And by RAW, at that) then he's quite free to choose the target however he likes, either the puppy man of ultimate loveliness, or the black hearted wizard who is enslaving the princess and dooming the Country to darkness and a lack of kittens. Basically, the clause is (apart from being stupid) completely irrelevant to whether or not an assassin needs to be evil for any reason other than the completely arbitrary one listed in the pre-requisites; That they must be Evil to take the class because the class's Author said so. For no reason at all, basically.

Oh, and the assassin class is pretty sucky anyway.

hamishspence
2009-03-17, 02:37 PM
RAW in PHB, yes.

BOVD: p7 "Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose, theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like"

(so, a lawful killing can still be murder- a ruler legalizes the killing of people he objects to- if its unjust, its still murder by D&D rules)

BoED p7: "Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible"

BoED p28 "Justice demands mercy, so killing a prisoner who surrenders is out of the question for a charcter pursuing the exalted path of good"

FC2 p30 "Each act of evil adds to your corruption rating" and on the table are Murder (5 pts) Cold Blooded Murder (6 pts) and Murder For Pleasure (7 pts)

Conversely:

PHB 2: p 52-53: Paladin Character themes:

Bound in honor:
"Mercy for those that deserve mercy."
Sometimes, even the righteous can stray from the true path, and thus, you must occasionally show compassion. However, mercy for unrepentant evildoers is tantamount to doing evil yourself.

Merciless: Do any deserve mercy? No.
Leniency and compassion are words used to describe weak dealings toward those who have been judged and found wanting. This doesn't mean you seek to kill all those who, in your judgement, have been found wanting, but it does mean that such creatures do not deserve your respect.
"There is no mercy, there is only judgement."

Yukitsu
2009-03-17, 03:26 PM
The forum ate my post. :smallmad:



Then we agree on this, and the alignement rules support this too.

If the ork is about to bite off the babies head, saving its life supersedes giving the ork a chance to surrender.

If hes not, then giving him one chance to surrender is what a *good* alignement calls for.

It doesn't call for it. While doing so would certainly be good in some circumstances, it would not in others, and just because doing it is good, it doesn't mean other options are not equally valid.


Yes but in that case you have dismissed the notion of negotiating after considering what it might mean for the lives of the hostages.

And nothing about the assassin class prevents them from doing the same.


A good person decides that he would like to end the situation without bloodshed, but previous experience tell him that this is not going to happen. So no negotiating but immediate attack to save the lives of the hostages.

An evil person doesn't bother with negotiations, because for him killing is the easy way. That is the difference.

I also can't find "easy way" in the evil alignment anywhere. Both sides will use the easy way where they can, unless the easy way is evil for reasons other than being easy. For example, a retired paladin can buy a farm. He could use a plow with an ox to till the field, but that's the easy way. So the paladin uses his feet, kicking furrows into the ground, because that's the hard way and thus good. Reductio ad absurdum, but it shows that hard and easy has nothing to do with evil and good.


If you remember, the original argument was that assasination is evil, among other things, because an assassin attacks from ambush, without giving his target any chance to surrender/save it's live. Disregard for the lives of others, part of the definition of what Evil is in the PHB.

And this is erroneous. There is nothing indicating that an ambush is disregarding the lives of the enemies, nor is it indicated anywhere that one must give an opportunity for surrendor, other than your personal and eurocentric (read not rules as written) idea of honour.


Whether this assassination happens because of orders that were issued after, say, a round of peace negotioations failed, is irrelevant.

And your example was something totally different from your text. Your example was a party facing a bunch of goons and asking them to surrnder. They don't, so a fight starts.

This has nothing to do with assassinations.

It does have something to do with an ambush, and how an ambush and peace negotiations are not mutually exclusive, as you assume they are.


Which doesn't makes his assassiantions any less evil. He merely avoids commitiing more acts of evil on top of that.

All of which are evil by your reading only.


Then what IS your definition of honour?

What is the '... and so forth.' part of the paladin's code of conduct?

What other benchmark do we have then the eurocentric chivalrous honor, when the game was modeled after it?

The PHB leaves it open, as every culture should have a different idea of honour in the D&D world. As such, any singular concept of honour is limiting the world in a manner that isn't implied by the actual rules as written.


Except that the paladin at least tries to avoid bloodshed.

The assassin doesn't care.

Both are assumptions on your part. A paladin should not care in any way what happens to a pit fiend, so long as it dies.


Are you talking about experiences from your own gaming table?

Game tables, real life (criminals), movies, literature. It is not uncommon.


A villain can get away with faking redemption.

Once.

Then comes the smite.

Depending on how many people die in the time between, I certainly hope you are willing to take personal responsibility for each and every life lost due to your poor judgement of character.


Also I suppose you don't like Batman, what with him never doing the 'right' thing and killing the Joker, but merely locking him up, so he can escape and kill more people.

Of course I like batman. It's an interesting character in an interesting setting. However, batman is not a moral person. He puts his personal pride in front of the lives of others.


The very definition of murder is that it is an unlawful, unjust killing.

This can never be good.

Only by your reasoning. The PHB does not state this.


If assassinations are evil, then everybody who commits those is neccessarily committing acts of evil and therefore is, or will very shortly become, evil.

Shame that it isn't an explicitly evil act.


Yes, and that is the kind of argument that gives rules lawyers a bad name.

You are technically correct, but try this at any real-life table and you risk being shown the door.

That's fine. My DM and gaming group is fully willing to accomodate the rules as written when it does not harm the game world. Just like how assassins are not evil.


You do not kill for any other purpose then to gain entrance to the assassins guild. That is a selfish objective, hence you kill for a selfish gain with disregard for the live of your victim. That is evil as defined in the PHB.

