PDA

View Full Version : Any Evil?



DoctorHobo
2011-01-07, 08:31 PM
The requirements for the Assassin prestige class baffle me. What about the class require an evil approach to life? Disguise 4, Hide 8, and Move Silently 8 can be met easily by a rogue or ranger rather quickly, and the class itself is almost so clearly an extension of the rogue class that it makes me wonder why they don't demand all rogues be evil as well.

Sneak Attack: Using the words from the book here, "This is exactly like the rogue ability of the same name." Clearly the act of sneaking behind a foe and striking while unseen (or striking someone from behind while someone else is attacking their front) is not evil in and of itself, or else rogues would have to be evil to learn it.

Death Attack: An obvious upgrade to the sneak attack. Don't let the ominous (and pretty awesome) name fool you, if anything this attack is less evil than a sneak attack. Assume you hit with a sneak attack. What happens? "Ow! Who stabbed my bum?!" followed by combat, where the rogue will send its blades (or what have you) into the Sneak Attackee many more times before killing them. In the event of a Death Attack, they could be down in a single attack, suffering at a minimum.

Poison Use: Do only evil people use poisons? Can a poison not be slipped into the drink of an evil dictator? Is it far more righteous and pure to find said evil dictator and beat him to death with a sword?

Spells: The description in the DMG refers to their spells as "the dark arts," so I might could see where they were going here. That is, until remembering that one can be a Necromancer or even a cleric of an evil deity and still be neutral.

Save Bonus against Poison: A natural product of handling poisons often would be the increased aptitude in doing so. Not evil.

Uncanny Dodge: Another rogue ability, but one that is even less objectionable than sneak attack. Certainly nothing is evil about being uncannily reactive.

Improved Uncanny Dodge: Ditto.

Hide in Plain Sight: A ranger ability this time. Perhaps as a Supernatural ability, its source is the same "black magic" as his spells, but that would hardly necessitate evil.

I can see no reason to require an assassin be evil, because what an assassin essentially is, is a rogue (as many of them undoubtedly start as one) who can use spells and is skilled in the use of poison.

Don't get me started on how much the special requirement confuses me.
Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

"The assassins?" Not "The Assassins"? Is it not a proper group, then? I can only assume that you have to be evil because the blending of rogue and ranger skills, along with the (apparently very complex) use of potions is such a complicated feat that is must be taught in a proper academy, even if it doesn't warrant a proper noun. Surely an evil academy, and the only one of its kind, nestled perhaps in the mountains of Mordor and constructed from orphan bones.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-07, 08:35 PM
The requirements for the Assassin prestige class baffle me. What about the class require an evil approach to life? Disguise 4, Hide 8, and Move Silently 8 can be met easily by a rogue or ranger rather quickly, and the class itself is almost so clearly an extension of the rogue class that it makes me wonder why they don't demand all rogues be evil as well.Don't get me started on how much the special requirement confuses me.
Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

"The assassins?" Not "The Assassins"? Is it not a proper group, then? I can only assume that you have to be evil because the blending of rogue and ranger skills, along with the (apparently very complex) use of potions is such a complicated feat that is must be taught in a proper academy, even if it doesn't warrant a proper noun. Surely an evil academy, and the only one of its kind, nestled perhaps in the mountains of Mordor and constructed from orphan bones.

The assassins should be captialized, but still that is why it is evil.
I perfer the Avenger: Any lawful version Assassin.

AslanCross
2011-01-07, 08:37 PM
I think the mere fact that you basically hire yourself out to murder a person of any allegiance whatsoever (even your best friends) is considered evil in D&D's default alignment system. It's not the sneakiness that makes it evil, it's the "Will murder for cash" that does.

The prestige classes in the DMG are often assumed to be associated with organizations. In this case, it's an assassins' guild.


I think it's easy enough to adapt the class for a particular cause (see: Slayer of Domiel in the BoED) or even better, is aligned with an organization without really requiring an alignment (See: Ruby Knight Vindicator).

Curious
2011-01-07, 08:38 PM
I think the general thought behind it was that most assassins were not adventurers, but contract killers, which could be easily construed as requiring an evil alignment. Personally, I always treat that 'evil' requirement as 'not good', allowing for neutral characters to at least try it out.

Mikeavelli
2011-01-07, 08:38 PM
The idea was to make it specific enough to give direction to the class, but vague enough to be able to fit into any given campaign world.

The "Any Evil" is indeed justified by the requirement to kill someone for the sole purpose of joining the group that gives the character their training. This is most definitely an evil act, so yeah.

Feel free to do away with one or both requirements in your own game.

This has been debated several times on these very forums, never really coming to more of a conclusion than that.

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-07, 08:46 PM
Using poison is also Evil in D&D. But yeah, the real reason is the fact that Assassins are hired killers, something the designers felt that no non-Evil person would ever be.

Rixx
2011-01-07, 09:24 PM
Murdering people for money isn't really a morally debatable issue.

Dienekes
2011-01-07, 10:10 PM
Murdering people for money isn't really a morally debatable issue.

You'd be surprised. Alignment debates can get... interesting.

Trekkin
2011-01-07, 10:16 PM
Murdering people for money isn't really a morally debatable issue.

Does that mean mercenaries and adventurers are necessarily evil too? Assuming sufficiently intelligent targets, they're both murdering for money--the mercenaries are hired to kill the enemy and the adventurers quest, sometimes against sentient beings, for monetary reward.

I've always wondered about this.

TheCountAlucard
2011-01-07, 10:31 PM
Using poison is also Evil in D&D.Outside the Book of Exalted Deeds ("poisonz are bad, here are sum gud poisonz!" :smallsigh:), where does it say that? :smallconfused:

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-07, 10:47 PM
Hmm.... maybe not. I know that Paladins can't use poison, but looking at the Paladin Code reveals that poison falls under the dishonorable behavior clause. So... like any weapon, I guess it comes down to how you use it.

TheCountAlucard
2011-01-07, 10:49 PM
Hmm.... maybe not.Thanks, was just making sure I hadn't missed something. :smallsmile:

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-01-07, 10:51 PM
In AD&D, there was a thieves and assassins guild that every single assassin in the world belonged to. Seriously. The rates for killing people were standardized by level of target and level of assassin, you took over the worldwide assassin's guild at the max level of assassin (and had to fight others to get there), thieves and assassins had their own language called Thieves' Cant, and so on. The guild was composed of evil people, therefore all assassins needed to be evil.

In 3e, they tried to carry this flavor over, but removed every single bit of guild-related flavor except the Special requirement--there are no rules for contracts, guild fees, or anything else that would justify said Special requirement. As it is, there is no reason at all for the assassin to have either the Alignment or Special requirements; you can remove them with no problem.

AslanCross
2011-01-08, 01:58 AM
Does that mean mercenaries and adventurers are necessarily evil too? Assuming sufficiently intelligent targets, they're both murdering for money--the mercenaries are hired to kill the enemy and the adventurers quest, sometimes against sentient beings, for monetary reward.

I've always wondered about this.

I was thinking about this.

Mercenaries are hired to serve in an army. Killing, though likely, is an act committed by the mercenary against armed opponents who can fight back. A mercenary can fight until the enemy is routed and let the fleeing army go if it doesn't go against his orders. As with being a soldier, although killing is part of the mercenary's job, it is not the whole point. As such, being a mercenary is not necessarily evil, although pillaging a city and slaying innocent people might well be.

Adventurers have the whole hero thing going on, and as such are assumed to go after things that are also a threat to some society, be it a small hamlet or the entire Material Plane. They might have to kill, but if they don't want to they can find other ways to deal with the threat.

An assassin is hired to kill, period. The killing is of course premeditated, unprovoked, and often performed against a target who is typically unaware. The assassin is fine with slaying a priest of a goodly religion as well as an evil one, but he is certainly going to try his best to kill.

true_shinken
2011-01-08, 02:00 AM
An assassin is hired to kill, period. The killing is of course premeditated, unprovoked, and often performed against a target who is typically unaware. The assassin is fine with slaying a priest of a goodly religion as well as an evil one, but he is certainly going to try his best to kill.

AslanCross hit it bullseye. This is so simple. I really can't see why people argue on this.

Sploosh
2011-01-08, 05:10 AM
I perfer the Avenger: Any lawful version Assassin.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a

If Assassins weren't evil then this guy would be out of a job.

SITB
2011-01-08, 05:38 AM
An assassin is hired to kill, period. The killing is of course premeditated, unprovoked, and often performed against a target who is typically unaware. The assassin is fine with slaying a priest of a goodly religion as well as an evil one, but he is certainly going to try his best to kill.

So an assassin hired to kill a dictator in order to arrange a coup where a more moral person takes his place is evil? Or an assassin murdering the leader of a war horde to make the horde fall into disarray is evil too?

AslanCross
2011-01-08, 05:44 AM
So an assassin hired to kill a dictator in order to arrange a coup where a more moral person takes his place is evil? Or an assassin murdering the leader of a war horde to make the horde fall into disarray is evil too?

You're going into specific acts. I'm not talking about specific acts, but the general idea of the job. I did mention an assassin being willing to kill both evil people and decent people, but the idea is he kills people for money, and nothing else.

