PDA

View Full Version : Dreaded Alignment question



Guilliaume
2010-06-16, 03:38 PM
I hate to fan the flame, but this is something I've been thinking about all day.
Let me explain...No. There's too much. Let me sum up. I've been thinking about child assassins. Semi common trope in fantasy. Are they evil? Raised since a very young age to murder, tortured when good or bad, emotions removed. But Evil? Do they have the wherewithal to choose?

I guess the only parallels I can draw in fiction are Damian Wayne, and Cassandra Cain. Both child assassins, one who shuns killing (for a time) and one who revels in it. I mean I guess it comes down to person to person, but I have trouble casting a top-down all assassins are evil characterization like DnD likes to do.

Off topic, but I really enjoy the BoVD's discussion on morality. Specifically the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm Mode

Eloi
2010-06-16, 03:41 PM
If they kill people without regard for anything, they are evil, no matter the upbringing or age category.

hamishspence
2010-06-16, 03:42 PM
There is Champions of Ruin's comment on evil characters of the "natural born evil" where the person is raised in an evil society from birth:

"learned to deceive as soon as they learned to walk, and probably committed their first truly vile act before they were 10 years old"

It also pointed out that these people may change on contact with a good society, even if they are likely to fear and hate them at first.

The "child assassin" may qualify as this.




Off topic, but I really enjoy the BoVD's discussion on morality. Specifically the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm Mode

Actually, its the other way round:


A maniac puts poison in a town's water supply, believing (wrongly) that all of the townsfolk are demons. Is that evil? Yes.

A glabrezu convinces a good character that the townsfolk are all fiends that must be destroyed, so the character puts poison in that water supply. Is that evil? Probably not, at least not in the context of the rest of the character's actions and the circumstances involved, Still, good characters shouldn't commit even remotely questionable acts on a large scale unless they're absolutely sure there's no other way to succeed. It's rarely a good idea to destroy a town of evil people, because there might be at least a few good people in the town as well.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-16, 03:44 PM
Alignments demand the actor being intelligent enough to be capable of moral questioning and empathy. By the rules, that means int 4+. Yes, kids doing evil things are evil.

Another_Poet
2010-06-16, 03:46 PM
I tend to agree with Eloi (apparently this happens a lot).

D&D takes intent and context out of moral alignment. Creatures who cause needless pain, havoc or death are evil because of their actions. That includes children if they are habitually that way. An accident or being tricked into murdering someone might not make a kid evil, but assassin behaviour will.

One thing I would allow is that a child assassin has a much higher chance for being redeemed (i.e. changing back to Neutral or Good alignment) than an adult assassin. This is because a kid is still developing and they are highly impressionable. A paladin who captures an 8 year old assassin should really consider trying to rear that child and teach him about morals, rather than executing him or turning him over to someone who will.

So in other words I would rule that the child is evil but would tempt Good characters with the possibility of reform the child rather than simply vanquishing him.

ap

DoodlesD
2010-06-16, 03:52 PM
Alignments demand the actor being intelligent enough to be capable of moral questioning and empathy. By the rules, that means int 4+. Yes, kids doing evil things are evil.

I have to agree. Despite the fact that the children may have been raised in an environment in which murder and violence are expected of them, they still have a choice whether or not to commit these violent acts. Those who do so willingly are most definitely evil. Those who do so unwillingly may be characterized as Lawful Neutral, though most would still be considered evil because they still choose to hurt and kill. Finally, those that choose not to kill could be considered good, but at the same time would lose that status of assassins.

Though it may seem like the children don't have a choice, they really do. Fear may cause them to choose to kill, but the bottom line is that they make that choice.

hamishspence
2010-06-16, 03:52 PM
CoR did say that of the evil tropes, "natural born evil" (of the Raised By Villains type) is more likely to change, on contact with other cultures.