Whether your victim did or did not 'deserve' to die is irrelevant.

It's not fully irrelevant. Killing a lemure for selfish reasons is pretty much always a petty act of evil, as opposed to finding the baby of the purest kindest parents you can and killing it. And in any event, most evil actions are not sufficient to cause an immediate alignment change.


Where do you get this from? :smallconfused:

Ninja, Shujenja, Wu jen, Monk, samurai. Every book comes with at least one asian character class. The samurai is particularly important, as they have a strict code of honour.


And I dare say the paladin code of conduct was not 'left ambiguous', they game designers just didn't want to fill an entire page with it. They assumed that their target audience would have at least some familiarity with it.

Every society has a different set of honour, and as such, one would assume that they did so to avoid offending certain cultures, and that the target audience would be capable of filling in their societies form of honour.


Right then: Good people give their foes a chance to surrender, because they respect the fact that their foes are living beings too. Therefore they want to avoid killing if possible. And that is to the benefit of the evil people, who get a chance to save their lives, and possibly their souls (if they repent and change alignement).

Which takes a minute with which the evil guy can kill about 10 commoners if he wants to. I've stated before that either the good paladin or the good assassin should only fight the evil if they present a threat to innocent life (as opposed to the mildly evil trade guy that works hard to exploit people, for instance). In the event that he is an active threat, your talking lost the world 10 innocent people, to try to redeem one evil.


If good people wouldn't do that, they wouldn't be good in the first place. Neutral maybe, but not good.

Bit of a circular argument, this one.


Compassion implying offering quarter is not my personal opinion but the definition of all western societies I am aware of.

Show me a society where it is not considered compassion to offer a foe quarter?

Japan for one. But in any event, I'm not talking about the real world. I'm talking about the rules as written, which you insisted we stick to.


You misunderstand: You offer surrender before the fight begins. When the enemy surrenders afterwards, then a good character is obliged to accept that surrender.

If the foe in question is an evil creature/person, who has already proven to be beyond redemption, then even a good character is justified in putting him out of his misery. But ideally, he should capture him, bring him before the proper authorities and have him tried and convicted.

No one is "beyond redemption". Especially in D&D. The means of making them not evil may be evil in and of themselves, I don't know. Helm of opposite alignment, for instance. As such, by your definition, you can never kill another being, even when odds of redemption are catastrophically low, and odds that he'll go off and kill your mother, your father, your brother and sister (and maybe even your childhood pet spot) out of spite are catastrophically high.


Note the use of the word 'execution'.

Used arbitrarily to avoid the ethical rammifications of murder.


Oh come on! :smallmad:

Is that your argument? Seriously? The rules don't define 'table' either!

Are you actually saying that it is asking too much to expect a human being to have an idea about such concepts as 'compassion' and 'honour'?

I think it is asking too much that all people should have the same definition, when in reality, the definition of honour will vary between each and every person you ask.


The actual definitions may vary, depending on the culture the human being in questionw as raised in, but the default setting is eurocentric western values, simply because that were the societies the game designers grew up in!

Again, invoking the RAISTAYCPO. Where does it say that they are using this as their only model of honour? Monte cook who worked on a lot of their books comments on mechanical honour, and includes thieves honour, bushido, the paladin's code as well as a form of honour based around personal freedoms. Closest I can find to RAW honour, and it states that it varies.


This is strange seeing that you are the one who brought it up in the first place.

Misquoted you there. Forgot to add the "quote" tags around that text.


Then why did you bring the BoED into this in the first place. :smallmad:

The difference between core and splat is academic, not the differences in actual content.


There are a lot of things that are not explained in the PHB. Tables for example. Because some things, you are supposed to know about.

Some things are fairly relative.


Without an idea what 'compassion' or 'honour' is, you simply can not function in society. As disfunctional individuals supposedly don't play D&D to begin with.

Each definition will vary. Since this is for the game, there is no set rule for honour, and my personal standards of honour are not relevant, unless I want them to be.


Murder, by its very definition, is evil.

I can't find that definition in webster.


But we do not consider, say, the hanging of a convicted murderer, to be evil.

Therefore we call it an execution to distinguish it from a murder.

But as written, the alignement rules call all killing evil.

No, they don't. As stated, you are committing yourself to the fallacy of affirming the consequince.


Not in the sense of assassin as a hired contract killer, no.

But if you argue that anyone who commits assassinations is an assassin, regardless of what prestige classes he does or does not have, a vigilante who kills for his own reasons is still an assassin, simply because he commits assassinations.

Vigilante kills are rarely political in nature.


Do I really have to tell you that there is still quite a bit of a difference between 'challenging the evil baron to stop his evildoing or be smitten' and 'allowing assassins to sneak up, study you for 3 rounds, and then let them kill you'?

Do I really?

Hey, it's not as though the assassin must be the one to talk to him. Send in an expert to talk for a minute, and when his head returns on a plate, send the assassin afterwards. It's not as though people pick an assassin (who tend to be costly) over an arbiter as a first choice. And as for the paladin, I would generally expect anyone who takes a minute to get his point across will likely be attacked before that minute is up, simply because the villain knows if he doesn't acquiesce, the paladin will kill him. No reason to listen to him at all.


Look, there are a lot of ways how a person kill another and it is not evil. But none of those are murder. Executions, self-defese... and yet, by RAW, even an execution is not good, and if one goes by the definition of 'sanctioned by society' still can be evil, if the society in question is evil.

But the point remains that the VERY DEFINITION of murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder) makes it an evil act.

Wikipedia is not a valid source of definitions, as those that post there have opinions.


And you have not proven otherwise, because your examples of 'non-evil' killings simply are not murder.