Rion
2011-01-08, 05:47 AM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a

If Assassins weren't evil then this guy would be out of a job.
Considering the fact that none of the abilities are changed, that the picture is even a colour swapped version of the assassin's picture and that it was posted on April Fool's day, I always took it as example of how easily a class' fluff can changed without any needing any mechanical changes whatsoever.

SITB
2011-01-08, 05:52 AM
You're going into specific acts. I'm not talking about specific acts, but the general idea of the job. I did mention an assassin being willing to kill both evil people and decent people, but the idea is he kills people for money, and nothing else.

But the alignment restriction is "Any evil" while I pointed out how killing someone is not necessarily so. so assassins do not have to be evil and the restriction makes mo sense without the fluff details that dropped when the editions changed.

And concerning the money, adventurers kill things for money too for "good" causes, assassins should be able too do the same.

Bakkan
2011-01-08, 06:03 AM
I think it's a matter of what the Assassin is willing to do for money. If you go up to a typical group of Neutral- and Good-aligned adventurers and say "I'll pay you each a thousand gold pieces to kill the baron of this town. No, he's not oppressing the villagers, yes his rents are fair, and I think he donates money to orphans. But he stepped on my foot the other day and I want revenge," the group will refuse the job. The very fact that the Assassin is willing to take such a job is likely what caused the designers to consider the Assassin profession inherently evil. And if the Assassin weren't willing to do such a job, he wouldn't be an assassin; he'd be a mercenary or adventurer.

AslanCross
2011-01-08, 06:05 AM
I already mentioned it earlier: Adventurers may kill things, but typically with good cause, unless one is running a party that is entirely concerned with killing intelligent life for profit, or the group's outlook is very cynical. At that point it would be very difficult to say that it is a good-aligned party just because they're adventurers.

Killing isn't the bad part, it's killing for profit that is, (putting another's right to life beneath one's desire to profit). An assassin who kills an evil dictator performed an act with a good result. Does it make him a better person than an assassin who doesn't? Maybe. Does he perform the act with a good result because he desires a good result? Up to the guy, but it's likely that he doesn't care. That's why he hires out his killing talents anyway. Does he kill the dictator on principle? Then he's only an assassin by the media definition of the term (He killed someone important).

My argument is not that all killing is wrong, because then even a paladin would be "Always Evil." My argument is that killing for profit as the primary motive is a seriously messed up idea, and is evil.

I'm not going to say any more on this.

FelixG
2011-01-08, 06:08 AM
I think it's a matter of what the Assassin is willing to do for money. If you go up to a typical group of Neutral- and Good-aligned adventurers and say "I'll pay you each a thousand gold pieces to kill the baron of this town. No, he's not oppressing the villagers, yes his rents are fair, and I think he donates money to orphans. But he stepped on my foot the other day and I want revenge," the group will refuse the job. The very fact that the Assassin is willing to take such a job is likely what caused the designers to consider the Assassin profession inherently evil. And if the Assassin weren't willing to do such a job, he wouldn't be an assassin; he'd be a mercenary or adventurer.

It ultimately comes down to who is playing the assassin though. :smallconfused:

Like anyone else he can pick and choose what jobs he takes. Sure MOST assassins will take the job and gut him, but just because most people do something doesn't mean a PC has to. A PC assassin could just as easily decide only to take jobs involving corrupt people.

There is already one big argument for this: Assassins Creed.

Though it may be of interest to note, you could be evil, take your levels in the Assassin PRC then have a change of heart and go good while keeping all of your abilities untouched.


I already mentioned it earlier: Adventurers may kill things, but typically with good cause, unless one is running a party that is entirely concerned with killing intelligent life for profit, or the group's outlook is very cynical. At that point it would be very difficult to say that it is a good-aligned party just because they're adventurers.

Past situation from another game: The adventurers hear about a tribe of lizard folk attacking a small villiage. They report to the area, the mayor offers them each 100 GP to go clear out the tribe to stop the raids as the lizardmen have killed 12 people so far.

The adventurers charge in and slaughter the raiding lizardfolk. Congrats! you are now all Evil!

The lizard folk were only defending their territory because the humans decided they wanted it for themselves so they could expand ant the lizards were in the way.

Moral of the story: The path to the 9 hells is paved with good intentions :smallwink:

AyeGill
2011-01-08, 06:14 AM
I agree with the fact that if killing for profit as the primary motive is evil, then adventurers are evil too. Sure killing off those kobolds has the side effect of saving that hamlet, but the adventurers usually don't really care, they just want practice(XP) and loot. But then, i do consider most classical adventuring parties evil.

Bakkan
2011-01-08, 06:15 AM
It ultimately comes down to who is playing the assassin though. :smallconfused:

Like anyone else he can pick and choose what jobs he takes. Sure MOST assassins will take the job and gut him, but just because most people do something doesn't mean a PC has to. A PC assassin could just as easily decide only to take jobs involving corrupt people.

There is already one big argument for this: Assassins Creed.

Though it may be of interest to note, you could be evil, take your levels in the Assassin PRC then have a change of heart and go good while keeping all of your abilities untouched.

I actually agree with you in principle and if one of my players really wanted a character with sneakiness, Death Attack, and a little casting, they would likely get a refluffed version of the Assassin. There is nothing about the mechanics of the Assassin that would require him to be evil, as was very nicely explained in the OP. The fluff is what makes the Assassin an Evil Only prestige class.

As far as Assassin's Creed, I don't know much about it beyond a few previews, but if we were going to stat him out using all the standard D&D fluff, I would argue against using the actual Assassin class, just like I would argue against using a Ranger in statting out Aragorn.

FelixG
2011-01-08, 06:18 AM
I actually agree with you in principle and if one of my players really wanted a character with sneakiness, Death Attack, and a little casting, they would likely get a refluffed version of the Assassin. There is nothing about the mechanics of the Assassin that would require him to be evil, as was very nicely explained in the OP. The fluff is what makes the Assassin an Evil Only prestige class.

As far as Assassin's Creed, I don't know much about it beyond a few previews, but if we were going to stat him out using all the standard D&D fluff, I would argue against using the actual Assassin class, just like I would argue against using a Ranger in statting out Aragorn.

You can actually stat Enzo (if I remember his name correctly) using the Assassin class from Pathfinder very very nicely (they get better death attack but no spellcasting)

AyeGill
2011-01-08, 06:23 AM
You can actually stat Enzo (if I remember his name correctly) using the Assassin class from Pathfinder very very nicely (they get better death attack but no spellcasting)

Its Ezio. And i'd make him a Rogue/Psychic Warrior(lurk?) with leap attack and battle jump. Maybe throw in some warblade. Lets face it, he's not really about sneaking, and more about killing all the guards before they see him.

SITB
2011-01-08, 06:25 AM
I think it's a matter of what the Assassin is willing to do for money. If you go up to a typical group of Neutral- and Good-aligned adventurers and say "I'll pay you each a thousand gold pieces to kill the baron of this town. No, he's not oppressing the villagers, yes his rents are fair, and I think he donates money to orphans. But he stepped on my foot the other day and I want revenge," the group will refuse the job. The very fact that the Assassin is willing to take such a job is likely what caused the designers to consider the Assassin profession inherently evil. And if the Assassin weren't willing to do such a job, he wouldn't be an assassin; he'd be a mercenary or adventurer.

So the assassins are always evil because each and every assassin is willing to consider every job that pays with no regards to each specific assassin belief and morals?

If you are arguing that if you interpret the prestige class "Assassin" this way is why assassin are considered evil than I concede the point. However, I think it's silly to hammer every assassin into the same narrow mold when the current fluff is so vague and the mechanical aspects (Apart from the initiation rite which according to PairO'Dice Lost is the remnant of previous edition fluff/mechanics that no longer exists) do not pigeonhole the assassin as evil.

TL;DR: The class mechanical benefits are not evil. The requirement to get into it is evil. There is no reason for it to be so.

FelixG
2011-01-08, 06:30 AM
TL;DR: The class mechanical benefits are not evil. The requirement to get into it is evil. There is no reason for it to be so.

Not to mention that you dont loose them if you stop being evil like some other classes (paladin springs to mind)

blackseven
2011-01-08, 06:30 AM
Most WotC PrCs came with background/story assumptions that can usually be safely modified (PrCs for Campaign Setting books might be less flexible.)

The Assassin in the DMG, in my opinion, can be reasonably extrapolated to belong to a group of like minded individuals who expressly kill for money. These individuals are also evil. The two statements do not have to be connected logically (although I think they are.)

Being an evil group of people, they demand an applicant to kill someone, presumably innocent, for no other purpose than to show your suitability for their group. Killing someone intentionally is generally evil without a good reason.

You are free to change the flavor of the class and the story assumptions behind it, as the Avenger class shows.

Debating the "morality" of assassination or assassins "in general" is really superfluous to debating the morality of the this specific Assassin PrC.

AslanCross
2011-01-08, 06:55 AM
Past situation from another game: The adventurers hear about a tribe of lizard folk attacking a small villiage. They report to the area, the mayor offers them each 100 GP to go clear out the tribe to stop the raids as the lizardmen have killed 12 people so far.