This probably requires the evil character to be treated with kindness and understanding, though.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2010-06-16, 04:03 PM
The alignment system is just so faulty I don't even know where to begin to start. For instance, why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste? Sure, part of the evil is that they take pleasure in it, but taking pleasure in killing specific things was a class feature of rangers, and plenty of examples of "good" heroic characters love killing orcs, goblins, or some other "monster" race. So, really, all good seems to have on its side is bigotry and wastefulness, while "evil" creatures like gnolls are equal-opportunity murderers and actually use their kills for something practical.

So, to answer the question more directly, if the child assassins gleefully kill people who don't look like them and poison the meat so that it's no good, even for carrion-eating animals, they're basically the paragon exemplars of moral righteousness, as far as I can tell.

Eloi
2010-06-16, 04:09 PM
The alignment system is just so faulty I don't even know where to begin to start. For instance, why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste? Sure, part of the evil is that they take pleasure in it, but taking pleasure in killing specific things was a class feature of rangers, and plenty of examples of "good" heroic characters love killing orcs, goblins, or some other "monster" race. So, really, all good seems to have on its side is bigotry and wastefulness, while "evil" creatures like gnolls are equal-opportunity murderers and actually use their kills for something practical.

So, to answer the question more directly, if the child assassins gleefully kill people who don't look like them and poison the meat so that it's no good, even for carrion-eating animals, they're basically the paragon exemplars of moral righteousness, as far as I can tell.

[[citation needed]]

Please cite sources in accordance with Wikipedia's OoTS's forum citation policy to back up your arguments.

Aeromyre
2010-06-16, 04:10 PM
The alignment system is just so faulty I don't even know where to begin to start. For instance, why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste? Sure, part of the evil is that they take pleasure in it, but taking pleasure in killing specific things was a class feature of rangers, and plenty of examples of "good" heroic characters love killing orcs, goblins, or some other "monster" race. So, really, all good seems to have on its side is bigotry and wastefulness, while "evil" creatures like gnolls are equal-opportunity murderers and actually use their kills for something practical.

So, to answer the question more directly, if the child assassins gleefully kill people who don't look like them and poison the meat so that it's no good, even for carrion-eating animals, they're basically the paragon exemplars of moral righteousness, as far as I can tell.

I agree with you on one level, but just because they're practical with their kills doesn't mean they're not evil. Anyone who kills anything is evil, with the exceptions of if it is for survival.
Honestly if a paladin were to kill a person that he could have avoided killing he has committed an evil act. Killing an orc simply because he is an orc, is evil.
I agree that Gnolls could be considered neutral if they stay in their lairs slaying only intruders and eating them. But Gnolls raid villages kill and rape women and children...They are evil...

Children willfully killing people are evil. Those children choose not to kill are neutral, children deciding to work against their masters for the good of others, are good.

hamishspence
2010-06-16, 04:15 PM
The reason gnolls are particularly evil is that they take pleasure in the sufferings of their food:

MM page 130:

A gnoll is a nocturnal creature, preferring intelligent creatures for food because they scream more.

Even then, Races of the Wild mentions gnoll tribes which are exceptions, and which are trying to move away from the savagery of their kin.

As to "evil children"- those raised from childhood to have different values from Neutral or Good beings, while still evil- may deserve more sympathy than other evil beings- since its very hard to resist the pressure of an evil culture if you're raised in it from birth.

the PHB points out that a human raised by CE beings is likely to become CE.

Steward
2010-06-16, 04:23 PM
Yeah, that sounds about right. I like eating meat, but I don't eat it specifically so I can get off on the screaming of the calves as their mothers are ripped away from them and torn to shreds in my claws.

Maerok
2010-06-16, 04:27 PM
Yeah, that sounds about right. I like eating meat, but I don't eat it specifically so I can get off on the screaming of the calves as their mothers are ripped away from them and torn to shreds in my claws.

But that's where the best flavor comes from! </gnoll>

hamishspence
2010-06-16, 04:30 PM
Honestly if a paladin were to kill a person that he could have avoided killing he has committed an evil act.

Sadly, the only book that's pretty overt about this, is BoED, which while good about some things, does have more than a few flaws.

Its emphasis on mercy, and on the idea that its not always Good to kill evil beings, makes it pretty atypical.