Then it's a good thing that not all kills done by assassins are murders!


Utilitarianism put simple: The end justifies the means.

Actually, the end often isn't "good" in any traditional sense anyway.


According to the alignement rules, 'the end justifies the means' is a lawful evil philosophy.

And where does it state that?


Even if your results are good, if you use evil means to achieve those goals, you are evil.

To most people, neither the end nor the process of utilitarianism are good.


Look at the fictional Lord Havelock Vetinary: He does a lot of good. His results are definitly good. But his means are evil and therefore, by the D&D alignement system, he is evil.

Not actually sure which of his means as actually portrayed are evil.


Fine. What are your assumptions about such things as honour and compassion?

They will differ between every person I meet, at least to some degree. My personal definition of honour is the work hard towards bettering the lives of those beneath me, to respect those above me, to protect the innocent at any and all cost, to adhere to the highest standards of justice, and to endorse the free will of all. My idea of compassion is the ability to empathize with individuals, even those that have to be killed to protect the innocent.


They CAN'T be 'blank', otherwise you simply don't have any idea whatsoever about these concepts!

However, they are irrelevant to this discussion, as they are not the rules as written. Neither are yours.


PHB, page 104, right under 'Good vs. Evil'

No it's not. As stated previously, you are relying on a fallacy of affirming the consequince.


Nice history lesson but unfortunately, not helpful.

The game D&D, is a modern day invention. Hence it uses the term 'hero' in it's modern meaning.

I'll point out that this is not stated in D&D at all. The same individuals that made D&D made D20 modern, and in D20 modern, a heroic character is defined only by his above average stats.


Also, modern values are projected onto a faux-medieval setting.

So while in a real medieval style society the definition of a 'hero' might as well be different, for the purpose of the game it is not.

Again not supported by the rules.


The point is that Superman does not kill people. Nobody can really hurt him (let's ignore Kryptonite for the sake of argument please?), therefore if he would ever use anything but nonlethal force, he would be using excessive force.

I have difficulty believing that superman punching one of the random henchmen isn't killing them. They certainly never draw him pulling his punches, and all things considered, I have no idea how that wouldn't kill a man.


The point is: He can end most threats without using any violence whatsoever. And he doesn't. Even though it would be a lot easier. But he goes that extra mile and that is what makes him a hero.

At his level, I don't think either option is inherently harder than the other.


An assassin who kills the 'evil leader' is doing something good, but the act of assassination itself is unheroic.

Again, only by your definition. Not by the rules as written.


This is just one of the many, many instances where the actual contents of the books contradict their own damn alignement rules.

By their own rules, a 'good' person can not be merciless.

There is nothing preventing them from being merciless.


Sure does. Killing is associated with evil. Murder is evil because, by the very definition of murder, there are no mitigating circumstances.

That's not the definition of murder.


Killing an evil being just for being evil is still not an act of good.

Assassination is rarely performed on an individual that is not a threat to one side or the other.


The greedy merchant may well be evil, but this does not justify killing him. So killing him is still murder, an therefore evil.

No one has advocated killing evil people that are not a threat.


But a good person does NOT murder.

Any time a paladin fights a maurading band of orcs on a trade route, he is committing murder. A paladin is not an authority figure. A paladin is not legally sanctioned by the state to protect that trade route, so his killing of those orcs is not lawful. This by automatic definition is murder.


And no, nowhere in the PHB is explicitly spelled out 'murder is evil'. Because the very definition of murder already includes the evil.

No, it doesn't.


What do you want? A complete copy of an entire page of the PHB?

All things I refer to are right there, PHB page 104.

And they don't back what you say.


We have to extrapolate from from what we have. Common sense tells us that this code is derived from the medieval chivalric code of honour. Which also considers ambushes to be dishonourable. It is therefore not a stretch of imagination to include this into the list of things paladins are not supposed to do.

Paladins are held to a different standard than normal good characters.


D&D is a game. A fantasy game. In a heroic fantasy setting, knights and paladins are honourable because they are the good guys, the heroes.

Not because they make the rules about what is and is not honourable to favour them and allow them to remain the ruling class.

I don't see why it wouldn't. Can't say it's based off European chivalry without discussing what chivalry actually meant back in the day.


The chivalric code as presented in the game is a romantisised version of the real thing. As is the entire fantasy life. Or the game would contain a lot more rules about diseases and vermin.

The chivalric code isn't presented. We have a near blank to work off of that lets us have proper characterization instead of forcing players to act in specific ways.


And still, up to this day and age, the ideal of the knight in shining armour is the model for honourable conduct. At least in eurocentric western societies. Which the game is based upon.

Of course, that falls apart when one considers that I'd rather trust a ninja's loyalty, am more likely to get parley from a pirate, and am more likely to find a trustworthy companion willing to play by the rules amongst a gang of thieves. Knights in shining armour weren't actually all that chivalrous when the chips were down.


Well? What other standards would you apply then? This is a game! A fantasy game at that! And the designers grew up in a modern western society with (predominantly) christian believes. So they designed the game with those concepts in mind.

Since they aren't written in there, this is RAISTAYCPO. If they intended to use Christian, eurocentric ideals in all cases, they wouldn't have included all those Asianic or Pagan classes, such as the druid, the wu jen, the spirit shaman, the shujenja, etc.


Murder is just the ultimate abuse, denying another living being the right to exist, for no good reason.

No lawful reason.


If a person is put to death, because society has decided that the right of the society to be protected from that individual's predations outweights the individuals right to live, it is called an execution.

The distinction is actually academic.


No, it is not spelled out in the PHB that murder is evil. Because that is inherent in the definition of murder.

