PDA

View Full Version : Assassin-like non-evil classes



Talya
2009-06-19, 10:52 AM
I've got a rogue in my campaign who is definitely in "gray" moral territory and wants to stay there. He is looking for an assassin-like prestige class without a strict alignment requirement. I can't seem to find anything. (There was that april fool's joke of a lawful-good assassin on WotC's site, but apart from being a joke, I seem to recall it had just as strict an alignment policy as assassin does, only different.) Any suggestions?

talus21
2009-06-19, 10:59 AM
Drop the alignment restriction and call the class something else.

You could call it "The Cleaner" something like Mr Wolf from Pulp Fiction.

Morty
2009-06-19, 11:00 AM
Drop the alignment restriction and call the class something else.

I suggest the same.

AmberVael
2009-06-19, 11:07 AM
I personally recommend Umbral Disciple from magic of incarnum. It doesn't have any real death attack feature, but it has some useful abilities (Embrace of the Shadow, which gives Hide in Plain Sight, sneak attack, something that grants blindsight...), and of course, as normal with incarnum, you can shift around all invested points to be quite versatile.

It's also really easy to qualify for. You can have all the skill requirements by 5th level, and the only other thing you need is 1 essentia (which you can get from a race, from a feat, from a class... whatever you want).

Mr.Bookworm
2009-06-19, 11:10 AM
Is he Lawful Neutral? Because the Avenger is Any Lawful, not only Lawful Good.

Anyway, yeah, I'd second just ignoring the restriction.

EDIT: Actually, the Avenger is any non-Chaotic, so yeah.

Doug Lampert
2009-06-19, 11:17 AM
I've got a rogue in my campaign who is definitely in "gray" moral territory and wants to stay there. He is looking for an assassin-like prestige class without a strict alignment requirement. I can't seem to find anything. (There was that april fool's joke of a lawful-good assassin on WotC's site, but apart from being a joke, I seem to recall it had just as strict an alignment policy as assassin does, only different.) Any suggestions?

Assassin. Seriously, you're the GM, if in your world you don't want to require assassins to be evil then there's no such requirement in your world. Rule 0. The mechanics he wants exists, do you object to them? If not then let him use them.

A possibly unrelated pet peeve follows:

Personally I suspect you don't need to remove the alignment restriction, just to accurately classify the existing character.

"Grey" characters, IME, tends strongly for being a codeword for "conscienceless sociopathic killer", used by someone who can't bear to call his clearly Evil character evil, not for actually neutral characters.

Killing people because you want to take their stuff is clearly and straightforwardly and unambigously Evil. And in D&D land almost everything with Int 3+ is a person, it can talk and make moral choices and decisions.

It doesn't matter if they're "monsters", take orcs for example. Orcs are only an often alignment, meaning that less than half of them are not CE, and at least some fluff has indicated that CN is the next most common alignment so it is fairly clear that a substantial fraction of all orcs are non-evil.

And it's equally clear that a substantial fraction of adventurers are evil.

Neutral cares about others and generally won't hurt others for personal gain, neutral simply won't generally risk life or limb for a random stranger.

"Grey" characters are, IME, characters who will hurt others for personal gain but claim not to be malicious about it. Read the alignment descriptions in the PHB, malice isn't required for evil, callous or reckless indiference and a willingness to harm others is clearly enough.

DougL

talus21
2009-06-19, 11:25 AM
A possibly unrelated pet peeve follows:

Personally I suspect you don't need to remove the alignment restriction, just to accurately classify the existing character.

"Grey" characters, IME, tends strongly for being a codeword for "conscienceless sociopathic killer", used by someone who can't bear to call his clearly Evil character evil, not for actually neutral characters.

Killing people because you want to take their stuff is clearly and straightforwardly and unambigously Evil. And in D&D land almost everything with Int 3+ is a person, it can talk and make moral choices and decisions.


And it's equally clear that a substantial fraction of adventurers are evil.

Neutral cares about others and generally won't hurt others for personal gain, neutral simply won't generally risk life or limb for a random stranger.

"Grey" characters are, IME, characters who will hurt others for personal gain but claim not to be malicious about it. Read the alignment descriptions in the PHB, malice isn't required for evil, callous or reckless indiference and a willingness to harm others is clearly enough.

DougL

I don't completely agree with this. Grey can also mean, your con/burglary didn't go as planned, so now that the flit has hit the shan killing is a viable option to get yourself out alive. You would have perfered not to kill anyone, but your not going to die.

Talya
2009-06-19, 11:53 AM
Assassin. Seriously, you're the GM, if in your world you don't want to require assassins to be evil then there's no such requirement in your world. Rule 0. The mechanics he wants exists, do you object to them? If not then let him use them.

A possibly unrelated pet peeve follows:

Personally I suspect you don't need to remove the alignment restriction, just to accurately classify the existing character.

"Grey" characters, IME, tends strongly for being a codeword for "conscienceless sociopathic killer", used by someone who can't bear to call his clearly Evil character evil, not for actually neutral characters.