DoodlesD
2010-06-16, 04:33 PM
If you're having a problem understanding Alignment, this website is a great resource that explains things in detail.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

Aeromyre
2010-06-16, 04:36 PM
Sadly, the only book that's pretty overt about this, is BoED, which while good about some things, does have more than a few flaws.

Its emphasis on mercy, and on the idea that its not always Good to kill evil beings, makes it pretty atypical.

Never read Exalted deeds but i did read
http://easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html
A great site to be an expert on Alignment, also for tracking.

Aeromyre
2010-06-16, 04:38 PM
If you're having a problem understanding Alignment, this website is a great resource that explains things in detail.

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

Hahaha love you bro :D

hamishspence
2010-06-16, 04:39 PM
I've cited that site a few times in other threads- it's pretty good.

When it comes to alignment-centric splatbooks, I like Champions of Ruin and its list of various evil types (Driven to Evil, I Am Not Evil, There Is No Evil, Better to Reign in Hell, and so on)

as well as Savage Species's "Evil people can be loving, loyal, etc without affecting their evilness- because they compartmentalize"

Devils_Advocate
2010-06-17, 02:35 AM
I've been thinking about child assassins. Semi common trope in fantasy. Are they evil? Raised since a very young age to murder, tortured when good or bad, emotions removed. But Evil?
That's seems like too broad a description for only a single alignment to apply. I'd guess generally somewhere from Lawful Evil to Neutral. So if what you're saying is that you don't think that they'd be necessarily Evil, I'm inclined to agree. Indeed, I question whether adult assassins are necessarily Evil.

Take, for instance, the Ankh-Morpork Assassins' Guild (http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Assassins%27_Guild). Recognizing that assassinations are going to happen, as there's a market for them, they try to ensure that people are only killed for money, and even then only for a great deal of money, this being about as much of a limit as is practical. (Assisted suicide (http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Suicide) is of course the major exception, as preventing it is popularly recognized as wildly infeasible.) Their general attitude may be seen in sharp contrast to that of Teatime, who of course is (rather unambiguously) Evil.


Do they have the wherewithal to choose?
"Free will" is a contradiction in terms, insofar as "will" refers to a force that determines our actions and the term "free" denies any such determination. To value unpredictability in this context seems to me absurd. Are we to regard voluntary action as morally significant if and only if the cognitive processes involved in decision-making include the equivalent of a random number generator?

One might say that it is the whatever-it-is that directs an individual's willful actions that has an alignment, even if it turns out to be a very different sort of thing than the whatever-it-is that directs the next guy's willful actions.


the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm Mode
As hamishspence points out, it's actually the reverse. But the fact that you could remember it being the other way around is sort of illustrative of the problem here. Precisely reverse the book's assessment and the result still makes as much sense as what the book actually said, i.e. no sense at all.

Since the morally relevant factors seem to be the same in both cases -- dude kills people 'cause he thinks they're demons, but they're not -- we're left to guess at the basis on which the author is drawing a distinction. Is it a matter of what how a "reasonable person" would perceive things, meaning that if the crazy guy was right by wild coincidence and the townsfolk just so happened to be demons, he'd still be Evil, because his choice would be Evil were he sane, and the fact that he actually isn't sane is discounted for some bizarre arbitrary reason? Could be. Who knows? It seems hypothetically possible, if unlikely, that these two cases are treated differently on some basis that many people would agree with. But how can the author expect readers to adopt the philosophical position at work when that basis isn't even given? Certainly it's not self-evident.


D&D takes intent and context out of moral alignment
Eh? The Good and Evil of deeds are definitely context-dependent. Flooding a valley knowing that no one is in it is very morally different from flooding the valley knowing that there's a town full of people in it. Swinging your sword in front of you becomes morally different depending on whether someone is standing there (and, if so, who). The context in which an action occurs totally matters. Whether something even constitutes e.g. "killing" depends on its consequences -- e.g whether it results in any deaths -- which are as much a result of the circumstances in which the action is taken as of the physical nature of the act itself.


why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste?
The relevant difference seems to be that the gnolls will happily harm "innocents", but Good characters won't. So a Good adventurer can invade an enemy tribe, kill anyone who puts up a fight, and take their valuables -- standard dungeon-crawl operating procedure, in other words -- but he won't also mow down a bunch of cowering women and children, spit on their remains, and salt the earth. Evil adventurers (who are about as common as non-Evil adventurers, both generally and among humans) can and will do those things, of course.