The adventurers charge in and slaughter the raiding lizardfolk. Congrats! you are now all Evil!

The lizard folk were only defending their territory because the humans decided they wanted it for themselves so they could expand ant the lizards were in the way.

Moral of the story: The path to the 9 hells is paved with good intentions :smallwink:


I think my arguments are falling on deaf ears here, so this is my final post in this thread.
I am not talking about a single act making you fall and become evil, especially in the case you pointed out, where the PCs "charged in and slaughtered" them without bothering to parlay or know more about the situation. Yes, it might be stupid and insensitive, but they can't really be faulted for doing something like that. Ultimately that is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about choosing a career whose primary motivation is killing for profit. Do adventurers set out one day saying "Mom, I think I'll leave the village to go slaughter some innocent intelligent beings to fill my pockets."? Depends on the party, sure, but typically, no.

This is the final summary of my point:

The D&D fluff of the assassin PrC assumes the character is making a conscious, willing choice to coldly slay people, often defenseless and vulnerable, as a career, for whoever pays. That is why it says you have to be evil to do it, and why the class contains a requirement of killing someone just to get into the guild.

I mentioned that there are other PrCs that also involve a conscious choice to kill intelligent individuals, but they're associated with a cause. This is why the game's rules differentiate them.

I'm withdrawing from this thread.

Endon the White
2011-01-08, 11:22 AM
The D&D fluff of the assassin PrC assumes the character is making a conscious, willing choice to coldly slay people, often defenseless and vulnerable, as a career, for whoever pays. That is why it says you have to be evil to do it, and why the class contains a requirement of killing someone just to get into the guild.


How is that always evil again?

Sure it sounds shady, but imagine this. The King of the Kingdom gives Asasin McSneakAtac 100 gold to get rid of Lord Malevolence, King of Mordore. As Malevolence is walking down the street, vulnerable and unarmed, Asasin McSneakAtac hits him in the head with an arrow and kills him. He coldly walks back to the King of the Kingdom and get his gold.

The King of the Kingdom now offers him 1000 gold to burn down an orphanage and harvest the souls inside. Asasin McSneakAtac walks away and meets with President of the Democracy That Doesn't Like the King's Kingdom. etc etc.

Despite fitting your description to a tee, Asasin performed two good acts and no evil acts. He just wants money more that a ranger would.

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-08, 11:36 AM
Despite fitting your description to a tee, Asasin performed two good acts and no evil acts.

It seems to me like he did one evil act and refused to do another one. I didn't see him actually do any good acts.

Crow
2011-01-08, 11:40 AM
It seems to me like he did one evil act and refused to do another one. I didn't see him actually do any good acts.

+1

He kills people for money. He doesn't have to take every job offered to him.

I just recently watched the documentary, Cocaine Cowboys, and they interviewed a professional assassin on there. He killed a lot of people who were unquestionably "bad", and refused to kill kids, but that didn't make him a good person. The guy was still quite obviously a hardened killer who's morals were in line with what the majority of folk would consider "evil".

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-08, 11:44 AM
In other words, you pretty much have to be evil if you have so little value for other peoples' lives.

AyeGill
2011-01-08, 11:50 AM
In other words, you pretty much have to be evil if you have so little value for other peoples' lives.

QFT. Though how this differentiates them from the classic adventuring party still remains to be established. While lots of campaigns have genuinely good adventuring parties, the "classic" DnD adventure still seems to feature an adventuring party going into some sort of cave or dungeon and killing the inhabitants for no other reason than A: they have loot, and B: they're goblins/kobolds/whatever, and kobolds=evil is apparently an objective statement.

Dienekes
2011-01-08, 11:50 AM
How is that always evil again?

Aslan is admittedly missing a crucial point in his description: whatever the target. It really does make a large difference.


Sure it sounds shady, but imagine this. The King of the Kingdom gives Asasin McSneakAtac 100 gold to get rid of Lord Malevolence, King of Mordore. As Malevolence is walking down the street, vulnerable and unarmed, Asasin McSneakAtac hits him in the head with an arrow and kills him. He coldly walks back to the King of the Kingdom and get his gold.

Specific example, if we're using specific examples I could just say the other way around and question how that's good. When WotC were designing the class they had the admittedly fluff based concept in mind. This concept kills for money, and does not care for who the target is. It's also notable in this example that the assassin in question may know of Malevolence but doesn't use his abilities until someone pays him, which goes back down to neutral.


The King of the Kingdom now offers him 1000 gold to burn down an orphanage and harvest the souls inside. Asasin McSneakAtac walks away and meets with President of the Democracy That Doesn't Like the King's Kingdom. etc etc.

Despite fitting your description to a tee, Asasin performed two good acts and no evil acts. He just wants money more that a ranger would.

He's also a pretty terrible assassin who will soon be out of a job. It also fails to look at motivations. Is the assassin betraying the king for money, or glory or because he doesn't want to kill the orphans? If the former then the act is probably neutral. Same with killing Malevolence really. The questions come up: Does he know Malevolence is evil? Does he care? Would his actions have changed if Malevolence was the ironically named Mother Teresa of the setting?

The fluff of the class (which is represented in part by the prerequisites) was obviously supposed to be a character that is part of a criminal organization that kills anyone without qualms or caring solely for the monetary gain. That's pretty textbook evil.

If your character does not fit this concept then it wouldn't fit the concept of the class as presented. However, as luck would have it fluff is mutable. If he wants all the abilities presented as an assassin, but say wants to be freelance (which annoyingly seems frowned upon in the fluff) ask the GM he'll probably say alright. Or if your character is using his roll as an assassin as an elaborate ploy to learn of villains (the target or the payee) and deal with them as such, hopefully the GM will say yes. But understand that such a character was not originally what the class was meant to represent.


While lots of campaigns have genuinely good adventuring parties, the "classic" DnD adventure still seems to feature an adventuring party going into some sort of cave or dungeon and killing the inhabitants for no other reason than A: they have loot, and B: they're goblins/kobolds/whatever, and kobolds=evil is apparently an objective statement.

I must be weird then, I've never been in a group where we weren't given a reason to go slaughter everything in the cave. Generally a pretty good one to.

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-08, 12:00 PM
they're goblins/kobolds/whatever, and kobolds=evil is apparently an objective statement.

It's usually at least implied that goblins/kobolds/whatever are a threat to the lives of nearby decent people. It's not the designers fault if people forget to mention that when running the game.

AyeGill
2011-01-08, 12:15 PM
It's usually at least implied that goblins/kobolds/whatever are a threat to the lives of nearby decent people. It's not the designers fault if people forget to mention that when running the game.

True, but the fact remains that, like the assassin who only kills people he believe to be bad, whatever the definition of the word, the adventurers are still killing the kobolds in most cases because kobolds USUALLY aren't very good with people(Ok, to be fair, they usually kill or capture anybody who enroaches on their territory). That's like prosecuting and judging someone for theft, just because they happen to be a kleptomaniac.

Set
2011-01-08, 12:39 PM
Murdering people for money isn't really a morally debatable issue.

Agreed.

Money <<<< Life.

There may be debate in the real world about whether or not it's 'good' to value your own crap over other people's right to exist, but in D&D, where there is objective good and evil, it's pretty clear cut.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 12:43 PM
As I think has been very well pointed out, the job of assassin itself, the act of killing someone because you've been hired to do so, while still being able to accept jobs as you like, is a bit gray in terms of morality, but around the same grayness as being hired to clear out a den of goblins. What I'm more interested in is someone with this skill set whose profession is not to kill people. Whether or not someone has been assassinated has nothing to do with whether or not they've been payed to do so. That would seem to be more a contract killer, and while many contract killers are assassins, an assassin need not be a contract killer.

Squares are rectangles but rectangles don't have to be squares.

Let's look at the definition of "assassinate" here"
1.
to kill suddenly or secretively, esp. a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.
2.
to destroy or harm treacherously and viciously: to assassinate a person's character.

What I'm saying here that there are many ways to kill. You can cover yourself in armor and rush headfirst at you foe, and use your might and fury to shatter their will while you shatter their bones. You can pour over your arcane tomes and select just the perfect spell for the job before incinerating the target into a pile of ashes, or you can sneak into his castle in the dead of night and plunge a sliver of steel into his throat and exit silently.

The manner in which the person is taken out seems a triviality compared to the reason behind it, and I see no reason why this particular course of extermination, stealth as opposed to might or magic, should require that one be of evil intent to master. If the skills of a rogue, ranger, or black magician can be self-taught without the assistance of a guild or master, I can see no reason why the assassin skill set can't be self-taught, without joining an organization that demands the blood of an innocent as an entry fee.