Killing people because you want to take their stuff is clearly and straightforwardly and unambigously Evil. And in D&D land almost everything with Int 3+ is a person, it can talk and make moral choices and decisions.

It doesn't matter if they're "monsters", take orcs for example. Orcs are only an often alignment, meaning that less than half of them are not CE, and at least some fluff has indicated that CN is the next most common alignment so it is fairly clear that a substantial fraction of all orcs are non-evil.

And it's equally clear that a substantial fraction of adventurers are evil.

Neutral cares about others and generally won't hurt others for personal gain, neutral simply won't generally risk life or limb for a random stranger.

"Grey" characters are, IME, characters who will hurt others for personal gain but claim not to be malicious about it. Read the alignment descriptions in the PHB, malice isn't required for evil, callous or reckless indiference and a willingness to harm others is clearly enough.

DougL

Actually, he's got no reason to sugar-coat his alignment; it's a decidedly dark campaign. They're pirates with alignment ranges from Lawful Neutral to Neutral Evil (we've got LN, N, CN, LE, E). And I have to say about this rogue, he's really not evil. He's quasi-evil. He's the margarine of evil. He's the diet coke of evil. Just one calorie-- not evil enough. I wouldn't even go that far with him, he's a maverick just trying to survive and enjoy life. He definitely stands out as morally less reprehensible than several others on the ship, though. He avoids doing things blatantly evil.

Doug Lampert
2009-06-19, 11:53 AM
I don't completely agree with this. Grey can also mean, your con/burglary didn't go as planned, so now that the flit has hit the shan killing is a viable option to get yourself out alive. You would have perfered not to kill anyone, but your not going to die.

It COULD mean that. But IME it really never does mean anything that mild when talking about PCs.

And in any case that would be an evil act by a neutral character at best. Burglary is typically very questionable to start with, you are hurting others for your own benefit. Pretty well by definition evil, the extenuating factor is that the harm may be very small so by itself a few burglaries when you really need the money won't shift you to evil.

PCs are typically quite wealthy, they don't need the money.

And in any case you then deliberately kill someone as part of your crime. Try claiming in the real world that wasn't evil. You'll have LOTS of time in prison or on death row to think about this.

Of course for an adventurer or a fictional hero he may well be burglarizing as part of an effort to deal with some evil threat to others. This can get the burglary and even the killing all the way up to good. But in general a burglar who kills someone who catches him in the act is classified as evil in the real world, and I dare say most people who do that are in fact sociopathic.

In fact with such extenuating circumstances you wouldn't call the character grey at all, but rather good.

DougL

Dagren
2009-06-19, 11:53 AM
I don't completely agree with this. Grey can also mean, your con/burglary didn't go as planned, so now that the flit has hit the shan killing is a viable option to get yourself out alive. You would have perfered not to kill anyone, but your not going to die.So you're saying that killing makes you "grey", even if it's in self-defense?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-19, 11:54 AM
So you're saying that killing makes you "grey", even if it's in self-defense?

Breaking and entering into someone's home kinda forfeits your right to claim "self defense".

Talya
2009-06-19, 11:55 AM
Burglary in itself is more chaotic than evil. The respect for property is often more of a law-chaos thing*. Being willing to intentionally use deadly force during that burglary, well, depending on who is being robbed and why, that can be evil.


(There are mitigating factors, relating to what you are stealing, why you are stealing, and who you are stealing from, as well as whether your theft shows any type of concern for the welfare of others. Stealing from a family struggling to get by, that leans heavily evil. Stealing from a real elitist rich bastard who treats the poor like dirt, that's not going to even register on the evil scale.)

talus21
2009-06-19, 11:58 AM
Well I don't want to derail this thread any further. So if you'd like to discuss alignment feel free to start a new thread.

Just remember there are two axis to alignment.

KIDS
2009-06-19, 11:59 AM
I think you classified the rogue appropriately, but I would still suggest simply dropping the evil requirement from assassin PrC. Learning how to stealthily one-shot people can be applied to all kinds of goals and isn't something exclusively evil.

If you really want to avoid that, a few possibilities are Black Flame Zealot from C.Divine (quite weak cleric/rogue hybrid but gets sneak and death attack) and Avenging Executiner from C.Scoundrel, which gets some intimidation stuff to make enemies flat-footed and sudden strike (inferior to sneak attack).

Talya
2009-06-19, 12:00 PM
Well I don't want to derail this thread any further. So if you'd like to discuss alignment feel free to start a new thread.

Just remember there are two axis to alignment.

Oh, it's my thread, feel free to derail. It's obvious based on the responses that there aren't many options in that regard other than re-fluffing assassin anyway, and while I don't go so far as to irritate others by derailing their threads here, I am of the opinion all discussion threads on message boards should flow like natural conversation. Derails are not only inevitable, but part of that normal conversation flow and therefore not a bad thing, so long as the purpose of the original post has already been handled.