So "your money or your life" is, generally speaking, a perfectly morally legitimate challenge to issue to the wealthiest people in D&D, because that's how they got their wealth in the first place, and if they whine when that gets turned back around on them, they're just being poor sports. Dragons and kings can get away with having great big piles of gold just because those capable of taking such vast treasure hoards don't want to deal with the high-level equivalent of mountains of pennies. That they could swoop in and take them whenever the hell they wanted to means that they'll just leave that loot where it is until they actually need it for something, which isn't likely, since there are more efficient ways of acquiring what they actually want: very expensive magic items.

SpekterofDavid
2010-06-17, 02:37 AM
More details pleese. Plus my quote "It depends on the hands that use it" But generally not better than nutral

Mystic Muse
2010-06-17, 04:07 AM
In D&D? Yes they're evil.

In real life? Depends entirely upon your point of view. Can Children fully comprehend the moral consequences of their actions? I've heard of several adults who aren't capable of that. (Although, I won't name names.)

Of course, children can be smarter than adults even if they aren't child prodigies. Which is kind of sad.

Escheton
2010-06-17, 04:59 AM
In D&D? Yes they're evil.

In real life? Depends entirely upon your point of view. Can Children fully comprehend the moral consequences of their actions? I've heard of several adults who aren't capable of that. (Although, I won't name names.)

Of course, children can be smarter than adults even if they aren't child prodigies. Which is kind of sad.

Well, you are born with set stats. During your life you only get skillpoints. Not much you can do about a low int-roll.

Serpentine
2010-06-17, 05:12 AM
Let me explain...No. There's too much. Let me sum up.[/Inigo Montoya] Have an Internet.

I've been thinking about child assassins. Semi common trope in fantasy. Are they evil? Raised since a very young age to murder, tortured when good or bad, emotions removed. But Evil? Do they have the wherewithal to choose?I would say they're redeemably Evil, because repeated Evil acts overwhelm any other considerations, or else Neutral-teetering-on-the-edge-of-Evil to take into account that, by our standards, children cannot be held accountable for their actions.

...but I have trouble casting a top-down all assassins are evil characterization like DnD likes to do.Absolutely, me too. It is very, very easy for me to envisage a Good assassin, and I do not consider the use of poisons to be Evil in my games.

Off topic, but I really enjoy the BoVD's discussion on morality. Specifically the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm ModeApparently this isn't correct anyway. But personally, I look at it thusly: Evil acts performed under false pretenses, insanity or with Good intentions are still Evil, but not as Evil as if performed by a reasonable, sane, well-informed individual. Enough of these actions and they become Evil aligned, but not as quickly. Once they are Evil, they can be redeemed relatively easily. In the case of insanity, I would treat the illness like a magical alignment-switching effect - as soon as the mental illness is removed, they will revert to their normal alignment and behaviour. People who do Evil with Good intentions will probably be harder to redeem (see: Miko).

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-17, 05:34 AM
Well, you are born with set stats. During your life you only get skillpoints. Not much you can do about a low int-roll.

There's totally something you can do about a low Int roll - level up to a level divisible by 4!

Also, aging effects. According to D20 Modern, children under 12 have a penalty to Intelligence.

Anyway. yes, a child who willingly commits Evil actions is Evil. If he's doing it due to peer pressure, he's Neutral or Lawful Evil - if he's doing it ebcause he's just a bully and enjoys hearing people scream, he's Chaotic Evil.