Crow
2011-01-08, 12:48 PM
Well if we're going to bust out the dictionary;

Noun 1. assassin - a murderer (especially one who kills a prominent political figure) who kills by a surprise attack and often is hired to do the deed; "his assassins were hunted down like animals"; "assassinators of kings and emperors"

mur·der (mūrdr)
n.
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.
v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v.tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
v.intr.
To commit murder.

true_shinken
2011-01-08, 01:00 PM
What I'm more interested in is someone with this skill set whose profession is not to kill people.
You don't want the Assassin class, then. This class is meant for people that kill for money.
You want a Rogue, Ranger, Lurk, Ninja, Wizard, Druid, Spellthief, Scout, Shadowcaster, Bard or a lot other possible classes.
'I stealthily kill people' is very very easy to do in D&D. Hell, in the 1st level spectrum, a Commoner can do this pretty well with high stats alone.
Musings about the Commoner Assassin: Let's see, a 1st level Halfling Commoner with the Stealthy feat, Dex 20 and Str 16. He has both Hide and Move Silently maxed as cross class skills (2 ranks each). He has Hide +13 and Move Silently +11. With a longpear (the simple weapon he gains proficiency from commoner class) he hits at +4 for 1d6+4 damage. A minimum of 5 damage is enough to one-shot most 1st level characters with levels in NPC classes. +4 versus flat-footed AC might not be that easy against armored characters (probably a minority amongst NPC classes anyway), but with Initiative +5 our commoner assassin could probably try at least twice.



If the skills of a rogue, ranger, or black magician can be self-taught without the assistance of a guild or master, I can see no reason why the assassin skill set can't be self-taught, without joining an organization that demands the blood of an innocent as an entry fee.
Because they hold a monopoly on such techniques. Other classes can't be 'self-taught' without exposure even - PHB covers this pretty explicitly in the multiclass paragraphs. You don't suddenly decide 'oh, dunno, I want to be a wizard'. You study with the party's wizard until you get a grasp of it, do a little research on your own by reading ancient texts and stuff.
Really, your concept of 'any class can be self-taught' stretches verossimilitude and is not how it's laid out in the PHB in the first place.

Callos_DeTerran
2011-01-08, 01:01 PM
Poison Use: Do only evil people use poisons? Can a poison not be slipped into the drink of an evil dictator? Is it far more righteous and pure to find said evil dictator and beat him to death with a sword?

Or those on the path of evil. Yes. Yes, because less possibility for collateral death of innocents.


Outside the Book of Exalted Deeds ("poisonz are bad, here are sum gud poisonz!" :smallsigh:), where does it say that? :smallconfused:

In the much less confusingly written Book of Vile Deeds. I believe on the grounds that it's much more painful to kill someone via poison (not because being burned alive by a fireball is less painful mind you, but because the poison takes time to kill. Very painful time and usually have horrific symptoms) and somebody willing to use poison is usually not the most discriminating of individuals and won't care who ELSE gets poisoned as long as their target turns black in the face and suffocates on their own tongue (or something equally grisly)....Come to think of it, I think it's more because of the above protracted killing time and the fact it's considered a dishonorable way to kill that makes it evil, not so much the fact that once you dose the poison somewhere you have no control over who it affects unless said poison is on a weapon.


So an assassin hired to kill a dictator in order to arrange a coup where a more moral person takes his place is evil? Or an assassin murdering the leader of a war horde to make the horde fall into disarray is evil too?

Yep. Assuming you mean a person with the actual Assassin PrC and not somebody who's just termed as an assassin. And there is a difference, the Assassin didn't do it to arrange the coup or to stop the horde. He did it for his own reasons that likely included a big honking paycheck and/or spreading his infamy. An assassin, could very well have decent motivation for doing what he/she did and is just as likely not being paid to kill said people.


It ultimately comes down to who is playing the assassin though. :smallconfused:

Like anyone else he can pick and choose what jobs he takes. Sure MOST assassins will take the job and gut him, but just because most people do something doesn't mean a PC has to. A PC assassin could just as easily decide only to take jobs involving corrupt people.

There is already one big argument for this: Assassins Creed.

And yet this doesn't change the fact that he's murdering people for a paycheck. Sure, he may only kill corrupt people and delude himself into thinking that makes him more noble, but that doesn't change the fact a PC Assassin is killing people expressly for money, sometimes with poison (an Evil act). Therefore an evil act that happens to have good consequences, making it neutral at best which is not enough to shift their alignment away from evil.


Past situation from another game: The adventurers hear about a tribe of lizard folk attacking a small villiage. They report to the area, the mayor offers them each 100 GP to go clear out the tribe to stop the raids as the lizardmen have killed 12 people so far.

The adventurers charge in and slaughter the raiding lizardfolk. Congrats! you are now all Evil!

The lizard folk were only defending their territory because the humans decided they wanted it for themselves so they could expand ant the lizards were in the way.

Moral of the story: The path to the 9 hells is paved with good intentions :smallwink:

Here's a small breakdown for you...

Good Adventurers: Likely to take lizardman job not for reward but to stop the raids that are getting people killed. If they are rewarded afterward depends on who they just saved, making said reward independent of the cessation of the raids. And, point of fact, good adventurers can/should just as likely try a diplomatic solution to charge-and-stab.

Neutral Adventurers: Stopping the raids is a contract for them. They may be worried about people dying, but they want compensation for putting their lives in danger (a not unreasonable attitude) the same way a blacksmith charges for his hard labor. Neutral groups are just as capable of a diplomatic solution as good groups as well, keep in mind.

Evil Adventurers: What do they care if people are dying (Barring Lawful Evil ones who were benefiting from the labor of those people)? It's all about the money, it's the only reason they are taking the job in the first place and they don't care why the lizardfolk are defending their territory. They are paid to stop the raids and they take the path of least, and most bloody, resistance. To top it off they may harvest some souls, weld said lizardman into a fighting force on the beginning of a quest for global domination, or spend some time torturing said lizardmen. You know, because they can.



The Assassin in the DMG, in my opinion, can be reasonably extrapolated to belong to a group of like minded individuals who expressly kill for money. These individuals are also evil. The two statements do not have to be connected logically (although I think they are.)

Being an evil group of people, they demand an applicant to kill someone, presumably innocent, for no other purpose than to show your suitability for their group. Killing someone intentionally is generally evil without a good reason.

You are free to change the flavor of the class and the story assumptions behind it, as the Avenger class shows.

Debating the "morality" of assassination or assassins "in general" is really superfluous to debating the morality of the this specific Assassin PrC.

Also, they demand an applicant to kill someone before teaching them how to kill people better.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 01:04 PM
Yes, an assassin is one who puts and end to intelligent living beings by means of surprise, and is often but not necessarily payed for the deed.

An assassin is a murderer, there is no doubt in that fact at all. Murder is admittedly a harsh word for what is done. An adventuring party goes into a cave and "clears out" the kobolds and their leader and saves the magic unicorn, taking all the money and valuable objects the kobolds happened to be carrying. Intentions aside, the party went into that cave and murdered each and every one of those scaly bastards and then took all of their things. Thieves and murderers, the lot of them.

true_shinken
2011-01-08, 01:17 PM
Yes, an assassin is one who puts and end to intelligent living beings by means of surprise, and is often but not necessarily payed for the deed.
Please, dude. Assassin, the class, is one thing. Assassin, the word, is a different thing. The assassin class does it for the money.


Thieves and murderers, the lot of them.
Dictionaries and law both disagree with you. But I really don't want to waste time on this debate, you seem to have decided the evil alignment is 'just silly'. So, just remove the alignment restriction from your games and don't restrict it to a guild.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 01:26 PM
Please, dude. Assassin, the class, is one thing. Assassin, the word, is a different thing. The assassin class does it for the money.


ACTUAL QUOTE TIME
DMG Page 180
"The assassin is the master of dealing quick, lethal blows. Assassins also excel at infiltration and disguise. Assassins often function as spies, informants, killers for hire, or agents of vengeance. Their training in anatomy, stealth, poison, and the dark arts allows them to carry out missions of death with shocking, terrifying precision."
(emphasis mine)

What you seem to be reading it as is:
"The assassin is a killer for hire, contracted and trained by a guild of like-minded individuals.

true_shinken
2011-01-08, 01:32 PM
ACTUAL QUOTE TIME
DMG Page 180
Whatever floats your boat. There is no assassin's guild, assassins don't kill for money and the sky is pink. :smallsmile: As I said, do as you wish in your games. But as you yourself quoted, assassins are part of a guild and they won't let you join unless you're evil. This is RAW. Houserule whichever way you want.

JonestheSpy
2011-01-08, 01:32 PM
I agree with the fact that if killing for profit as the primary motive is evil, then adventurers are evil too. Sure killing off those kobolds has the side effect of saving that hamlet, but the adventurers usually don't really care, they just want practice(XP) and loot. But then, i do consider most classical adventuring parties evil.


QFT. Though how this differentiates them from the classic adventuring party still remains to be established. While lots of campaigns have genuinely good adventuring parties, the "classic" DnD adventure still seems to feature an adventuring party going into some sort of cave or dungeon and killing the inhabitants for no other reason than A: they have loot, and B: they're goblins/kobolds/whatever, and kobolds=evil is apparently an objective statement.