Quietus
2009-06-19, 12:02 PM
And in any case you then deliberately kill someone as part of your crime. Try claiming in the real world that wasn't evil. You'll have LOTS of time in prison or on death row to think about this.

Being sent to prison for something doesn't mean that the act was EVIL, necessarily... just that it was wrong.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 12:03 PM
Original post by Doug Lampert
And in any case that would be an evil act by a neutral character at best. Burglary is typically very questionable to start with, you are hurting others for your own benefit. Pretty well by definition evil, the extenuating factor is that the harm may be very small so by itself a few burglaries when you really need the money won't shift you to evil.
What we appear to have missed here is the end of the means. If you were, say, to spontaneously(?) kill the evil prince without trial, that would definately qualify as chaotic, but not evil. You're achieving a good means (ridding the world of an evil prince) by a bad ends (murder).

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Dagren
So you're saying that killing makes you "grey", even if it's in self-defense?
I gather by your tone of righteous indignation you meant killing someone when you're NOT burgling their house? (they'd be chaotic for trying to kill you instead of calling the guards, but not evil). In this case I'd say, go for it. Unless you have Hold Person prepared.

Talya
2009-06-19, 12:08 PM
Being sent to prison for something doesn't mean that the act was EVIL, necessarily... just that it was wrong.



No. Not that it was wrong. That it was illegal. Illegal != wrong. If legality and morality were always the same thing, there'd be no such thing as injustice perpetrated by government.

Oslecamo
2009-06-19, 12:13 PM
If you're willing to allow 3.0 classes, I have some sugestions from song and silence:

Fang of lolth: cheat lolth herself and start to transform into an spider-like abomination. You'll gain a lot of powers wich are really sneack-assassin friendly, specially 4 extra arms for some sneack attack goodyness, sneack attack itself and a bite attack for good measure. No alignment recquirement, only question is, are you willing to become an aberration(actually you become a vermin, but I think you get the point)?

Dread pirate: well, it's a pirate campaign right? Get sneack attack, the possibility to charge trough swinging with ropes/chandliers/whatever and plenty of small mooks to serve you with "aid another" actions. Non-chaotic only

Person_Man
2009-06-19, 12:15 PM
It's also worth mentioning that Death Attack is a weak class feature. At best, you get to use it once or twice per combat. It requires an attack roll and a Saving Throw, which means that it won't succeed much of the time. It's a Fort Save, which is commonly the strongest Save for non-undead/constructs. Undead/Constructs/etc are immune. And the enemy that you're most likely to want to target with it (the BBEG and/or bruiser and/or big monster with a ton of hit points) is likely to have the highest Fort Save (if he has a ton of hit points, he also probably has high Con and hit dice). You can get a much better stealthy killer build out of anything with a decent high damage combo, To-Hit, and stealth Skills or magic.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 12:18 PM
No. Not that it was wrong. That it was illegal. Illegal != wrong. If legality and morality were always the same thing, there'd be no such thing as injustice perpetrated by government.
E.g. Nazi Germany. Or Zimbabwe. Or, in game context, a lawful evil country.

talus21
2009-06-19, 12:19 PM
I guess I see Neutral as selfserving. Your not out to hurt anyone for the fun of it, but you don't particularly care if they get hurt.

Choco
2009-06-19, 12:22 PM
It's obvious based on the responses that there aren't many options in that regard other than re-fluffing assassin anyway...

Yeah, re-fluffing is almost always the best option. I did something similar in my campaign and allowed a good character to become an assassin.

This character's (VERY good IMO) justification was "We are 'good' and yet we constantly kill anyway. Would it not be more 'good' if I simply assassinate the leadership of <insert evil org/army here>? Most 'evil' armies are composed of mostly neutral people simply following their charismatic leader who has convinced them that what they are doing is right, or who have been drafted into the fight and have no choice in the matter. Get rid of the hatemongers and most of the rest will lose the will, desire, and/or need to fight. This way we don't have to kill the grunts who are just doing their jobs and strike at the true heart of the evil."

Obviously that will not work for a non-good character, but since the rogue in question seems to be the most moral of the group, perhaps s/he can can use the "reduce senseless killing" and replace it with something like "more slaves for you evil guys if we don't have to kill the grunts!"

Fastmover
2009-06-19, 12:24 PM
Avenging Excecutioner. Hah... I think this is the name I was looking for. This might work for him.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 12:28 PM
I guess I see Neutral as selfserving. Your not out to hurt anyone for the fun of it, but you don't particularly care if they get hurt.

Well, I don't know about that. Evil is defined as getting what you want by manipulating or hurting others, isn't it? So yeh, neutral characters look out for #1. But they'll also do the right or wrong thing as they see fit, generally choosing what will benefit them most, though this benefit might be, for example, the respect of the Duke's court by sparing his son after you beat him in a duel. It's a fine line I guess, like real morality.