As he's a child, his alignment is probably easier to change, but it would require the attentions of a good (and Good) parent figure.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 05:48 AM
[/Inigo Montoya]
I would say they're redeemably Evil, because repeated Evil acts overwhelm any other considerations, or else Neutral-teetering-on-the-edge-of-Evil to take into account that, by our standards, children cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Accountance only requires a minimum amount of int to the point where they can metathink. By game rules that's anything smarter than normal animals, which definitely fits for children.

It's hard not to be partial because everyone seems to hold some sort of saintly image about the innocence of a child, but that doesn't really have a representation in game terms. If a child is an assassin, that child is evil. There's no real way around its status there. If you really really really want to get around that...alignments are fluid. People change alignments every now and then, it's usually part of a major revision of their life styles and ethos.

Serpentine
2010-06-17, 06:09 AM
By "by our standards", I meant, well, real-life considerations, as an optional factor to include.
Really, I think a lot of kids - at least very young ones - are pretty damn evil.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-17, 06:17 AM
Children don't learn empathy at all until about five years old, and it tends not to mature fully for quite a few years after that, so... yeah.

Ever heard of a game called Witch Girls Adventures? There's a reason why some people pretend it's a horror game.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 08:12 AM
Children don't learn empathy at all until about five years old, and it tends not to mature fully for quite a few years after that, so... yeah.

Ever heard of a game called Witch Girls Adventures? There's a reason why some people pretend it's a horror game.

And that's when sociopathic tendencies are first noticed anyway. As far as game rules care, that's probably the minimum age at which they gain the necessary 4+ int to have an alignment.

Starbuck_II
2010-06-17, 08:31 AM
The alignment system is just so faulty I don't even know where to begin to start. For instance, why are gnolls more evil for eating the sentients they kill than heroes are for killing them and leaving the bodies to go to waste? Sure, part of the evil is that they take pleasure in it, but taking pleasure in killing specific things was a class feature of rangers, and plenty of examples of "good" heroic characters love killing orcs, goblins, or some other "monster" race. So, really, all good seems to have on its side is bigotry and wastefulness, while "evil" creatures like gnolls are equal-opportunity murderers and actually use their kills for something practical.


Sorry, eating sentients is evil if you gain pleasure/power (vile spell) from it.

Gnolls should stop liking it.

Telonius
2010-06-17, 08:36 AM
I have trouble casting a top-down all assassins are evil characterization like DnD likes to do.

Off topic, but I really enjoy the BoVD's discussion on morality. Specifically the crazy person sees the normal townsfolk as demons and poisons the well to kill them, not an evil act. Sane person is convinced by a demon that the townsfolk are demons and poisons the well water? Evil Act. Awesome. I so totally agree. Sarcasm Mode

D&D doesn't characterize all assassins as evil. It characterizes all Assassins as evil. There's a fine but very important difference. The class requires someone to kill for absolutely no reason other than to join. A regular old assassin? Could have noble intentions; there might really be no other way around it; might refuse to kill the innocent or only target the guilty. Basically somebody *could* be (at least arguably) Neutral with regard to good and evil and still carry out assassinations.

For the second, I think BoVD was using "maniac" kind of loosely. Moral agency is generally based on freedom to act. An insane person isn't in charge of their own actions. A truly crazy person is about as much at fault as a dog is for biting somebody who kicks it, or a rock for following the law of gravity when it hits somebody on the head. That's why there's such a thing as an insanity plea.

A duped person is less free than a person who has good information, but is still responsible for doing the deed. If you decide to kill, you ought to be really, really sure. If you don't take the care to find out? That doesn't suggest respect for life.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 08:42 AM
Telonius, by definition a person whose only concern about killing someone is getting paid to do it is evil. I do believe we are talking about assassins here.

Telonius
2010-06-17, 09:33 AM
Telonius, by definition a person whose only concern about killing someone is getting paid to do it is evil. I do believe we are talking about assassins here.

Yes, a person whose only concern about killing someone is getting paid, would be evil - but that's not the definition of an assassin. An assassin is just someone who kills a public figure. Money is not necessarily the motivation. It could be a sense of justice, religious feeling, personal vengeance, or even the belief that it's the only way to save other lives. Brutus was an assassin, but nobody paid him to kill Julius Caesar.

