Are assassins evil?

[Kish]

I remember a 2ed book (don't, unfortunately, remember which one it was) which said, at length, that the assassin class from 1ed had been dropped from 2ed not because D&D worlds no longer had assassins, as in hired killers, but because the authors had not thought the role "assassin" merited a class of its own. Are you a thief (class name at the time) who uses your class abilities to kill for money? Then you're a class thief, profession assassin. A mage (class name at the time) who uses your class abilities to kill for money? Then you're a class mage, profession assassin.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

I would say it's a fair assessment. An assassin isn't like the other classes or prestige classes. Those classes specialize in fighting. The assassin specializes in killing. He has little honor and no remorse, after all, if he did, why would he be an assassin? He does other people's dirty work for them so they have no blood on their hands. He murders people for no other reason than personal gain. Sure, the contractor might have valid reasons, but the assassin himself does not.
I mean, sure, there are plenty of cases of assassins supporting the cause they're assassinating for (See: John Wilkes Booth, Gavrilo Princip, etc.), but that doesn't change the fact that they're murdering people. So, yeah, I think being evil is a safe pre-requisite for becoming an assassin.

Under that logic you can say a soldier's job in inherently evil. The only difference between a Gov. Agent and a Soldier is one does it in the shadows. Now free-agents that takes killing contracts for cash is evil.

[BootStrapTommy]

OMG. A zombie! Risen from the grave!

Killing is not, by definition, an Evil action. Lest all adventurers are evil. It is who is killed (and to a degree how and why) that determines the morality of the killing.

Hired hitman? Often evil, since their motive is selfish and their targets not always Evil.

But if targeted killing is by its definition an Evil act, then precision bombing is one of the widest spread acts of Evil in our day and morality demand we return to the days of carpet bombing!

If Evil folks in insular places are removed by Good folks who specialize in targeted killing, fewer potentially innocent minions fall to the sword of "Good" adventurers murderhoboing their way to the BBG.

[Darth Ultron]

What do you guys think? Are Assassins necessarily evil?

As a generic word, I'd say No Assassins are not evil. But I would say the Assassin prestige class in the DMG is an evil only class. The DMG class is much more the ''evil assassin'' then any other type.

And the DMG, like all D&D books, is written from the good point of view.

Though you could have a person that kills that is not evil. Chaotic Good can make for a perfect assassin, for example.

[BootStrapTommy]

Though you could have a person that kills that is not evil. Chaotic Good can make for a perfect assassin, for example. The only Good assassins one can play in 3.5 however is a Lawful Good Avenger.

[Darth Ultron]

The only Good assassins one can play in 3.5 however is a Lawful Good Avenger.

It depends if your only talking about Game Rules.

You could make a Chaotic Good rogue that works directly for a Lawful Good king that eliminates people. An ''assassin'' in name.

It does come down to what an ''assassin'' really is:

Killing people: this is ok for all alignments.
Killing others by orders: Again all alignments
Killing others for money: all alignments (for example:a LG ''bounty hunter'' can bring a person back ''dead or alive'', and that is simply being an assassin)
Using poison: all alignments
Killing by surprise: all alignments
Killing by treachery: You'd lose good here

[hamishspence]

A Good bounty hunter can only go after outlaws.

Killing innocent people for money is kind of Evil:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Destroy innocent life" + "for profit"

[BootStrapTommy]

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Destroy innocent life" + "for profit"
While I understand that this is supposed flavor on the Assassin, the majority of assassins in history haven't done it for the money. Nor killed "innocents". Hence questioning the flavor.

5e has made Assassin a Rogue archetype. It is now no longer limited to the flavor of hired hitman.


You could make a Chaotic Good rogue that works directly for a Lawful Good king that eliminates people. An ''assassin'' in name. Lol, replace Chaotic with Lawful and you just described an Avenger.

[hamishspence]

Safest not to go into real history though.

The dispute was over whether "Killing others for money" is compatible with all alignments - and under what circumstances is it not.

[BootStrapTommy]

The dispute was over whether "Killing others for money" is compatible with all alignments - and under what circumstances is it not. If it isn't, there are no Good adventurers. "Clear out the goblins and you'll be rewarded!" is killing for money.

[hamishspence]

Narrative reframing:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0975.html


In this case "They're attacking towns - they can only be stopped by Sending In The Adventurers".

With Good-aligned ones doing it mostly for the altruism "protect innocent townsfolk" - Neutral ones doing it for a mixture of altruism and profit - and Evil ones doing it purely for the profit (and not caring in the least who started the fight).

[BootStrapTommy]

With Good-aligned ones doing it mostly for the altruism "protect innocent townsfolk" - Neutral ones doing it for a mixture of altruism and profit - and Evil ones doing it purely for the profit (and not caring in the least who started the fight). Yes, motivation plays a large part. But one can be in a profession which is paid to do bad for good, and still be motivated by the good. Or at least that's what utilitarians tell me. Otherwise, Good players should never accept rewards.

The idea that Good players can take the quest "Go kill the goblin raiders, I'll reward you." But can't take "Go kill the doctor-knight who's performing perverse experiments, and I'll reward you." simply cuz the latter is a targeted killing is silly.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: This thread is over 2 years old, so I'm closing it for necromancy. But if you guys want to keep discussing this you can feel free to start another thread.