I got to put in a word about this "classic" adventuring party. I find it interesting to consider how DnD's original vision was to emulate Heroic Fantasy/Sword and Sorcery, from Lord of the Rings to Conan, and in none of that would you see the behaviour described by AyeGill and generally regarded as the stereotypical adventurer modus operandi. Sure there were lots of stories involving hunting for treasure in old ruins or whatnot, and usually some horrific abominations guarding said treasure, but there was no attitude of "Let's go kill some things and see what loot they have,", 'cause that really is no more than banditry.

"Classic" adventuring is really a metagaming phenomenon, players (and DM's) ignoring story and motivation and just going for the dice rolling and looting, a pen and paper version of playing Gauntlet, really. Knights of the Dinner Table has been getting milage out of the silliness of the phenomenon for years now.

And so going back to the original topic, yes being a killer-for-hire specifically trained in the techniques of murdering unsuspecting victims is morally quite a lot different than being an adventurer.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 01:37 PM
Whatever floats your boat. There is no assassin's guild, assassins don't kill for money and the sky is pink. :smallsmile: As I said, do as you wish in your games. But as you yourself quoted, assassins are part of a guild and they won't let you join unless you're evil. This is RAW. Houserule whichever way you want.

Sorry, I must be particularly slow this afternoon. Which part of my quote suggests guild involvement?

tribble
2011-01-08, 02:14 PM
Sorry, I must be particularly slow this afternoon. Which part of my quote suggests guild involvement?

{Scrubbed}

Anyway, Endon the White's argument is fallacious in that it presents a special circumstance. You can't argue morality based on special circumstance.

TheCountAlucard
2011-01-08, 02:22 PM
In the much less confusingly written Book of Vile Deeds.Sorry to be all jerkish about it, but "Vile Darkness."

And if I'm not taking one silly alignment book seriously, why should I take the other silly alignment book from another edition seriously?

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 02:25 PM
Sorry to be all jerkish about it, but "Vile Darkness."

And if I'm not taking one silly alignment book seriously, why should I take the other silly alignment book from another edition seriously?

Being fair, one shouldn't discount the Book of Vile Darkness because it is well written and introduces excellent content, where the Book of Exalted Deeds is often thought to be less well written and made for the sole purpose of being "Book of Vile Darkness for good guys" and introduces content that isn't as well done.

Callos_DeTerran
2011-01-08, 02:26 PM
Sorry to be all jerkish about it, but "Vile Darkness."

And if I'm not taking one silly alignment book seriously, why should I take the other silly alignment book from another edition seriously?

...I thought I got the name wrong.

And because people are less likely to get bent out of shape if you describe evil differently then them (which is hard to do considering the standards for 'evil' seem to be pretty universal) so they didn't have to adhere as rigidly to a certain concept? Then again I don't find either of them particularly silly really so I can't answer your question properly.

true_shinken
2011-01-08, 02:34 PM
Sorry, I must be particularly slow this afternoon. Which part of my quote suggests guild involvement?
Well, they are trained by somene, aren't they?
But I'm sorry, I was actually pointing towards something you didn't quote. The special requirement is that you must kill someone to join the assassins.
My point is just that the assassin prc is intended to be a member of an assassin's guild and it works fine as that. You can easily change that, though.

Xiander
2011-01-08, 02:34 PM
Sigh.
The class requires an evil alignment because as it is written, the only people taking the class will be people willing to kill someone with no other reason than the fact that they have to in order to join the class.

Yes people can kill for money and not be evil, but generally this falls into the realm of killing for a good reason and taking money for it. Assasins as written kill to be allowed to train to better at killing, and then kill for fun and profit.

However, there is no real reason not to change this if you want hired killers with a moral sense or people with assasin skills who are not hired killers.

Keinnicht
2011-01-08, 02:39 PM
Nothing much about the class except the flavor text is evil. Just remove the requirement of killing someone just to get in, and then change some flavor text.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 02:42 PM
However, there is no real reason not to change this if you want hired killers with a moral sense or people with assasin [sic] skills who are not hired killers.

See, there's my point. People with assassin skills who are not hired killers are just assassins. Being a hired killer is not a prerequisite to being an assassin. I see no Special: Must accept any and all assassination contracts purposed to you and maintain a career of hitman.

Zaq
2011-01-08, 02:49 PM
An assassin is hired to kill, period. The killing is of course premeditated, unprovoked, and often performed against a target who is typically unaware. The assassin is fine with slaying a priest of a goodly religion as well as an evil one, but he is certainly going to try his best to kill.


I think it's a matter of what the Assassin is willing to do for money. If you go up to a typical group of Neutral- and Good-aligned adventurers and say "I'll pay you each a thousand gold pieces to kill the baron of this town. No, he's not oppressing the villagers, yes his rents are fair, and I think he donates money to orphans. But he stepped on my foot the other day and I want revenge," the group will refuse the job. The very fact that the Assassin is willing to take such a job is likely what caused the designers to consider the Assassin profession inherently evil. And if the Assassin weren't willing to do such a job, he wouldn't be an assassin; he'd be a mercenary or adventurer.

Right, of course. Silly me. The SRD must have left out that class feature "Amoral Jerk (Ex): Assassins will always kill anyone, no questions asked, for pay." It's right there on p. 181 of the DMG—oh wait, no it isn't. In fact, there's nothing like that in there at all. It does mention that they are often "killers for hire," but that's actually just part of a list of things that they "often" are. There's nothing in the class that says that they do all these evil things. You're not only conflating fluff and crunch, but also adding some fluff that isn't necessarily there by default.

true_shinken
2011-01-08, 02:57 PM
See, there's my point. People with assassin skills who are not hired killers are just assassins. Being a hired killer is not a prerequisite to being an assassin. I see no Special: Must accept any and all assassination contracts purposed to you and maintain a career of hitman.
I'm always confused if you're talking about general assassins or the assassin prc. You mean the assassin prcs is not meant for hired killers? And you think that makes them not-evil? I really think I'm not getting your point.
Again, read carefully the special requirement. You need to kill someone for no other reason that to join the assassins. No other reason is the key point here - this is very very clearly an evil act and remember the assassin's guild the prestige class assumes - they will only accept you if you are evil. Yes, stealth skills and (some) spells are not evil per se, poison is detabable (though I find it pretty silly and I hoserule this in my games). But that's not what makes an assassin evil - it's the fact that the assassin's guild won't train you unless you are evil. You can change alignment later (in fact, I have one such assassin in my group) but they won't teach you their secrets unless you are evil and you kill someone for the hell of it.


Nothing much about the class except the flavor text is evil. Just remove the requirement of killing someone just to get in, and then change some flavor text.
Very well put.

SITB
2011-01-08, 03:01 PM
Or those on the path of evil. Yes. Yes, because less possibility for collateral death of innocents.



In the much less confusingly written Book of Vile Deeds. I believe on the grounds that it's much more painful to kill someone via poison (not because being burned alive by a fireball is less painful mind you, but because the poison takes time to kill. Very painful time and usually have horrific symptoms) and somebody willing to use poison is usually not the most discriminating of individuals and won't care who ELSE gets poisoned as long as their target turns black in the face and suffocates on their own tongue (or something equally grisly)....Come to think of it, I think it's more because of the above protracted killing time and the fact it's considered a dishonorable way to kill that makes it evil, not so much the fact that once you dose the poison somewhere you have no control over who it affects unless said poison is on a weapon.

That's... uhh silly. Very very silly.

If I accept this as true than almost any action during combat is evil because it causes undue harm. Like shoving a sword in someone or casting chram person or cause fear. How is using posion is more likelt to inflict more pain than being burned to deat? Or having your arm/leg cut off?

And the latter point is only true if the assassin is trully indiscriminating in his targets which is not always the case.



Yep. Assuming you mean a person with the actual Assassin PrC and not somebody who's just termed as an assassin. And there is a difference, the Assassin didn't do it to arrange the coup or to stop the horde. He did it for his own reasons that likely included a big honking paycheck and/or spreading his infamy. An assassin, could very well have decent motivation for doing what he/she did and is just as likely not being paid to kill said people.

How is the assassin I outlyed is diffrent than a specialized adventruer? Advetrures do take money and fight evil at the same time.



And yet this doesn't change the fact that he's murdering people for a paycheck. Sure, he may only kill corrupt people and delude himself into thinking that makes him more noble, but that doesn't change the fact a PC Assassin is killing people expressly for money, sometimes with poison (an Evil act). Therefore an evil act that happens to have good consequences, making it neutral at best which is not enough to shift their alignment away from evil.

How is he 'deluding' himself that he brings more good to the world by murdering only specfic targets rather than assassinating indscirimintly? Not to mention that no where in the PrC it's mentioned that he must take money for the assassination attepmts or lose the PrC benefits. The only undebatable evil in the PrC is the requirement to kill an innocent being, which to me seems to simply pigeonhole the assassin as "Always evil" with no satisfactory reason.

Not to mention that a netural act is netural not evil.

TL;DR The PrC assassin is evil becuase you need to kill an inncent to get into it. THere is really no reason why it should be so.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 04:03 PM
TL;DR The PrC assassin is evil becuase you need to kill an inncent to get into it. THere is really no reason why it should be so.