Gnaeus
2010-06-17, 09:36 AM
Telonius, by definition a person whose only concern about killing someone is getting paid to do it is evil. I do believe we are talking about assassins here.


D&D doesn't characterize all assassins as evil. It characterizes all Assassins as evil. There's a fine but very important difference. The class requires someone to kill for absolutely no reason other than to join. A regular old assassin? Could have noble intentions; there might really be no other way around it; might refuse to kill the innocent or only target the guilty. Basically somebody *could* be (at least arguably) Neutral with regard to good and evil and still carry out assassinations.

Telonius suggested that they might have other intentions than just money and still be assassins. You totally put words in his mouth that he didn't say.

Ignoring any possible real assassins who might have noble motives (because that brings politics and thread lock), is James Bond evil? He is pretty clearly an assassin by some definitions, licensed to hunt down and kill enemies of his country. I think most people would rate him as neutral, if not good.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 09:43 AM
Yes, a person whose only concern about killing someone is getting paid, would be evil - but that's not the definition of an assassin. An assassin is just someone who kills a public figure. Money is not necessarily the motivation. It could be a sense of justice, religious feeling, personal vengeance, or even the belief that it's the only way to save other lives. Brutus was an assassin, but nobody paid him to kill Julius Caesar.

#1 a murderer (especially one who kills a prominent political figure) who kills by a surprise attack and often is hired to do the deed;
Maybe we should clarify terms? Another definition of assassin is simply murderer: kills people. Clearly it won't fit for what we are trying to do here.
The OP's child-assasins are killers for pay, and nothing more. Those do fit what I pointed as evil. They also fit the concept used in the game for the assassin class, which by no means defines this class as the only possible assassin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html).



So here I lay: What I mean by assassin is a Career Killer for Pay. "Pay" can be money, or a cause, and the targets impersonal: whatever characterizes someone as a target is the source of the Pay.

Serpentine
2010-06-17, 09:59 AM
I consider an assassin, in general terms, to be someone who targets specific individuals for death for particular reasons ("someone paid me to do it", "they're a threat to society"), who kills them by stealth, and either does it as a profession or to a particularly prominent, important or famous person.
I dislike that the Assassasin class is the only specifically-assassin class in the game, but is limited to Evil characters only. I also dislike that poison is considered Evil.

Paramour Pink
2010-06-17, 10:12 AM
I dislike that the Assassasin class is the only specifically-assassin class in the game, but is limited to Evil characters only. I also dislike that poison is considered Evil.

You're forgetting the Slayer of Domiel.

Telonius
2010-06-17, 10:20 AM
So here I lay: What I mean by assassin is a Career Killer for Pay. "Pay" can be money, or a cause, and the targets impersonal: whatever characterizes someone as a target is the source of the Pay.

That's far too broad a definition. Under that, all adventurers (and even all soldiers) are assassins and therefore evil.


The OP's child-assasins are killers for pay, and nothing more.

The OP never specified why they were doing it, other than that they were conditioned to kill.




You're forgetting the Slayer of Domiel.

Oh yes, and the "Really, we promise these aren't poisons" ravages.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 10:27 AM
That's far too broad a definition. Under that, all adventurers (and even all soldiers) are assassins and therefore evil.
Well, suggest a better one then.
And adventurers basically all fitting under that definition is more because players do seem to play only psychopaths than anything else. Yes, I do believe most adventurers are evil based on how players play them.

hamishspence
2010-06-17, 10:28 AM
Or the "Any nongood" black flame zealot in Complete Divine- assassins of the Church of Kossuth.

Not every assassin-type PRC requires the character to be Evil. Though quite a lot have "any nongood"- like the Avenging Executioner in Complete Scoundrel. Though they kill primarily people they believe have wronged them.

Serpentine
2010-06-17, 10:30 AM
You're forgetting the Slayer of Domiel.Nope. Can't forget what I don't know. Are those that wannabe not-quite-good-enough Paladin stealth-types that use silly not-poisons?

hamishspence
2010-06-17, 10:39 AM
That's them.