No, it's not.


Should a paladin, paragon of virtue that he is supposed to be, be allowed to use underhanded means to bring down a great evil?

I'll point out that an elven paladin is rather likely to do the sniping of the BBEG rather than facing him in honourable combat, and he will maintain his alignment.


Cliches (SP?). That's it. Knights are good, bandits are evil and assassins are especially evil. Also craven cowards who don't have the spine to face their foes in honourable combat.

And this doesn't pan out in the classes. A good rogue is a backstabber, but is still good. Using sneak attack is not tagged with the evil descriptor, nor is hiding.

Yukitsu
2009-03-17, 03:30 PM
RAW in PHB, yes.

BOVD: p7 "Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose, theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like"

When you switch to the definition of this book, it becomes less and less likely that an assassin is committing murder, as opposed to any of the other forms of killing.

Myrmex
2009-03-17, 03:30 PM
Murder is not evil, it is unlawful.

The only difference between a murder and a killing is that murder isn't state sanctioned. Murder is merely a term you social group used for killing someone deemed by your social group inappropriate to be slain.


I'm pretty sure WWI was started by an assassin who killed a noble. Wonder how that hurt your argument.....

It doesn't.


And most soldiers are so evil, since they joined the military to defend something they hold dear, or to get a good education without paying tuition. God how selfish.

When was the last time a soldier got to decide which wars he would fight in? Soldiers sign up to protect their homeland, but from who? The other countries that had soldiers sign up to protect their homelands.... Funny that.


Ummmm yes it is. If you shoot someone in the leg usually you just want to disable them anyways

Reread my rhetorical question.
There is nothing inherently evil in a death attack, inside the D&D universe.


Lets see how that worked out for V.......

How did it work out for Roy, the party psychopath, whats her face, and the retard? Worked out just fine.

hamishspence
2009-03-17, 03:35 PM
Personal gain? Considered nefarious unless the creature is "a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil" and still "its not a good act."


in some settings, some classes of adventurer (not all) are considered de facto authorities. For example, in the Sword Coast North, according to power of Faerun, rangers are considered to be the equivalent of legal marshals- they can act against lawbreaking that they witness, arrest a criminal, kill those resisting arrest, etc.

in Faiths and Pantheons, it states the Paladins of Tyr, God of Justice, also constitute legal authorities, and in exceptionally lawless areas, are considered to have the right to act as judge, jury, an executioner (note that an executioner is often employed to dispense other punishments than death)

If you want other adventurers to get in on the fun, you could go with the idea of the people who need help, investing the adventurers with the authority to act on their behalf as law enforcement.

Yukitsu
2009-03-17, 03:38 PM
Except that assassins don't gain anything from assassinations, by the rules as written.

hamishspence
2009-03-17, 03:50 PM
Money, if the assassination was for pay. "the ability to take the prestige class" could be considered a form of gain.

Non-profit motivated assassination, on the other hand, is a greyer area- the Slayer of Domiel being an exalted prestige class built around this.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-17, 04:05 PM
Money, if the assassination was for pay. "the ability to take the prestige class" could be considered a form of gain.

Could be, were it not for the fact that the class is mostly worse than a straight up rogue. Or a rogue / wizard.

hamishspence
2009-03-17, 04:13 PM
yes. I think the intent was to represent the fact that Assassins, as a rule, in the D&D universe, tend to kill for pay- and are assumed to be the types that will kill anything and anyone for the right reward- no matter how reprehensible the killing would be.

Yes, people might want a "noble assassin" but I think its intended for "standard D&D" and to show the default position.

Epic Handbook has a guideline for how much assassins charge, and how powerful the assassin you'd get would be, relative to the CR of target. On the other hand- thats a top of the line guild who accept contracts only at their own discretion.

chiasaur11
2009-03-17, 05:06 PM
yes. I think the intent was to represent the fact that Assassins, as a rule, in the D&D universe, tend to kill for pay- and are assumed to be the types that will kill anything and anyone for the right reward- no matter how reprehensible the killing would be.

Yes, people might want a "noble assassin" but I think its intended for "standard D&D" and to show the default position.

Epic Handbook has a guideline for how much assassins charge, and how powerful the assassin you'd get would be, relative to the CR of target. On the other hand- thats a top of the line guild who accept contracts only at their own discretion.

So, how much is a contract on Sam Vimes?

Harperfan7
2009-03-17, 05:10 PM
I'm not about to read this entire thread, but I'm throwing my two cents in anyway.

Assassins (people with the prestige class) are evil because they kill people (any people) for money (just money), and they have to kill someone for no other reason (a random person they don't know until they decide to kill them, if at all) than to become an assassin. They deal in poison (considered bad in D&D, usually evil and unlawful) and apparently use tactics even dirtier than rogues (death attack being more efficient than sneak attack).

I personally think you could be a chaotic good rogue (thus not qualifying for assassin or avenger) and be really damn good at stealth and sneak attacking, use poison, and use assassin style tactics for good reasons against bad people and not be evil for it. I allow rogues to take paralyzing attack and death attack as special abilities, poison use as a feat, and so on.

To me, killing isn't inherently evil, the reasons make it evil or not. I think it should be a last resort method, however.

For that matter, neither is stealing or poison use. I think the whole killing, stealing, poison use issue is just lawful getting its hands all over good and calling it the same thing.

Stephen_E
2009-03-17, 05:45 PM
RAW in PHB, yes.