Exactly my point. A senseless Special given there is no requirement at all in the class that says you have to join any guild or become an indiscriminate hired killer. This leaves a weird gap in the fluff where anyone wanting to be an assassin must one day think to himself, "I would rather like to murder someone for no reason other than continue along my path of stealth and sudden strikes."

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-08, 04:42 PM
A brief summary of the thread:


10 "Why do Assassins have to be Evil? Nothing about their class features is Evil!"

20 "Well, they have to kill somebody to join, so it's mostly a fluff requirement."

30 "But if I get rid of this Assassin's Guild and only kill bad guys, they're not really Evil."

40 "Obviously, if you change the fluff then of course you can change the requirements."

50 "Yeah but the designers should have seen my point of view and retroactively change it."

60 "Um... I already said you could change the fluff requirements."

70 GOTO 10



STOP THE MADNESS!!! :smallsigh::smallsigh:

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 04:47 PM
The real issue is really that for some reason there's apparently a large number of DMs who won't adapt anything whatsoever ever.

true_shinken
2011-01-08, 04:59 PM
A brief summary of the thread:


10 "Why do Assassins have to be Evil? Nothing about their class features is Evil!"

20 "Well, they have to kill somebody to join, so it's mostly a fluff requirement."

30 "But if I get rid of this Assassin's Guild and only kill bad guys, they're not really Evil."

40 "Obviously, if you change the fluff then of course you can change the requirements."

50 "Yeah but the designers should have seen my point of view and retroactively change it."

60 "Um... I already said you could change the fluff requirements."

70 GOTO 10



STOP THE MADNESS!!! :smallsigh::smallsigh:
You, sir, are awesome.

Comet
2011-01-08, 04:59 PM
The real issue is really that for some reason there's apparently a large number of DMs who won't adapt anything whatsoever ever.

But the pain feels so good, man.

I don't know if this came up yet, or how much it matters, but there's also the mention of 'dark arts' as the source of magic for this class. That's usually associated with evil people, as well.

But yeah, it's all flavour, easily changed. I mean, is there anything in particular with the Bard's class features that demand them to be Chaotic? Anything with the Monk's features that demand you to be Lawful? I don't think there is.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 04:59 PM
A brief summary of the thread:

You forgot the part at the end where some lunatic randomly comes in, waving his arms, wondering what the endgame of the discussion is.

NichG
2011-01-08, 05:04 PM
That's... uhh silly. Very very silly.

If I accept this as true than almost any action during combat is evil because it causes undue harm. Like shoving a sword in someone or casting chram person or cause fear. How is using posion is more likelt to inflict more pain than being burned to deat? Or having your arm/leg cut off?


Just because various methods of dying may be mechanically identical does not mean that they are identical from the point of view of the characters. For instance, I've seen it house ruled before that using acid damage to kill things is an evil act, because its fundamentally a more painful and horrific way of killing, and one that leaves disfiguring scars/etc if the target survives (non-mechanical disfiguring scars, but just because something doesn't correspond to ability damage or drain doesn't mean it isn't there).

Similarly, poisons are actually a really ineffective way of killing people in D&D. Most poisons are incapable of actually killing (as they don't deal Con damage), and those that are capable are usually such small amounts that the average person would not die from one dose. Even black lotus poison has an even chance of not killing an average commoner on the primary. That means that the target is likely to suffer under the effects of the poison for at least a minute for fast-kill poisons like black lotus, and more likely will be given several doses of slow-kill poisons over the course of weeks or months before the Con damage kills them, suffering the effects over an extended period of time. Its no different than killing someone with disease. Add that many of the non-kill poisons have debilitating effects of a somewhat horrific nature - Wis poisons cause insanity, Cha poisons are like giving someone a frontal lobotomy, Int poisons reducing someone to a drooling idiot, a gradual decline that hurts not only them but friends and family around them who have to watch them decay.

Compared to that, sticking a sword in someone is merciful.

Now, you could have poisons whose use is non-evil. Poisons that simply knock people out could be used in non-evil ways. Poisons that kill quick and painlessly (e.g. primary damage is death, or no primary and secondary is death, or even just something with the proper fluff) could also be used in non-evil ways. A short-term paralytic poison could also be non-evil, but probably not one that does Dex damage (which takes a long time to heal naturally).

As for charm person and cause fear, there are settings in which all mind-altering magic is forbidden for good reason. It may not cause pain, but there are scary implications of having one's mind tampered with that go beyond having a sword stuck in you. On the other hand, I think there's a bit more leeway on such things in their particular use - causing a peasant a burst of temporary fear is technically mind-altering, but its not much different than creating scary sounds and going 'boo!'. Mostly because the suffering that they cause is very short (for cause fear) or normally imperceptible to the target (for charm person).

Callos_DeTerran
2011-01-08, 05:44 PM
Just because various methods of dying may be mechanically identical does not mean that they are identical from the point of view of the characters. For instance, I've seen it house ruled before that using acid damage to kill things is an evil act, because its fundamentally a more painful and horrific way of killing, and one that leaves disfiguring scars/etc if the target survives (non-mechanical disfiguring scars, but just because something doesn't correspond to ability damage or drain doesn't mean it isn't there).

Similarly, poisons are actually a really ineffective way of killing people in D&D. Most poisons are incapable of actually killing (as they don't deal Con damage), and those that are capable are usually such small amounts that the average person would not die from one dose. Even black lotus poison has an even chance of not killing an average commoner on the primary. That means that the target is likely to suffer under the effects of the poison for at least a minute for fast-kill poisons like black lotus, and more likely will be given several doses of slow-kill poisons over the course of weeks or months before the Con damage kills them, suffering the effects over an extended period of time. Its no different than killing someone with disease. Add that many of the non-kill poisons have debilitating effects of a somewhat horrific nature - Wis poisons cause insanity, Cha poisons are like giving someone a frontal lobotomy, Int poisons reducing someone to a drooling idiot, a gradual decline that hurts not only them but friends and family around them who have to watch them decay.

Compared to that, sticking a sword in someone is merciful.

Now, you could have poisons whose use is non-evil. Poisons that simply knock people out could be used in non-evil ways. Poisons that kill quick and painlessly (e.g. primary damage is death, or no primary and secondary is death, or even just something with the proper fluff) could also be used in non-evil ways. A short-term paralytic poison could also be non-evil, but probably not one that does Dex damage (which takes a long time to heal naturally).

^^^ Well put. Better then I put it even (though that's hardly unusual). If I remember correctly that's why the 'silly' poisons and diseases in Book of Exalted Deeds exist. They lack the horrific symptoms/side effects and, being spiritual poisons/diseases, only affect evil creatures.

SITB
2011-01-08, 06:17 PM
Just because various methods of dying may be mechanically identical does not mean that they are identical from the point of view of the characters. For instance, I've seen it house ruled before that using acid damage to kill things is an evil act, because its fundamentally a more painful and horrific way of killing, and one that leaves disfiguring scars/etc if the target survives (non-mechanical disfiguring scars, but just because something doesn't correspond to ability damage or drain doesn't mean it isn't there).

Similarly, poisons are actually a really ineffective way of killing people in D&D. Most poisons are incapable of actually killing (as they don't deal Con damage), and those that are capable are usually such small amounts that the average person would not die from one dose. Even black lotus poison has an even chance of not killing an average commoner on the primary. That means that the target is likely to suffer under the effects of the poison for at least a minute for fast-kill poisons like black lotus, and more likely will be given several doses of slow-kill poisons over the course of weeks or months before the Con damage kills them, suffering the effects over an extended period of time. Its no different than killing someone with disease. Add that many of the non-kill poisons have debilitating effects of a somewhat horrific nature - Wis poisons cause insanity, Cha poisons are like giving someone a frontal lobotomy, Int poisons reducing someone to a drooling idiot, a gradual decline that hurts not only them but friends and family around them who have to watch them decay.

Compared to that, sticking a sword in someone is merciful.

Now, you could have poisons whose use is non-evil. Poisons that simply knock people out could be used in non-evil ways. Poisons that kill quick and painlessly (e.g. primary damage is death, or no primary and secondary is death, or even just something with the proper fluff) could also be used in non-evil ways. A short-term paralytic poison could also be non-evil, but probably not one that does Dex damage (which takes a long time to heal naturally).

As for charm person and cause fear, there are settings in which all mind-altering magic is forbidden for good reason. It may not cause pain, but there are scary implications of having one's mind tampered with that go beyond having a sword stuck in you. On the other hand, I think there's a bit more leeway on such things in their particular use - causing a peasant a burst of temporary fear is technically mind-altering, but its not much different than creating scary sounds and going 'boo!'. Mostly because the suffering that they cause is very short (for cause fear) or normally imperceptible to the target (for charm person).

Really? Where does it say poison causes extraordinary pain? How is fireball or sword fighting the most effective way to kill someone without living them crippled? The fact that poison can be used to slowly kill somebody doesn't mean that it always will be.

Burn related scars are pretty hellishly horrific, is fireball and other fire related damage is evil now? Not to mention that crippling a person is pretty terrible too, even more so in medieval times.