Oblivious
2009-06-19, 12:43 PM
It's also worth mentioning that Death Attack is a weak class feature. At best, you get to use it once or twice per combat. It requires an attack roll and a Saving Throw, which means that it won't succeed much of the time. It's a Fort Save, which is commonly the strongest Save for non-undead/constructs. Undead/Constructs/etc are immune. And the enemy that you're most likely to want to target with it (the BBEG and/or bruiser and/or big monster with a ton of hit points) is likely to have the highest Fort Save (if he has a ton of hit points, he also probably has high Con and hit dice). You can get a much better stealthy killer build out of anything with a decent high damage combo, To-Hit, and stealth Skills or magic.

Assassins get full sneak attack progression, Poison Use, int-based spontaneous casting, and a really nice skill list. Death attack isn't great, but very few classes have anything resembling the above (barring those that require five levels in Wizard).

Riffington
2009-06-19, 12:53 PM
I don't completely agree with this. Grey can also mean, your con/burglary didn't go as planned, so now that the flit has hit the shan killing is a viable option to get yourself out alive. You would have perfered not to kill anyone, but your not going to die.

If you planned a burglary (rather than just drunkenly stumbling through a window), then you are smart enough to realize that a burglary might create a situation where a person dies. If you are willing for that person to be anyone other than yourself, you are evil. The fact is, you are willing to risk another person's life for your own profit. There's no grey.

Eurantien
2009-06-19, 01:02 PM
If you planned a burglary (rather than just drunkenly stumbling through a window), then you are smart enough to realize that a burglary might create a situation where a person dies. If you are willing for that person to be anyone other than yourself, you are evil. The fact is, you are willing to risk another person's life for your own profit. There's no grey.

I'm not sure I agree. I mean, burglary isn't right, but how many young people steal stuff today and it turns out badly without their ever intending, or even realising it would? And you could always flee, surrender, hold person or tanglefoot bag to try and create a non-lethal situation. Or use another method to knock the person out/disarm them.

Telonius
2009-06-19, 01:02 PM
If the Assassin class really is out, Rogue17/Ninja3 wouldn't be that bad of an "Assassin" build. Invisibility when you really need it, sudden strike, poison use. Comes at the cost of a Rogue ability.

talus21
2009-06-19, 01:06 PM
If you planned a burglary (rather than just drunkenly stumbling through a window), then you are smart enough to realize that a burglary might create a situation where a person dies. If you are willing for that person to be anyone other than yourself, you are evil. The fact is, you are willing to risk another person's life for your own profit. There's no grey.


Then just eliminate neutral. There is no point to it from your point of view.
Also if you drive a car you should be smart enough to realize that someone could die from that situation. Is driving your car evil?

The point of planning a burglary is so that you don't get caught and thus no one get hurt especially you.

The next argument from the absolutist will be that by stealing you have harmed someone by depriving them of wealth to eat, provide shelter and the like. I believe your stretching there also your eliminating the Law/Chaos aspect of alignment. Robbing is a chaotic act, not an evil act.

Quietus
2009-06-19, 01:55 PM
No. Not that it was wrong. That it was illegal. Illegal != wrong. If legality and morality were always the same thing, there'd be no such thing as injustice perpetrated by government.

Yes yes. I just thought it sounded better the way I wrote it. :smalltongue:

Dagren
2009-06-19, 01:57 PM
I gather by your tone of righteous indignation you meant killing someone when you're NOT burgling their house? (they'd be chaotic for trying to kill you instead of calling the guards, but not evil). In this case I'd say, go for it. Unless you have Hold Person prepared.No, I am talking about when you're in someone elses house. Even if someone is trespassing on your property, this doesn't give you the right to kill them, and if you try anyway you shouldn't cry foul when they fight back. In this scenario, I'd draw the line between CE and CN thusly:

The guy you're stealing from gets home early and you stab him with your dagger: Probably CE.

The guy gets home early and sees you. You try to run, but he blocks your path and stabs you with his sword. You stab him back and run for it: Probably CN.

talus21
2009-06-19, 02:10 PM
No, I am talking about when you're in someone elses house. Even if someone is trespassing on your property, this doesn't give you the right to kill them, and if you try anyway you shouldn't cry foul when they fight back. In this scenario, I'd draw the line between CE and CN thusly:

The guy you're stealing from gets home early and you stab him with your dagger: Probably CE.

The guy gets home early and sees you. You try to run, but he blocks your path and stabs you with his sword. You stab him back and run for it: Probably CN.

The guy you're stealing from gets home early and you stab him with your dagger: I would view this as more CN

The guy gets home early and sees you. You try to run, but he blocks your path and stabs you with his sword. You stab him back and run for it:
I would view this as more any alignment.


It's interesting how everyone view situations differently.

Person_Man
2009-06-19, 02:18 PM
Assassins get full sneak attack progression, Poison Use, int-based spontaneous casting, and a really nice skill list. Death attack isn't great, but very few classes have anything resembling the above (barring those that require five levels in Wizard).

I agree that it's an interesting and useful PrC. But it's nothing special.