BOVD: p7 "Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose, theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like"

(so, a lawful killing can still be murder- a ruler legalizes the killing of people he objects to- if its unjust, its still murder by D&D rules)

BoED p7: "Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times villains might betray that kindness or escape from captivity to continue their evil deeds. If a foe surrenders, a good character is bound to accept the surrender, bind the prisoner, and treat him as kindly as possible"

BoED p28 "Justice demands mercy, so killing a prisoner who surrenders is out of the question for a charcter pursuing the exalted path of good"

FC2 p30 "Each act of evil adds to your corruption rating" and on the table are Murder (5 pts) Cold Blooded Murder (6 pts) and Murder For Pleasure (7 pts)


The BoED and FC2 are not held as alignment authorities by most people here or most gamers I know personally.

People either haven't read them (not that available) or point out the significant contradictions and discrepancies.

The "Murder" one is a prime example. By any legal definition of murder I know of the bulk of PC kills are murder. PC's rarely have any legal authority, including Paladins, and thus there killings are unlawful, i.e. Murder.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-18, 07:12 PM
And by our modern standards, James Cook and Christopher Columbus are pretty controversial characters. What is your point?

Lycar

My point is that the controversy is stupid. You can't sensibly judge people by the philosophy of a culture that didn't even exist when they were around.

It is equally stupid to pretend that medieval cultures run on modern western philosophy, and consequently DnD doesn't. It takes bits and peices but on the whole DnD right/wrong is a loose mishmash of RL practical middle ages (amonst others) cultural approach with some modern stuff thrown in. In part because the writers live in todays culture, and in part to make it more palatable to the players who live in that culture. Living in todays culture doesn't force the designers to use that culture in the game. That's what using history books and making the mental effort to put yourself in to the respective envioriment is about. You might want to try it. :-|

Stephen E

Lycar
2009-03-20, 02:34 AM
The forum ate my post. :smallmad

I can feel your pain. :smallconfused:

Sorry for the late answer but first I hd to think a while about what you said and then the forum was less then accomodating.


If I understand your correctly, your argument is that, if we are to examine the question of the repercussions certain alignement restrictions have on classes by mere Rules As Written, we have to first divorce them from any 'implied' meanings and go by their bare-bones definitions, because that is the only common ground to examine the issue from.

As even such terms as 'compassion' and 'honour' do not neccessarily mean the exact same thing for two people, let alone three or four.

If you mean this as a caution against making assumptions to the effect that, say, your fellow players at the table will share your own views/interpretations of the rules, then you are absolutely right and I fully agree with you.

It is easy to see how different interpretations of the 'spirit' of the rules can, and probably will, cause dissonance in the game. Especially if the DM and, say, player of the paladin don't see eye-to-eye on the issue.

Of course this not only goes for alignement rules but also for such issues a 'class balance' or ... err... 'Candle of Invocation cheese'.

On the other hand, as much merit as your point has, I have to say it is a bit academic, as the game does not exist in a vacuum.

Every player will come to the table with his very own interpretations of what constitutes 'comapssion' or 'honour'. This will be influenced by the culture in which he grew up.

I suppose I got mislead by my assumption that most players will share the same, or at least very close, interpretations, as I personally come from a pretty homogenous society. But, as the saying goes, 'your mileage may vary'.

As for using Wikipedia as a source for definitions, well, it was just the first english-language source that came to mind, since I do not use Webster.

Also I ahd to learn that even the german law has a definition of 'murder' that is so neutral that the predominant feature is the premediation of the act, regardless of motivation. :smalleek:

Therefore I was wrong about 'the definition of murder contains the evil'. :smallconfused:

As an aside, there has been a case where someone had been sued because he had said that 'Soldiers are potential murderers'.

He got aquitted because the court ruled that this was a statement of opinion, covered by the freedom of speech.
[/spoiler]

Maybe we can agree on that it is vital for the game, that all players make sure that they are on the same page regarding issues that are open to interpretation, lest the enjoyment of the game will suffer?

Lycar

Lycar
2009-03-20, 02:48 AM
It is equally stupid to pretend that medieval cultures run on modern western philosophy, and consequently DnD doesn't. It takes bits and peices but on the whole DnD right/wrong is a loose mishmash of RL practical middle ages (amonst others) cultural approach with some modern stuff thrown in. In part because the writers live in todays culture, and in part to make it more palatable to the players who live in that culture. Living in todays culture doesn't force the designers to use that culture in the game. That's what using history books and making the mental effort to put yourself in to the respective envioriment is about. You might want to try it. :-|

Stephen E

Because it is called roleplaying to immerse yourself into a mindset different from your own, and D&D is at least supposed to be a roleplaying game.

No argument here.

But the problem remains when people do not agree on what exactly the game is about. If one wants to recreate iron age times, where humans killed off their neighbours for resources as a matter of day-to-day life, and another wants to relive the 'middle ages' of fairy tales, those two views will clash.

Maybe it helps to use established settings that provide their own hints about how that particular setting is supposed to work.

In that regard, I can heartily recommend the various GURPS settings books. They are very detailed and give ample informations how the depicted cultures are different from our own. This makes it much easier to get 'into' these settings.

Lycar

Yukitsu
2009-03-20, 10:39 AM
Forum ate my post x2. :smallfrown:


Maybe we can agree on that it is vital for the game, that all players make sure that they are on the same page regarding issues that are open to interpretation, lest the enjoyment of the game will suffer?

Lycar

Yeah, you summed up my position pretty well. It's too hard to dictate what honour is when I bet you couldn't get two game developers locked in the same room for a week to come up with a singular definition that they are both happy with, let alone a whole gamer base.