Having a poison that's designed to cause as much suffering as it can is evil, a poison that acts within a few seconds and lets the second strike be far more effective is not. Poison as used in combat isn't more evil than almost any other method an adventurer may use. And out of combat you it depends on other variables. (does it cause a lot of pain? Is it fast acting? How does it actually kill, physical damage or mental one?)

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 06:17 PM
For instance, I've seen it house ruled before that using acid damage to kill things is an evil act, because its fundamentally a more painful and horrific way of killing, and one that leaves disfiguring scars/etc if the target survives (non-mechanical disfiguring scars, but just because something doesn't correspond to ability damage or drain doesn't mean it isn't there).

That's ridiculous. That would make killing war trolls shift one's alignment despite having to do so in order to execute them for murder or as part of a battle. Or, y'know, make war trolls be a catch-22 to Paladins simply by existing.


Add that many of the non-kill poisons have debilitating effects of a somewhat horrific nature - Wis poisons cause insanity, Cha poisons are like giving someone a frontal lobotomy, Int poisons reducing someone to a drooling idiot, a gradual decline that hurts not only them but friends and family around them who have to watch them decay.

That depends entirely on the time frame and context in which they are used. In combat, you don't have time to watch someone decay when they're being mental ability damaged into no longer being able to cast or into a temporary coma. Yeah, a coma, not insanity. And not even one with risks of permanent damage like real life comas. The only one that could be argued in that way is Charisma draining, which does induce a catatonic, coma-like state. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#abilityScoreLoss)

Reducing someone from 18 int to 12 or 10 or 8 is not making them into a drooling idiot. And reducing them from 10 int to 1 or 0 is not gradual if done in one go. And would require, by that system, for the Feeblemind spell to be more evil because intelligence damage is temporary, feeblemind is permanent without being removed by another spellcaster.

Indeed, there's no indication other than an individuals inherent prejudices that would lead to such an occurrence of drooling. Dogs don't all drool, after all, and making someone have animal intelligence does not mean that they will pick up the habit.

And the more popular disabling poisons are the paralytics from what I understand, which cause no permanent harm beyond what they allow someone to do to a defenseless person much like all of the non-CON, non-HP damaging poisons.


^^^ Well put. Better then I put it even (though that's hardly unusual). If I remember correctly that's why the 'silly' poisons and diseases in Book of Exalted Deeds exist. They lack the horrific symptoms/side effects and, being spiritual poisons/diseases, only affect evil creatures.

No they don't. Ravages are deliberately horrifically painful to those they affect in addition to the damage that they do. It falls into the awkward area of it being "ok" to torture evil creatures. Whereas there's no indication given that poisons have side effects other than their explicit effects. Since hit points are an abstraction, we don't even know if HP-damaging poisons cause physical pain or not. So that's entirely up to the DM.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 06:26 PM
Even if a poison caused someone to vomit up their own entrails, I stand by a philosophy of "Do bad things to bad people." Is that evil?

Burner28
2011-01-08, 06:31 PM
Even if a poison caused someone to vomit up their own entrails, I stand by a philosophy of "Do bad things to bad people." Is that evil?

That really depends on who you ask. While some people might think it fits Neutral others still think it fits Evil

KillianHawkeye
2011-01-08, 06:34 PM
You forgot the part at the end where some lunatic randomly comes in, waving his arms, wondering what the endgame of the discussion is.

I didn't randomly come in, I've been in the discussion the whole time. Also, don't call me a lunatic when I'm clearly the only sane person here! :smallamused:

SITB
2011-01-08, 06:36 PM
Even if a poison caused someone to vomit up their own entrails, I stand by a philosophy of "Do bad things to bad people." Is that evil?

I would, otherwise good and evil simply become opposite sports teams with simple "Team work? Yay/nay" philosophies.

dgnslyr
2011-01-08, 06:39 PM
Murdering people for money isn't really a morally debatable issue.

Isn't that what all adventurers of all alignments do anyways?

*cough* *violent armed hobos* *cough*

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 06:40 PM
^: Whenever I see that, I want to make a race of violet hobos. x,x


Even if a poison caused someone to vomit up their own entrails, I stand by a philosophy of "Do bad things to bad people." Is that evil?

I think Champions of Ruin covers this a fair bit and the stance there was that paying evil unto evil can balance out to neutral but it can also just be evil, depending upon how else the character acts.

For example, Dread Necromancers can maintain a neutral alignment if they're otherwise good aside from using their spell library of evil spells, and they're mostly going up against evil opponents.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 06:46 PM
^: Whenever I see that, I want to make a race of violet hobos. x,x

Can I be the leader of these hobos? . . . Or their doctor?

Callos_DeTerran
2011-01-08, 06:54 PM
No they don't. Ravages are deliberately horrifically painful to those they affect in addition to the damage that they do. It falls into the awkward area of it being "ok" to torture evil creatures. Whereas there's no indication given that poisons have side effects other than their explicit effects. Since hit points are an abstraction, we don't even know if HP-damaging poisons cause physical pain or not. So that's entirely up to the DM.

I'm looking at them right now.


Using poisons that deal ability damage (drain) is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent

The implication being that ravages are thus alright since they DON'T cause undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent.

Also...hrm. I can't find it now, but I remember that each of the poisons was given a description of how it works (not just the ability damage it deals but how it deals the ability damage, symptoms, etc) but I'm not sure where it's found. It might be third-party, in that case it's non-official, but it's hardly a huge logic leap that poison in D&D is as about as horrific as it is in Real Life.

DoctorHobo
2011-01-08, 06:59 PM
It might be third-party, in that case it's non-official, but it's hardly a huge logic leap that poison in D&D is as about as horrific as it is in Real Life.

Poisons in real life are way more efficient than poisons in D&D. Obviously because it would be pretty unbalancing to have cyanide an initial damage of "coma, seizures, cardiac arrest" followed by a secondary "death" available to the players.

Callos_DeTerran
2011-01-08, 07:18 PM
Poisons in real life are way more efficient than poisons in D&D. Obviously because it would be pretty unbalancing to have cyanide an initial damage of "coma, seizures, cardiac arrest" followed by a secondary "death" available to the players.

Thank you for pointing out cyanide actually. D&D Cyanide may not be as efficient, but it has the same symptoms if it kills.

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 07:40 PM
Thank you for pointing out cyanide actually. D&D Cyanide may not be as efficient, but it has the same symptoms if it kills.

So... cyanide is inherently more suffering that repeatedly skewering someone with sticks or slowly beating them to death while they try to beat you to death right back. Despite the fact that you said that those are more merciful due to being a quick death.

IRL poisons... As far as I recall, generally either immediately induce toxic shock and then unconsciousness and then death rapidly or make someone sick and weaker and weaker until they expire (gradual arsenic poisoning).

Venoms, on the other hand, those can create burning sensations and severe pain, so not much difference between them and ravages, really. Well, snakes don't have to pretend they're morally justified like angels do, I guess.

And it's telling that ravages cause an excruciating level of pain in their description but we don't get told that poisons cause "undue suffering"(ridiculous in and of itself when in the process of stabbing someone to death) until we're having ravages introduced as the good alternative. There's a reason their fluff is unpopular.

It's hypocritical to say that Ravages are good for causing intense pain and suffering to the evil but that Poisons are evil for causing "undue suffering" to the evil.

If paralyzing someone with poison so that they're out of the fight and their friends can be more easily dispatched is evil, then so is paralyzing them with magic so that they're out of the fight and their friends can be more easily dispatched.

Xiander
2011-01-08, 09:02 PM
Exactly my point. A senseless Special given there is no requirement at all in the class that says you have to join any guild or become an indiscriminate hired killer. This leaves a weird gap in the fluff where anyone wanting to be an assassin must one day think to himself, "I would rather like to murder someone for no reason other than continue along my path of stealth and sudden strikes."

Interestingly, i agree with you. But as the class is written that is how assasins work.

I will repeat though, that it is very easily house ruled.

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 09:11 PM
Interestingly, i agree with you. But as the class is written that is how assasins work.

I will repeat though, that it is very easily house ruled.

Which is a bit of an example of Mr. Oberoni. Just because it can be houseruled does not make it immune to criticism of the design decision.

And of course, having such an abstract class with pigeonholing fluff/social requirements is always annoying, especially due to the number of people who play and run their games such that the idea of adapting things as anything other than a way to punish players is alien to them.

NichG
2011-01-08, 09:22 PM
That's ridiculous. That would make killing war trolls shift one's alignment despite having to do so in order to execute them for murder or as part of a battle. Or, y'know, make war trolls be a catch-22 to Paladins simply by existing.


There are situations where no one can come out of it 'clean'. Wars tend to be like that - you may need to fight for your own survival, or you might be fighting to save others, but there are things that you'd end up doing that you'd feel guilt about later as part of that.

Not quite the same example, but as far as burning/acid/etc goes, use of white phosphorous weapons IRL is considered a war crime, and they're basically the real-life equivalent of an acid or burning based weapon.

It could also be used to add an element of horror inherent in how a particular kind of creature needs to be killed. This is somewhat unexplored (and is more of a Call of Cthulhu idea than a D&D idea in its tenor), but it could have interesting ramifications - e.g. here's an evil monster that has regeneration that is only defeated by damage done by an evil creature; it can only be removed from existence either by someone willing to fall to do so, or if evil itself finds it too dangerous to exist.