Sneak Attack is +3.5 average damage every two levels, under certain (somewhat limited) conditions. There are probably a hundred better ways to get better bonus damage, with the most obvious way being full BAB and Power Attack. (It's also useful for qualifying for a few feats, like Staggering Strike. But you only need 1d6 Sneak Attack to qualify for it).

Int based spontaneous casting: Beguiler, Duskblade, Incarnate (sortof), Factotum, etc. Also note that Assassin spell progression ends at ECL 15. So if you're playing in a 17th level game, your friends are throwing around 9th level spells, and you're still throwing around 4th level spells.

The Skills are nice. But there are dozens of classes that offer a similar or better Skills.

Poison Use is pretty useless, IMO. Even then, it can be had from Black Flame Zealot 2, Blackguard 1, Whisperknife, Justice of Weald and Woe, Monk of the Long Death, Ninja, Zhentarim Spy, various Drow substitution levels, etc.

Also, you may wish to consider the Psychic Assassin (www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723d).

HP McLuvin
2009-06-19, 02:18 PM
The guy you're stealing from gets home early and you stab him with your dagger: Probably CE.

The guy gets home early and sees you. You try to run, but he blocks your path and stabs you with his sword. You stab him back and run for it: Probably CN.
Eh, I think you have to look at the overall context to determine alignment...determining alignment of the rogue in this situation - in my opinion - would depend on a number of factors: who you are robbing from; why you are robbing them; what you are taking; and what you plan on doing with the stolen items afterwards.

Dagren
2009-06-19, 02:47 PM
The guy you're stealing from gets home early and you stab him with your dagger: I would view this as more CNSee, I consider an unprovoked attack to generally be an evil act.

The guy gets home early and sees you. You try to run, but he blocks your path and stabs you with his sword. You stab him back and run for it:
I would view this as more any alignment.Yeah, pretty much. Even a good guy is allowed to defend himself if attacked. Still, I am in his house in this scenario. I might just disarm the guy. I normally don't go out of my way to protect someone attacking me, but when I'm in his house it's a bit different.

It's interesting how everyone view situations differently.Certainly. Hopefully you'll find the following interesting too.

Eh, I think you have to look at the overall context to determine alignment...determining alignment of the rogue in this situation - in my opinion - would depend on a number of factors: who you are robbing from; why you are robbing them; what you are taking; and what you plan on doing with the stolen items afterwards.True, I was just deliniating one divide here, specifically CN/CE. Let me describe what I view as the significant differences between a pair of hypothetical thieves. Let's call then Alan and Bob. :smallsmile:

Alan steals from rich merchants, men who can afford it. It's possible that his mark isn't doing too well for his position and can't actually afford it, but he isn't going to get hung up over what might be.

Bob, on the other hand, doesn't care. Not like Alan, who doesn't care for possibilities, Bob will steal from anyone, even if he knows they would be left starving.

The difference here is that Alan and Bob both have a measure of indifference, but Bob cares even less than Alan. We could also look at Charles, who cares more than either of them and may even go so far as checking beforehand that his target's business is doing well. I probably don't have to tell you what the three's alignments are with respect to each other, do I? (This is important, since alignment in fiction, unlike real life, is relative (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusCynicism))

As always with these things, this is of course just my own take on the issues. Some may take the view that stealing for profit is something no good character would ever do, while others may feel that to be truly evil, one must be malicious rather than simply callously indiferent. If this is the case with you, I don't mind hearing it but don't expect to convince me either.

Wow, that was a big post, wasn't it?

talus21
2009-06-19, 02:57 PM
I pretty much agree with your post. Kind of feel like I need a gray scale slider for this. :smallsmile: Bob not being completely a coal black killer bent on exterminating all that stand in his way. At the same time, taking someones rent money could completely destroy them.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-19, 06:54 PM
I've got a rogue in my campaign who is definitely in "gray" moral territory and wants to stay there. He is looking for an assassin-like prestige class without a strict alignment requirement. I can't seem to find anything. (There was that april fool's joke of a lawful-good assassin on WotC's site, but apart from being a joke, I seem to recall it had just as strict an alignment policy as assassin does, only different.) Any suggestions?

Donk know if this was mentioned but just let him play an assassin and waive the alignment restriction. Ok maybe he can't be good aligned but neutral should be fine. There are plenty of fictional examples of such characters like for ex the punisher.

Gralamin
2009-06-19, 07:04 PM
No. Not that it was wrong. That it was illegal. Illegal != wrong. If legality and morality were always the same thing, there'd be no such thing as injustice perpetrated by government.

Do note that, that, however, Good is not necessarily right, and evil is not necessarily wrong (As you seem to indicate is true). In-fact, one of the definitions of right is "in conformance with justice or law or morality". So Following the law is right, by definition. This does not make following the law always good.

retkin
2009-06-19, 07:14 PM
what kind of pc burglar would be stealing from people that can't afford to eat if they did so anyway. If you have class levels you are in a manor or someone who can afford something worth stealing in the first place.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-06-19, 07:16 PM
The guy you're stealing from gets home early and you stab him with your dagger: I would view this as more CN

The guy gets home early and sees you. You try to run, but he blocks your path and stabs you with his sword. You stab him back and run for it:
I would view this as more any alignment.


