PDA

View Full Version : Are assassins evil?



Pages : [1] 2

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-28, 07:19 PM
My pals and I have been having a discussion for a while that I thought I would bring here to the forum.

In D&D 3.5 one of the requirements for the Assassin prestige class is an evil alignment.

I've always had a problem with this. To me, being an assassin is not necessarily evil. I admit that Assassin's Creed has shaded my perception here, but I can't help but think that an individual pursuing a career in contract killing does not necessarily have to be evil, assuming they choose their targets with some discernment as well as kill targets for a "greater good" purpose.

As a consequence, we usually modify the requirement with a compromise to non-good.

What do you guys think? Are Assassins necessarily evil?

Alejandro
2012-08-28, 07:23 PM
A good way to look at it is, would you mind if someone tried to assassinate you? That's usually a good litmus test for this sort of thing.

Eldonauran
2012-08-28, 07:28 PM
What do you guys think? Are Assassins necessarily evil?

In my opinion, yes. Without a doubt. They are contracted murderers.

Jeopardizer
2012-08-28, 07:28 PM
I think like you, an assassin is not necessarily evil.

But I still think their alignement is pretty restricted. Or you are a good assassin (like Assassin's Creed maybe) working for the good and all that (after all if a good character kills an evil necromancer it doesn't make him evil, so why not?), or you are evil (you make a living out of killing people after all, even if you don't care about it and don't do it out of malice).

No neutral ground :o

(So Hitman would be Neutral Evil, Sneaky Psychopath is Chaotic Evil and Altaïr is... Something Good.)

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-28, 07:35 PM
(So Hitman would be Neutral Evil, Sneaky Psychopath is Chaotic Evil and Altaïr is... Something Good.)

Chaotic Good. For an assassin to be good, they would have to be the "For the greater good" type Good, which is Chaotic. The Brotherhood is the "For the greater good" type good. Maybe even Neutral Good, assuming they have respect for just authorities (like Ezio). But never Lawful.

I think someone who kills specific "Evil" target for the good of others is Good and an assassin could do that.

Remmirath
2012-08-28, 07:39 PM
I think it depends very heavily on what type of an assassin they are.

The Slayer of Domiel class from the Book of Exalted Deeds is essentially an assassin anyhow, and I believe they're stated to be always good (haven't read it in a while, though) - so there's some precedent within D&D, although I don't think that having a whole other class for it is really necessary.

Me, I deal with the alignment restriction depending on what type of assassin guild/organisation/position it is. I think that you can have an evil assassin (does it for the money, for an evil or even not-good cause, doesn't care about the targets), a neutral assassin (perhaps does it for the money or a not-good cause, but is very choosy about their targets), or a good assassin (does it for the greater good, doesn't kill anyone except evil people).


A good way to look at it is, would you mind if someone tried to assassinate you? That's usually a good litmus test for this sort of thing.

So, fighters (and anyone of any other class who is basically a soldier) are also always evil? I don't think that holds up very well in practice. People almost always mind being killed, and adventurers in any form almost always kill people.

Emmerask
2012-08-28, 07:40 PM
The problem with "for the greater good" is that it just does not work when you are not omniscient (or at least very close to that).

Who can say if the son of the evil guy would not become the Paladin of Goody Goodness who would have saved the world from evil?
In that case if you killed him for "the greater good" you just furthered evil in the world...

Maybe in a fantasy world an assassin who works for a god of good(directly or indirectly) could manage to work for the greater good in all other cases no...

If you take money to kill someone chances are high you are evil :smallwink:



So, fighters (and anyone of any other class who is basically a soldier) are also always evil? I don't think that holds up very well in practice. People almost always mind being killed, and adventurers in any form almost always kill people.

The difference is that they donīt take money to kill someone, they take money to protect and serve their kingdom/republic/whatever.