That depends entirely on the time frame and context in which they are used. In combat, you don't have time to watch someone decay when they're being mental ability damaged into no longer being able to cast or into a temporary coma. Yeah, a coma, not insanity. And not even one with risks of permanent damage like real life comas. The only one that could be argued in that way is Charisma draining, which does induce a catatonic, coma-like state. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#abilityScoreLoss)

Reducing someone from 18 int to 12 or 10 or 8 is not making them into a drooling idiot. And reducing them from 10 int to 1 or 0 is not gradual if done in one go. And would require, by that system, for the Feeblemind spell to be more evil because intelligence damage is temporary, feeblemind is permanent without being removed by another spellcaster.


I could see a setting or campaign in which feeblemind is considered an evil spell. I think that's a reasonable conclusion to reach.



And the more popular disabling poisons are the paralytics from what I understand, which cause no permanent harm beyond what they allow someone to do to a defenseless person much like all of the non-CON, non-HP damaging poisons.


All poisons that deal ability damage cause no 'permanent' harm. They do however cause long-duration harm that, absent magical intervention, could take weeks to heal. Poisons that are explicitly paralytics (i.e. save vs paralysis) tend to be very short duration, which is why I would tend to exempt them.



No they don't. Ravages are deliberately horrifically painful to those they affect in addition to the damage that they do. It falls into the awkward area of it being "ok" to torture evil creatures. Whereas there's no indication given that poisons have side effects other than their explicit effects. Since hit points are an abstraction, we don't even know if HP-damaging poisons cause physical pain or not. So that's entirely up to the DM.

Agreed. Most ravages are silly as written due to this problem, and in a campaign where, e.g., utilizing acid damage is evil I would say that ravages would be evil by the same standards. Of course, this is also from the same book that has the good aligned deities of Celestia eating the extracted and distilled joy of their worshipers.

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 09:42 PM
There are situations where no one can come out of it 'clean'. Wars tend to be like that - you may need to fight for your own survival, or you might be fighting to save others, but there are things that you'd end up doing that you'd feel guilt about later as part of that.

You're missing the point of the Paladin Catch-22 statement, in the end, Paladins are meaningless if there's a Catch-22 possible in the game they're in, because that means that the code they follow is wrong and thus being a Paladin is wrong.


Not quite the same example, but as far as burning/acid/etc goes, use of white phosphorous weapons IRL is considered a war crime, and they're basically the real-life equivalent of an acid or burning based weapon.

Indeed, white phosphorous weapons became considered a warcrime for more than just their effects on enemy combatants. However, that's not how acid weapons work in the slightest in D&D without changing them, since they only burn at the same time they're being applied to one's foe, after the initial burst, they stop and they don't spread everywhere. So as an example, it's not very good.


It could also be used to add an element of horror inherent in how a particular kind of creature needs to be killed. This is somewhat unexplored (and is more of a Call of Cthulhu idea than a D&D idea in its tenor), but it could have interesting ramifications - e.g. here's an evil monster that has regeneration that is only defeated by damage done by an evil creature; it can only be removed from existence either by someone willing to fall to do so, or if evil itself finds it too dangerous to exist.

No, it just makes the alignment system being used by the DM look arbitrary and badly put together, especially since they'd know that it's an intentional house rule. So, in terms of drumming up drama, it's a cheap move that, to me, just makes the DM look bad for making it evil to use the only weapon available to kill something more evil simply because the weapon can be used to inflict more suffering in the people that are being killed by it than a normal steel blade.


All poisons that deal ability damage cause no 'permanent' harm. They do however cause long-duration harm that, absent magical intervention, could take weeks to heal.

It is still more merciful to have someone take 10 days max to recover to non-penalized functionality (and capable of taking care of the basics in 3 days, and functioning moderately well in about a week) than killing the person, and it doesn't matter how long you wait, without intervention, one doesn't recover from being killed with pointy sticks to the face. It's still far, far less time to recover than breaking someone's limb, which isn't ever called out as evil as far as I know, despite being a way of condemning someone to starve to death.

And paralyzing someone before killing them should be part of what determines whether killing them was evil rather than evil because you paralyzed them via muscle relaxants instead of paralyzing them using magic.

Like, say, they were retreating and not going to be a threat but Mr. Bloodthirsty wanted to kill them anyway. Or maybe paralyzing someone with an arrow to keep them from killing any more innocents until one's party could get closer to them in order to provide a more immediate cessation of ability to hack down women and children.

Azernak0
2011-01-08, 09:42 PM
This more more of a fundamental problem with the Alignment system than it is for the class. Alignment is so finicky because most of the times there is no clear cut Evil and Good thing to do. As you mentioned, how is poison evil or more evil compared to dropping an anvil on your opponent's head?

Take an example that has actually come up in play. We were in a desert and were attacked by bandits. We killed them all except for one. We did not have the ability to throw him in prison, did not have the spare resources to keep him alive, we couldn't let a criminal go free, and we couldn't just kill an unarmed man. We ended up leaving him tied up in some shade and left. Is tying someone up and leaving them to die "Good" but killing them quickly is "Evil?" Things just don't work in Black and White most of the time.

But, yes, the Assassin thing has bothered me. How is a Royal Assassin Evil when he is just carrying out his duties for his King? Ever play Mass Effect 2; Thane is obviously an Assassin but doesn't consider himself an evil person because "My employers killed him. My body is a tool: you do not blame your gun for killing someone."

Alignment, aside from Lawful and Chaotic, hits very closely to real world philosophy in such a way that it is almost pointless to quantify it. Some people fall into the category of "The ends justify the means" and some people believe "Intention is more important than consequence." Whatever view has their merit and each one of us likely has a very strong feeling on that view. For the same reason why real world religion is not used in DnD, I think the Alignment system can be chucked out the window for the most part.

Dusk Eclipse
2011-01-08, 09:58 PM
The real issue is really that for some reason there's apparently a large number of DMs who won't adapt anything whatsoever ever.

You don't have idea on how true you are, I discussed with one DM for months, so I could play an assassin, (I was mostly interested in death attack) but he said no, unless all damage gained from Assassin (sneak attack) was non.-lethal.... whut? Oh and Death attack now could only be used to paralyse.

Yeah, no I wouldn't play that assassin, because it stopped being an assassin:smallannoyed: (I decided on going straight rogue in the end).

Also your sig always confuses me; the:smiley at the end always seems to be part of your post, and I have to double check if you are being serious or not.

FelixG
2011-01-09, 06:16 AM
There are situations where no one can come out of it 'clean'. Wars tend to be like that - you may need to fight for your own survival, or you might be fighting to save others, but there are things that you'd end up doing that you'd feel guilt about later as part of that.


I could just imagine the paladin handing a vial of acid to the rogue and saying "Hey can you finish this one off, I cant do it because the DM doesn't know what hes doing."

Though really, outside of the Book(s) of Alignment Stupidity is there any indication that having your con drained for 3d6 is any worse than being blasted for 3d6 fire damage or being stabbed in the gut for 3d6?

Trekkin
2011-01-09, 06:47 AM
I could just imagine the paladin handing a vial of acid to the rogue and saying "Hey can you finish this one off, I cant do it because the DM doesn't know what hes doing."

Though really, outside of the Book(s) of Alignment Stupidity is there any indication that having your con drained for 3d6 is any worse than being blasted for 3d6 fire damage or being stabbed in the gut for 3d6?

Well, 18 CON damage is a lot worse than 18 points of damage, but no, and this is why the Alignment system is, in my opinion, one of the parts of the abstraction that fits least smoothly with the concepts it's trying to represent. Personally, I just say to heck with it and play Shadowrun (no alignment whatsoever for a very good reason) or Paranoia (asking about Alignment gives the GM an excellent reason to kill your character).

The alignment system has always been my microcosm for everything that is best and worst about DnD. It can be restrictive, silly, and overly simplistic, but it works well enough often enough that it's worth using. Assassins can be made generic sneaky killers just as well as Paladins can be made generic martial holy warriors, and the game works just as well mechanically.That said, the morality of killing has to be dependent on the factors it is, and probably only those, for violent hobo heroes to be possible.

TheCountAlucard
2011-01-09, 07:04 AM
Well, 18 CON damage is a lot worse than 18 points of damage...Usually; a first-level Dwarf Wizard with CON 19-20 is going to be better off with taking 18 CON damage than 18 damage. The first would be really inconvenient, yes, but he'd be a lot more likely to survive the first than the second. :smallbiggrin:

Okay, I'll stop now. :smalltongue:

AyeGill
2011-01-09, 07:09 AM
Usually; a first-level Dwarf Wizard with CON 19-20 is going to be better off with taking 18 CON damage than 18 damage. The first would be really inconvenient, yes, but he'd be a lot more likely to survive the first than the second. :smallbiggrin:

Okay, I'll stop now. :smalltongue:

Well, at first level, mortality is so high that any reasonable assumptions about what is 'worst' based on what is hardest to survive, becomes stupid.