It's interesting how everyone view situations differently.
You don't get to brush this off by merely saying that "it's interesting to see what your opinion is," which is just code for, "my opinion is equally valid."

No it isn't. If you're stealing from an innocent man, then the very act of stealing from him is causing him injury. If you compound this motive with the idea that you are going to stab your victim if you are caught during the act, then he has pretty much made up his mind about what was going happen.

Neither acts are caused by negligence or can be viewed as "self-defense." In both cases of stealing and assaulting, the thief is the offending party. He intended to go into the whole enterprise with the motive that he would hurt this man, one way or another.

While it's true that most any "alignment" would attack if attacked, what the poster means to say is that a thief that never really planned on attacking his victim in the first place actually has somewhat justifiable grounds for self-defense. The thief never intended to escalate a confrontation to personal violence -- he only ever intended to do injury via the theft or destruction of property. If such a thief never carried a weapon on him, it really makes this kind of claim all the more compelling.

Of course, a more conservative sensibility would claim that the property's owner would be perfectly justified in trying to kill a thief if found. Stealing other people's livelihood is a big no-no and can often be tantamount to assault on one's person in poorer cultures -- so they typically make little distinction between loss of property or personal injury.

pingcode20
2009-06-19, 07:47 PM
In the case of the burglar, the thought pattern is really a lot more telling than the end result.

In the case of a Neutral character, I'm willing to believe that said Neutral Burglar is probably unwilling to jump straight to stab-stab-stabbity the moment the guy comes home. Probably hide, bide his time, try to find an alternative exit route. Worst comes to worst, knock the guy over the head and escape. Stab as an absolute last resort (eg. homeowner going to beat you to death in a closet). Big enough job, maybe he can rationalise killing guards.

The Evil guy would have less qualms, and would likely jump faster to confrontation as an escape route. Stabbing would be a possible recourse, although the smart burglar would not jump straight to that conclusion. Disposing of guards, of course, would make the way out a lot clearer. It's really a question of how desperate the situation has to be before stabbing happens.

But either way, I see a burglar being unwilling to go kill without provocation, especially without good reason - simply because while dotting someone over the head means assault, killing them means that it's suddenly murder, and it makes life a whole lot harder unless it's one of those bad neighbourhoods.

Blackjackg
2009-06-19, 08:23 PM
You don't get to brush this off by merely saying that "it's interesting to see what your opinion is," which is just code for, "my opinion is equally valid."

No it isn't.

Seriously? Come on. It's not code for anything, it's explicitly stating that his opinion is equally valid. And guess what, it is.

Personally, I agree with your view more than his, but alignment is a particularly nebulous and subjective topic. There are those who believe that, in order for a character to be evil, he needs to be sacrificing mortals on demonic altars. That's not how I play, but some do, and it seems to work for them.

You make some persuasive points, but prefacing them with "your opinion is invalid" is reprehensible and goes a long way to negating the intelligence of your argument.

Riffington
2009-06-19, 09:13 PM
Then just eliminate neutral. There is no point to it from your point of view.
Also if you drive a car you should be smart enough to realize that someone could die from that situation. Is driving your car evil?

That's silly. There is certainly a point to neutral. The vast majority of actions and people are neutral. Driving to the store is neutral, provided you take normal precautions (driving drunk would be an evil act). Eating cereal is a neutral act.

The majority of people are neutral people. They might steal $10 from a rich man's wallet, or gossip about someone, or another evil act... but they also do lots of good things that make up for it. It's burglary (of a home or other place where there's a chance of violence - an unoccupied shack in the woods would obviously be different) that is so evil that your other good deeds are unlikely to ever make up for it. Burglary, rape, murder... those are the kinds of evil deeds that an otherwise good lifestyle will almost never make up for. Petty larceny, gossip, adultery... those are evil deeds that a person can commit and be neutral (or in very rare instances good) depending on the rest of their activities.


re law/chaos, stealing is much more likely to be chaotic than lawful; this has nothing to do with the question of whether it's good/evil (and it's evil).

awa
2009-06-19, 10:13 PM
i personally don't know that i would put burglary in the same ball park as rape and murder.
what about sneaking into the evil over lords lair to steal the magic dooms day device. Random employee is about to give the alarm maybe your not high enough level to guarantee a subdual. Neutral charecter kills imideatly. god maby see killing for the greater good maby he takes the risk of blowing the whole operation.
Every situation needs to be looked at in context

Riffington
2009-06-19, 10:23 PM
i personally don't know that i would put burglary in the same ball park as rape and murder.
what about sneaking into the evil over lords lair to steal the magic dooms day device. Random employee is about to give the alarm maybe your not high enough level to guarantee a subdual. Neutral charecter kills imideatly. god maby see killing for the greater good maby he takes the risk of blowing the whole operation.
Every situation needs to be looked at in context

Sure, that's a special context. There are extremely rare cases when it's ok to risk having to murder random people (stealing a doomsday device, as you point out), just as there may be extremely rare cases when it's ok to murder specific people (maybe someone who is a bad artist but a good public speaker), and even rarer cases when it's ok to rape someone (the evil overlord has set off the doomsday device and you have 20 minutes to get him to tell you the code to stop it).