I think that defining honour and the tone of the game is important, but that you only need to go over it in detail if you plan on using it mechanically. For instance, I've played an individual that I proclaimed as "an honourable rogue" to which I stated that the word "honourable" was in her opinion, and not by anyone elses definition. The difference in my idea of "honour", and the DMs idea of honour made for some fun RP moments, where I would challenge "offending NPCs" to "honourable" duels. On the other hand, when I played a paladin, I made sure to detail for my DM what honour meant, why honour should mean what it did, ratified it a bit to match his views a little better, etc. Sometimes it's important to reach an agreement, and sometimes, it's more fun to let individual differences take over the RP.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-03-20, 10:54 AM
Do note:
Mercenaries are hiring themselves out as soldiers. Traditionally, they're hired by a ruler, at war, and are only killing other soldiers in the course of normal events, generally on the battlefield; any honest soldier knows he's liable to die for whatever cause/country/ruler he's fighting for. Both sides know about what's coming, one way or another. Individual actions for a mercenary can be good or evil based on the cause.
You're thinking too big. Think on the level of "medieval rent-a-cop." Somebody you hire out to supplement the town guard or to watch caravans. There *may* be violence involved, but this sort of mercenary wants nothing more than to get paid after a uneventful day.

Which isn't to say that mercenaries are still generally a horrible idea for waging war. My experiences in life so far seem to confirm the idea that hiring out people who are willing to use force without being beholden to your cause is a horrible idea.

osyluth
2009-03-20, 06:18 PM
Your argument seems to be that since assassins kill evil people, and paladins kill evil people, assassins are not necessarily evil. The gaping hole in this argument is that assassins kill anyone they are paid to kill,(not historically, but as the prestige class is presented) and regarding life as something you can put a price on is generally defined as evil.

Stephen_E
2009-03-20, 07:24 PM
Your argument seems to be that since assassins kill evil people, and paladins kill evil people, assassins are not necessarily evil. The gaping hole in this argument is that assassins kill anyone they are paid to kill,(not historically, but as the prestige class is presented) and regarding life as something you can put a price on is generally defined as evil.

Actually there is nothing in the Assissin class that says they kill whoever they're offered money to kill. That is purely your assumption of what the class is.

Stephen E

Tensu
2009-03-21, 09:28 AM
an assassin must be evil because it's someone who kills for profit. the assassin class would seem to represent only the amoral hired killer willing to do anyone in for a profit, and there are other prestige classes if that's not the type of assassin you mean.

after all, when an assassin is behind a cause, he's generally called something else, like agent, inquisitor, guerilla, commando, ninja, etcetera, etcetera.

hamishspence
2009-03-21, 09:31 AM
Black Flame Zealot in Complete Divine, is good example.

Starbuck_II
2009-03-21, 09:45 AM
Assassin classes:
Prc:
Psionic Assassin (must be evil like non-psionic version)
Black Flame Zealot (non-good)
Slayer of Domiel (must be exalted good)
Avenger (must be lawful)

Base class
Lurk (no alignment issues)

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-21, 05:19 PM
Lycar - I think yes, we can agree that players and DM should make an effort to get onto the same page with reguards to efforts such as these, because the point is indeed to have fun.

I will also take the following away from this thread with me;

Assassins do not kill for money. They might, they might not. That isn't what makes them Assassins.
The Assassin PRC doesn't imply anything contrary to the above.
No matter how many times this is pointed out in a thread, there will still be someone else to drop in afterwards and claim otherwise.

And most importantly, there are easily a half dozen, if not a straight dozen classes and prestige classes that model an 'assassin' much better than the PRC in question anyway. ^_^ Rendering all of this amusingly irrelevant.

Thane of Fife
2009-03-21, 06:31 PM
Assassins do not kill for money. They might, they might not. That isn't what makes them Assassins.
The Assassin PRC doesn't imply anything contrary to the above.
No matter how many times this is pointed out in a thread, there will still be someone else to drop in afterwards and claim otherwise.

What you're missing is that, in D&D, classes are generally based on Fantasy archetypes, not real-world examples. And the archetypal fantasy assassin kills people for money. So that's the idea behind the prestige class. Hence, evil.

If you don't like that, you can freely change the class's requirements - nobody's going to tell you that you're doing it wrong. It's your game, after all.

Stephen_E
2009-03-21, 06:53 PM
[QUOTE=Tensu;5906846]an assassin must be evil because it's someone who kills for profit. the assassin class would seem to represent only the amoral hired killer willing to do anyone in for a profit, and there are other prestige classes if that's not the type of assassin you mean.

QUOTE]

Can you specify why killing for a profit is automatically evil.

If killing isn't evil (and regardless of personal ethics, by DnD standards it quite clearly isn't) and making a profit isn't evil (again there may be some extreme anti-capatilists that say otherwise but not by DnD standards) then why is killing for a profit aotomatically "evil".

Note: I have no problems with killing for profit been considered ethically "corrosive" and having a tendancy to lead to evil, but that's not the same as been default "evil".

Stephen E

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-21, 08:22 PM
What you're missing is that, in D&D, classes are generally based on Fantasy archetypes, not real-world examples. And the archetypal fantasy assassin kills people for money. So that's the idea behind the prestige class. Hence, evil.

If you don't like that, you can freely change the class's requirements - nobody's going to tell you that you're doing it wrong. It's your game, after all.

Actually I've encountered far more memorable and archetypal cases of well-meaning, non evil Assassins and ones who in general don't kill for profit of any kind than otherwise, for example; The rather excellent 'Farseer Trilogy' by Robin Hobb.

Thane of Fife
2009-03-21, 08:46 PM
Actually I've encountered far more memorable and archetypal cases of well-meaning, non evil Assassins and ones who in general don't kill for profit of any kind than otherwise, for example; The rather excellent 'Farseer Trilogy' by Robin Hobb.