(Ravages might make sense if considered as like a distilled version of spells like holy word, only less indiscriminate).

I agree with the idea that poison shouldn't be considered Evil if used in the right context- and Sage Advice for Complete Adventurer, discussing the issue of the Ninja's ability to use poison without harming itself, argued that there is nothing in core that says poison is evil.

Paladins are forbidden it in core- but that's not the same thing.

Paramour Pink
2010-06-17, 10:42 AM
Nope. Can't forget what I don't know. Are those that wannabe not-quite-good-enough Paladin stealth-types that use silly not-poisons?

Nope. Slayers of Domiel are the get-the-same-Sneak-attack-progression-as-an-Assassin-and-have-one-of-the-best-parts-about-being-a-paladin stealth types. Whereas their Evil counter parts get more spells per day, death attack and Hide in Place Sight, a Slayer gets Improved Evasion, Divine Grace and a death effect against Evil sorts. Not quite an even fight, but the point stands that Good has it's own set of assassins.

Use of silly poisons is optional, as it is for most characters. :smalltongue:

Telonius
2010-06-17, 11:59 AM
Well, suggest a better one then.


A better definition of assassin: as I said before, a person who kills a public figure.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-17, 12:16 PM
A better definition of assassin: as I said before, a person who kills a public figure.

And what will you define as a public figure? Often a hitman is hired to kill people that just aren't "public figures". The contratant can have a reason as petty as "my wife cheated me with him". Is that hitman then not an assassin?

It also goes against the textbook definition, which shows that it doesn't have to be against people particularly famous or powerful. The literal one emphasizes ambushes.

hamishspence
2010-06-17, 12:25 PM
In fiction, there tends to be a distinction between "assassin" and "hitman":

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CareerKillers

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2010-06-17, 07:30 PM
I agree that Gnolls could be considered neutral if they stay in their lairs slaying only intruders and eating them. But Gnolls raid villages kill and rape women and children...They are evil...
Given that gnolls are based on hyena, and I've never seen any fluff to this effect, I would contest this point for numerous reasons.


The relevant difference seems to be that the gnolls will happily harm "innocents", but Good characters won't. So a Good adventurer can invade an enemy tribe, kill anyone who puts up a fight, and take their valuables

So, everyone who defends themselves in a fight you start, as opposed to hoping you will be merciful, gives you the more justification to kill them? I am sorry, but I do not really buy this.


Sorry, eating sentients is evil if you gain pleasure/power (vile spell) from it.

Gnolls should stop liking it.

So, instead, gaining pleasure/power from killing sentients and letting the meat rot is the moral choice. I don't really see how sentience factors in to killing and eating something, either, as long as the victim can feel pain. Whether or not it can talk about it, it's still painful and frightening to be killed, and I really don't understand why having language and tools somehow matters more than that in determining moral righteousness. I suppose it's a case of "the literate with opposable thumbs write the moral codes," but somehow that doesn't really feel the most legitimate. In fact, it goes back to my point that good is all about wasteful and/or bigoted murder, as opposed to egalitarian, practical murder.

The argument I'm making isn't specifically about gnolls, though, it's the Black-and-White-with-wonky-approximations-of-Grey-and-clear-divisions-between-them moral system of D&D just really does not work, at all. It's a backdrop to provide "good" characters moral justification to (violently and horrifically) kill "evil" villains, and a mechanic involved in certain divine magic spells. "Alignments" don't really have anything to do with any sort of moral question more complex than "what colour is that dragon?" as far as I'm concerned.

Aeromyre
2010-06-17, 11:09 PM
Given that gnolls are based on hyena, and I've never seen any fluff to this effect, I would contest this point for numerous reasons.

I don't understand you're saying they're not evil because they're based on an animal?
That makes no sense. :smallannoyed:
The fact that they commit immoral acts consciously and enjoy doing so makes them evil:smallwink:

DoodlesD
2010-06-17, 11:12 PM
I think it's funny (as in it amuses me and i find it comical) how Evil was defined as wasteful. If heroes don't eat the corpses of their fallen enemies, how is that evil? do you eat every cockroach you step on? What about criminals who are executed? we don't use that corpse for food, so is execution of dangerous criminals actually an evil deed?