Short of such spectacular situations, all three are horrible things.

aivanther
2009-06-19, 10:36 PM
On Topic: Avenging Executioner from the Complete Scoundrel. It's more fear based, rather than death dealer, but does have some sudden strike abilities.

Invisible Blade from Complete Warrior- Have to use daggers :smallamused:

Those are the only non-evil ones I can think of.


On the off topic: Personally, I find the whole alignment system to rather silly anyway. I have a hard time actually using it as it seems so full of flaws to me.

Lawless III
2009-06-19, 11:52 PM
Someone who is (for example) Lawful Good, would probably consider any act of theft to be neutral (excluding exceptional circumstances.) However, a character's view of themselves and of their acts has a major impact on their alignment. Assuming that all theft is evil, why no just make, alignment: any evil, a prerequisite for rogues. The distinctions of morality are terribly murky and undefined, let people play their characters the way they please. If Jimmy wants to be a chaotic neutral halfling rogue who's prone to pickpocketing strangers at random, so be it. It's Jimmy's character damn it. Play your lawful good human paladin and leave Jimmy the heck alone. Atleast he pitched in for the pizza...:smallannoyed:

Riffington
2009-06-20, 12:49 AM
why no just make, alignment: any evil, a prerequisite for rogues. The distinctions of morality are terribly murky and undefined, let people play their characters the way they please.

1. Why would theft be a prerequisite for rogues?
2. You can absolutely play your character the way you please. Your alignment will be affected, but that's fine. If Jimmy pickpockets strangers at random he may be evil, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to play him and have fun playing him.

Ernir
2009-06-21, 12:41 PM
I have not seen it mentioned yet, so I will:

The Slayer of Domiel PrC (from the Book of Exalted Deeds) is a LG-only assassin type. Complete with Sneak Attack progression, spellcasting similar to that of the Assassin, and a (crappy) death attack.

Exarch
2009-06-21, 04:04 PM
Seriously? Come on. It's not code for anything, it's explicitly stating that his opinion is equally valid. And guess what, it is.

You know, I've gotten to the point where I think not everyone's opinion really does matter. If someone is of the belief that it's all right to kill someone without provocation or motivation other than sheer desire, is their opinion on murder's ethic really valid?

Anyone can have an opinion, but for it to have some worth is a whole nother question entirely.

hamishspence
2009-06-21, 04:35 PM
No, I am talking about when you're in someone elses house. Even if someone is trespassing on your property, this doesn't give you the right to kill them, and if you try anyway you shouldn't cry foul when they fight back. In this scenario, I'd draw the line between CE and CN thusly:

The guy you're stealing from gets home early and you stab him with your dagger: Probably CE.

The guy gets home early and sees you. You try to run, but he blocks your path and stabs you with his sword. You stab him back and run for it: Probably CN.

I'd say, for both, some variant of evil- you are commiting felony- if they die, whether they attacked you first on catching you in the act, or not- thats felony murder.

(According to Fiendish Codex 2, Murder is a Corrupt act- and, with enough Corruption, soul can be condemned to Lower Planes after death regardless of dying alignment)

Dagren
2009-06-21, 04:54 PM
I'd say, for both, some variant of evil- you are commiting felony- if they die, whether they attacked you first on catching you in the act, or not- thats felony murder.

(According to Fiendish Codex 2, Murder is a Corrupt act- and, with enough Corruption, soul can be condemned to Lower Planes after death regardless of dying alignment)Personally I wouldn't consider defending yourself from someone attacking you evil whatever the circumstances. What exactly is FC's definition of Murder? I haven't got that book yet.

Of course, this just comes back to morality being somewhat subjective in D&D, since I don't consider killing in self defense (or in defense of others) to be evil while some do.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2009-06-21, 11:23 PM
I have one that some people like (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62659).

hamishspence
2009-06-22, 01:29 PM
BoVD's is "killing a sentient being with nefarious motives"

However, in practice, this is too narrow, and the legal definition is the simplest- which is- intentional killing that incorporates none of the notable mitigating factors, or killing while in commission of a felony.

The mitigating factors include war, execution, self defense, direct defense of others from a immediate threat.

Fiendish Codex 2 doesn't define murder (thats a task for lawyers) but it does divide it into three categories- in order of evilness:

Murder
Cold Blooded Murder
Murder For Pleasure

The point I'm making is, sometimes (in the case of felonies) the person forfeits the right to kill in self defense.