While I'm having a hard time thinking of solid examples of the assassin-for-hire archetype (other than Entreri - who is D&D-inspired - and Nightfall - who 'changes alignment' over the course of the story), it's a sufficiently commonly seen one that I know I'm not making it up - Pratchett even makes fun of it in Discworld!

Most of the non-evil assassins I can think of, though, are shown as starting off evil and being turned either over the course of the story or just before it. Since there are, as far as I can recall, no ex-assassin rules, that's perfectly viable.

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-21, 09:02 PM
While I'm having a hard time thinking of solid examples of the assassin-for-hire archetype (other than Entreri - who is D&D-inspired - and Nightfall - who 'changes alignment' over the course of the story), it's a sufficiently commonly seen one that I know I'm not making it up - Pratchett even makes fun of it in Discworld!

Most of the non-evil assassins I can think of, though, are shown as starting off evil and being turned either over the course of the story or just before it. Since there are, as far as I can recall, no ex-assassin rules, that's perfectly viable.

Not the case in the Farseer Trilogy, and lets be fair now, The Assassin's guild only exists in Anhk Morpok because they basically legalised and regulated all crime.
You can hardly use it, good as it is, as an example of an 'Archetype'.
And even if you do, wasn't the hero of one of the older, one-offs an Assassin as well? And even in Discworld, Assassins are generally honourable, law abiding citizens, often from very good families!

(Also also, as it's legal work, they aren't committing Murder, either!)

GoC
2009-03-21, 09:07 PM
There's your answer right there. If you're using this as a requirement then it's a given that you have to be evil to do that.

Also, assassins will kill people just to get paid, regardless of whether the people they kill "deserve" it or not.

What if you ressurect the person immedeatly afterwards?

Thane of Fife
2009-03-21, 10:41 PM
I'm not trying to claim Discworld as a good example of the archetype, merely as proof that the archetype does, in fact, exist, or else Pratchett wouldn't be parodying it.

Stephen_E
2009-03-21, 10:44 PM
The Garret Files series by Glen Cook has a major supporting chracter that's a Dark Elf Assassin that's basically neutral, Morley.

The Taltos series by Steven Brust has as the main character an assassin that starts neutral with tinges of good that moves to fully good.

Cuckoo's Egg by CJ Cherryh has a world where the judges for a world are basically a guild of LG Assassins (including the 2 main characters).

The main character from Janny Wurt's Tp Ride Hell's Chasm is an Ex-assassin, and is, and always was, good.

One of the main characters of Steve Miller/Sharon Lee's Angent of Change is a neutral assassin (albeit somewhat brainwashed) who moves to good as he gets out of the assassin business.

Tnaya Huff's Quarters series has a couple of assassin's in it. One is Neutral moving to good, the other evil moving towards neutral.

John Dalma's has "the Walkaway clause" that has an assassin as it's main character and both him, and his organisation would be in the neutral/good area.

And this is all from a quick glance over some of my book shelves.


Stephen E

Thane of Fife
2009-03-21, 10:58 PM
Again, I'm not arguing that there's no literature out there with good people in the assassin business. I am merely arguing that the assassin archetype is of someone who kills people for money. I cannot tell you why the archetype exists, merely that it does, and that it appears to be what D&D is trying to emulate.

In the same way, the science-fiction Bounty Hunter archetype has very little correlation to what an actual bounty hunter does (i.e. capture fugitives). But look at Boba Fett or Samus Aran - no one complains that they're no really bounty hunters but rather payed kidnappers or one-woman armies because they fit (or even define) the archetype.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree that assassins should be evil - my 2e Complete Book of Thieves, for example, allows that assassins can work for either money or some cause, and that the latter type can often be neutral (though it does specify that assassins are never good). But regardless, that 3.x assassins must be evil causes me to assume that they're aiming for the killers-for-hire archetype. Which is evil.

Stephen_E
2009-03-22, 01:27 AM
Ao you're saying that since Wizards appears to be aiming for the "evil killer for hire" assassin archtype that assassins should be restricted to that archtype?

That doesn't make sense. We don't hold to that for all the other classes so why should we hold to it for assassins?

Stephen E

Thane of Fife
2009-03-22, 08:15 AM
Ao you're saying that since Wizards appears to be aiming for the "evil killer for hire" assassin archtype that assassins should be restricted to that archtype?

That doesn't make sense. We don't hold to that for all the other classes so why should we hold to it for assassins?

Stephen E

But we do hold it for other classes - the archetypal barbarian thinks civilization is decadent and corrupt and would be better off destroyed, so barbarians can't be lawful. The archetypal monk is an extremely disciplined individual, so monks must be lawful. The archetypal holy warrior is a benevolent warrior strictly devoted to some code, so paladins must be lawful good. The archetypal bard doesn't want to be tied down to any one area, and so can't be lawful. The archetypal druid is devoted to nature rather than any cause, and thus has to be neutral. That's 5 out of the 11 core base classes.

The game has an enormous number of alignment restrictions because D&D is based on archetypes.

jmbrown
2009-03-22, 08:29 AM
I'm pretty sure someone already mentioned this, but the default d20 assassin is based on the assassin's guild in Greyhawk. Assassin isn't a profession in DnD so much as a title like The Mob or The Crips.

I don't know why Wizards never released an addendum for the class allowing you to play as any non-good character (which would make more sense) but that's one of the greater DnD mysteries.

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 01:02 PM
how about the prerequisite- must kill somebody for no other reason than to join the assassins?

"He had it coming" is another reason
"He was going to commit very evil deeds in future" is another reason
"He was an enemy of my country" is another reason

For the killing to be "for no other reason than to join the assassins" implies the would-be assassin must not think the victim deserves it.