How good and evil are defined should really be determined by the DM. if the DM says good characters are pacifists who value the lives of everything, being a good character isn't gonna be much fun. Probably a better and more suitable definition for gameplay would be as follows: "Good characters fight to protect their fellow human beings and help their societies thrive even at great personal cost" A definition for an Evil character like "one who kills for pleasure" is also inadequate. Hunters who take great hide in their skills for tracking and slaying game take pleasure in killing, but are not necessarily evil. Soldiers who kill enemy soldiers may be proud of themselves and take pleasure in their work, but are also not necessarily evil because their goal is not the killing, but contributing to the growth and welfare of their society. A better definition for an evil character would be "One who fights for his or her personal wants, needs, and desires at the expense of others, including society as a whole" Evil characters are the ones who will rob banks to become personally wealthy or to depose a king who made his kingdom prosper simply because they desired the power. It's not so much a question of Killing and Murder, but more of how selfish or selfless a character is.

In the case of these child assassins, it doesn't seem like they are killing for the benefit of their society, but rather of fear of punishment, and possibly death. Therefore, they would be evilly aligned because their view is 'I must kill so i will not be punished'. Now even though it might not seem fair to say so, the choice to kill others to preserve oneself is a selfish one. If, on the other hand these assassins followed a creed more on the lines of "I must kill so my homeland will be safe from invasion" i might not see it the same way.

Serpentine
2010-06-18, 12:33 AM
Snake-Aes and Telonious:
I consider an assassin, in general terms, to be someone who targets specific individuals for death for particular reasons ("someone paid me to do it", "they're a threat to society"), who kills them by stealth, and either does it as a profession or to a particularly prominent, important or famous person.Any problems with that definition?

Aeromyre: I believe they were specifically addressing the "rapes women" part. Possibly with reference to the fact that hyenas are matriarchal, the females being at least as big and tough as the males and well and truly in charge (also they give birth through a pseudo-penis. That's just hardcore).

Aeromyre
2010-06-18, 12:31 PM
Snake-Aes and Telonious:Any problems with that definition?

Aeromyre: I believe they were specifically addressing the "rapes women" part. Possibly with reference to the fact that hyenas are matriarchal, the females being at least as big and tough as the males and well and truly in charge (also they give birth through a pseudo-penis. That's just hardcore).

Yes but that deals with the intelligence of a hyena and the intelligence of a gnoll. Hyenas will have 1 2 or possibly 3 points if intelligence, Gnolls however have 8 (3.5 MMI) points of intelligence. That's just below Average Human intelligence.
Hyenas have no capacity for what is right and what is wrong. Gnolls however are intelligent enough to know that difference and have the capacity for alignment.
Even if it is somehow inherent in there ancestry or whatever you would call their genetic relationship with Hyenas, they are still intelligent to make the choice.

There are always exceptions in Alignment by race, especially humans, and other common races, but lets say that all Drow are evil... well thats not true because there is Drizzt DoUrden, who is good. If he can make the choice, then why couldn't a gnoll?

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2010-06-18, 08:59 PM
I think it's funny (as in it amuses me and i find it comical) how Evil was defined as wasteful. If heroes don't eat the corpses of their fallen enemies, how is that evil? do you eat every cockroach you step on? What about criminals who are executed? we don't use that corpse for food, so is execution of dangerous criminals actually an evil deed?
Killing a cockroach that isn't directly endangering your life is evil, yes. If you eat it, it's at least contributing to your survival. If you just kill it, that's mean-spirited, selfish, and cruel, which sounds pretty evil to me. Executing a criminal and burying him/her is more evil than if we at least fed their meat to other animals, or used as compost or something, although I won't touch on the morality of executing them to start with.
Killing to eat or to directly protect is one thing, killing for convenience or vengeance, without any other reason, is another.