If felony murder is just a subcategory of murder, by D&D FC2 and BoVD rules it would be an evil act:

BOVD: "Murder is one of the most evil acts a being can commit"

Random832
2009-06-22, 01:52 PM
felony murder etc

I don't think the felony murder rule, as a moral principle that determines stuff like what afterlife you go to, is appropriate to a setting that allows non-lawful non-evil alignments.

Corwin Weber
2009-06-22, 10:39 PM
The killing during a burglary is, as has been mentioned by others here, pretty much the definition of Felony Murder. That's usually considered to be first degree, even if other circumstances wouldn't rise to first degree.

Meaning that in states that have capital punishment, it's a capital offense.

Of course it's an evil act. Let's not gloss this over. You want what someone has and you're willing to kill them either to get it, or to make sure you don't go to jail for trying to get it.

hamishspence
2009-06-23, 02:51 PM
CG guys, especially Exalted CG or Paladins of Freedom, probably shouldn't be "rob the rich to give to the poor" but "rob the thief, even the one whose thievery consists of highly unjust taxation, to return to the robbed"

BoVD points out that "stealing is wrong" and Fiendish Codex 2, that stealing from the needy is a several-point Corrupt act.

talus21
2009-06-23, 02:56 PM
I am totally populating my medieval world with evil commoners.

Seems we're apply modern morals to a different time to me.

hamishspence
2009-06-23, 03:05 PM
if you take "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral" as a strict rule, as some do, a third of the population should be Evil.

D&D, at least according to BoED, doesn't use medieval morality "Even if slavery, torture, and discrimination are accepted, they remain evil"

Zael Zuran
2009-06-23, 03:26 PM
It seems the big issue with the assassin class is in its motivations as it applies to your campaign.

A non evil assassin, is a professional killer who doesn't do it for the money. So, no crazy killer stereotypes. Probably something more along the lines of a spy, a military special operative, etc.

Since its a campaign based on piracy, I'd steer away from motivations that just don't make sense. Fanatical assassins, such as the religiously motivated, or elite paramilitary organizations seem unlikely.

A spy seems the most plausible choice, as espionage related murder is treated as the same sort of necessary evil as warfare, rather than moustache twirling fiendishness.

Whether the player is an active spy, on the run, or is approached in game (as the justification for receiving assassin training out of the blue) is up to you two.

Just have fun. You're running the game. Ultimately evil is what you say it is, regardless of what the internet experts and source books say.

Dagren
2009-06-24, 03:32 AM
hamishspence: I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I agree that stealing is obviously not a good act, but disagree that doing it means you give up your right to live, and I don't think either of us is going to convince the other. (Especially in light of the BoVD definition, which seems more applicable, being from a D&D source)

Jair Barik
2009-06-24, 03:34 AM
IMHO the assasin class should be any non-LG/LN/GN
All the other alignments can justify being an assassin.

Dagren
2009-06-24, 04:08 AM
IMHO the assasin class should be any non-LG/LN/GN
All the other alignments can justify being an assassin.Why shouldn't assassins be lawful? They can be LE even without changing anything, so why not LN?

hamishspence
2009-06-24, 12:09 PM
Give up your right to live, no. Give up any right to use lethal force against the victim of your theft, while you are on their property, stealing from them, yes.

Just as being starving doesn't give you the right to murder people in order to live, or being about to drown doesn't give you the right to murder someone in order to get the lifebelt they have.

Some people argue when your life's at stake, initiating violence against others to survive is Neutral, not evil. I find this dubious.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-24, 01:56 PM
Give up your right to live, no. Give up any right to use lethal force against the victim of your theft, while you are on their property, stealing from them, yes.

Just as being starving doesn't give you the right to murder people in order to live, or being about to drown doesn't give you the right to murder someone in order to get the lifebelt they have.

Some people argue when your life's at stake, initiating violence against others to survive is Neutral, not evil. I find this dubious.I don't find it dubious. There's 2 people. You're both dangling from a rope bridge that collapsed and is now cracking under your combined weight. If one of you falls, the other will have enough time to climb to safety. Are you saying that it's evil to decide to save yourself at someone else's expense? One of you will die either way, so why should you be expected to choose to die?

Adumbration
2009-06-24, 02:01 PM
And I have to say about this rogue, he's really not evil. He's quasi-evil. He's the margarine of evil. He's the diet coke of evil. Just one calorie-- not evil enough.

Laughed out loud at this referance. Suddenly you were given the voice of Dr. Evil, in my mind. :smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2009-06-24, 04:52 PM
The difference is, the other person is going to live unless you do nothing.

While possession isn't necessarily nine-tenths of the law, in the case of live saving gear, it seems to me, wrong to rob the other person of it.

Same would apply when its a lifeboat, no belts, no ability to swim, its already full, but hasn't cast off yet. Drawing your gun, shooting the nearest passenger, pushing them overboard, taking their place. Murder to save your life.

According to BoVD- Evil. "sacrificing others to save yourself is an evil act. Its a hard standard, but thats the way it is."