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-22, 01:27 PM
how about the prerequisite- must kill somebody for no other reason than to join the assassins?

"He had it coming" is another reason
"He was going to commit very evil deeds in future" is another reason
"He was an enemy of my country" is another reason

For the killing to be "for no other reason than to join the assassins" implies the would-be assassin must not think the victim deserves it.

Random slaughter is very much not part of an assassin's usual motif, however, so stabbing a random guy in the street does not sound like a sensible way to gain entry to a group of stealthy, targeted killers.


Basically, the Assassin is an underpowered class with dumb requirements that does a poor job at modelling at least half of all possible 'assassin' fantasy archetypes. (and by an overwhelming majority the actual examples in this thread.)

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 01:30 PM
yes- in Unearthed Arcana, the Assassin trial makes it clear the group chooses a target for you. Still, intent seems to be that targets aren't supposed to be ones the would-be assassin would want to kill anyway.

Thane of Fife
2009-03-22, 01:42 PM
Random slaughter is very much not part of an assassin's usual motif, however, so stabbing a random guy in the street does not sound like a sensible way to gain entry to a group of stealthy, targeted killers.


Eh, it's not really that unreasonable. Real gangs occasionally require new members to kill people in order to prove that they aren't undercover policemen, so it really isn't much of a stretch that an assassins guild could require prospective members to assassinate somebody whom they wouldn't normally want to kill - heck, being forced to kill somebody you don't want to kill to join an evil group is another trope of fiction.

hamishspence
2009-03-22, 01:46 PM
in I, Jedi Corran Horn, as an ex-policeman Jedi, is infiltrating criminal organization, and it is said

"can participate in crimes against property, but cannot participate directly in crimes against persons- duty to protect people kicks in."

If most real police infiltrators have similar rules, the Must Kill Somebody rule makes sense- and I've seen it as a common trope in fiction.

Jayabalard
2009-03-22, 02:09 PM
The Assassin's guild only exists in Anhk Morpok because they basically legalised and regulated all crime. Not so...the assassin's guild predates Vetinari's rule.

Yukitsu
2009-03-22, 02:31 PM
Not so...the assassin's guild predates Vetinari's rule.

They are also the only people in the city who would not kill a man without several thousand very good reasons. Even Corporal Carrot would kill a man for just one.

chiasaur11
2009-03-22, 02:47 PM
Not so...the assassin's guild predates Vetinari's rule.

Had rules even then though.

You need to be willing to kill someone to get a diploma, but the "victim" is a dummy.

They kill for money, sure, but they ONLY kill for money. Without standards, you're just a thug, after all.

Stephen_E
2009-03-22, 07:07 PM
But we do hold it for other classes - the archetypal barbarian thinks civilization is decadent and corrupt and would be better off destroyed, so barbarians can't be lawful. The archetypal monk is an extremely disciplined individual, so monks must be lawful. The archetypal holy warrior is a benevolent warrior strictly devoted to some code, so paladins must be lawful good. The archetypal bard doesn't want to be tied down to any one area, and so can't be lawful. The archetypal druid is devoted to nature rather than any cause, and thus has to be neutral. That's 5 out of the 11 core base classes.

The game has an enormous number of alignment restrictions because D&D is based on archetypes.

The game has alignment restricyions because1st Ed designers liked the idea. They also liked class restrictions for races and other sillyness.

I don't know about the DnD you play but what I play and by peoples posts, what others play, involves a huge spread of character types and archtypes, well beyond the range you refer to. Barbs very seldom "thinks civilization is decadent and corrupt and would be better off destroyed"!

Indeed if you look at alignment threads probably the biggest problem people have with the alignment system is the class alignment restrictions that by and large don't work. within the alignment system.

Stephen E

Thane of Fife
2009-03-22, 07:25 PM
The game has alignment restricyions because1st Ed designers liked the idea. They also liked class restrictions for races and other sillyness.


I'm well aware of that - in fact, I mostly play 2nd edition, and am a big fan of those "class restrictions for races and other sillyness." The point remains that, when Gygax and company were writing those classes, they were, from everything I've heard, basing them on certain fantasy archetypes; hence, alignment restrictions.



I don't know about the DnD you play but what I play and by peoples posts, what others play, involves a huge spread of character types and archtypes, well beyond the range you refer to. Barbs very seldom "thinks civilization is decadent and corrupt and would be better off destroyed"!

And I am absolutely thrilled for you. Really, it's better to fiddle with the game so that you enjoy it than it is to play "RAW" and limit your enjoyment. But the question was why assassins have to be evil, and the answer, as far as I'm aware, is because they were based on a fantasy archetype which is generally considered evil. If you don't like that, change it. Personally, I like alignment restrictions; I think that most of them do a pretty good job (I could see allowing neutral assassins and lawful bards, but otherwise I have no complaints).

Stephen_E
2009-03-22, 09:06 PM
And I am absolutely thrilled for you. Really, it's better to fiddle with the game so that you enjoy it than it is to play "RAW" and limit your enjoyment. But the question was why assassins have to be evil, and the answer, as far as I'm aware, is because they were based on a fantasy archetype which is generally considered evil. If you don't like that, change it. Personally, I like alignment restrictions; I think that most of them do a pretty good job (I could see allowing neutral assassins and lawful bards, but otherwise I have no complaints).


Fair enough. So long as y6u keep in mind that while the alignment retrictions are evolved from fantasy archtypes in the minds of the original designers, the fantasy archtypes themselves aren't RAW.

Thus beyond the RAW Prereq - "Must be evil" there is no particular RAW reason for an assassin to be restricted to evil alignment. Human's are evolved from a common ancestor with apes, but that doesn't mean they have to live the way that ancestor did.

Stephen E