Actually I donīt remember any of my "good" chars taking a contract to kill someone because it feels just evil ^^

Water_Bear
2012-08-28, 07:42 PM
"Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted"

Definitely a Good-aligned philosophy. :smalltongue:

Seriously, Altair/Ezzio are decent dudes with reasonable motives... but they are absolutely not "Good" in the D&D sense of the word. I could see an argument for Neutral, but honestly Evil makes the most sense to me.

Evil people can have good reasons for what they do, and oppose other Evil people. They can see what they do as necessary evil for a greater good, and think that they are the heroes in their life stories. They can be protagonists, and they can be sympathetic. But they cannot be Good.

On the bright side though, there is a Lawful (Avenger) and a Good (Slayer of <whoever>) version of the Assassin in 3.5 if you need one. Not that it makes any sense to me, but eh.

Eldonauran
2012-08-28, 07:46 PM
**snip**

You said it beter than I could have.

Evil can be nice, lovable and have reasonable motivations. This is why it is so easy and seductive. Still evil though. :smallfrown:

Hiro Protagonest
2012-08-28, 07:47 PM
Contract assassins? Unless there's some weird edge case, they're evil. However, they are not automatically "kill on sight" types. Sure, there are some psychopaths who figure out they can get paid for what they like to do, but the majority are simply mercenaries with a focus on stealth and sniping.

Assassins who, while still getting paid for their work, have loyalty to a government or group and act as a special ops member for them? Almost always neutral, usually lawful.

Vigilante assassins? Usually evil, but if they actually know what they're doing, pretty much all alignments are possible.

And Water Bear? The Creed doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you want". It means that free will is important above all else.

Overall, I would rate assassins as Blue, Black, and sometimes White. They are efficient, and work for themselves or for their nation.

Chromascope3D
2012-08-28, 07:50 PM
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.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-28, 07:54 PM
Assassins who, while still getting paid for their work, have loyalty to a government or group and act as a special ops member for them? Almost always neutral, usually lawful.

There is a class for this. The Avenger. And yeah, they only have a Lawful requirement, though good, evil, or neutral depends on the country they work for. Only on a few points is it different than the Assassin.
Kinda like a secret agent who assassinates someone to keep them from blowing his country up.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-28, 08:02 PM
"Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted"

Definitely a Good-aligned philosophy. :smalltongue:

Seriously, Altair/Ezzio are decent dudes with reasonable motives... but they are absolutely not "Good" in the D&D sense of the word. I could see an argument for Neutral, but honestly Evil makes the most sense to me.

Evil people can have good reasons for what they do, and oppose other Evil people. They can see what they do as necessary evil for a greater good, and think that they are the heroes in their life stories. They can be protagonists, and they can be sympathetic. But they cannot be Good.

On the bright side though, there is a Lawful (Avenger) and a Good (Slayer of <whoever>) version of the Assassin in 3.5 if you need one. Not that it makes any sense to me, but eh.

Going by the first game, the objective of the Assassin's is to kill those who would start wars and create suffering for those around them. They kill a few, so that the many may live in peace and without suffering (all Good characters in D&D do this). The game constantly touts them working "for the greater good". All the targets the Brotherhood kills are Evil people, targeted because they are Evil, who make those around them suffer and have plans to dominate and control those around them. Meanwhile the Creed prevents the killing of innocents and requires aid to those who need it. That has Good written all over it to me, even if it is dubiously so.

Furthermore, Ezio and Altair are repeatedly depicted as having strong compassion and a sense of justice, which are patiently Good traits.

Rejnhard
2012-08-28, 08:02 PM
Evil? No more than murder-hobos, imho.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-28, 08:04 PM
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.

In D&D Good characters murder people all the time. They are justified because those they kill are "Evil".

Why can't a Good guy specialize in killing "Evil" people, considering he already does plenty of it?

Hiro Protagonest
2012-08-28, 08:27 PM
There is a class for this. The Avenger. And yeah, they only have a Lawful requirement, though good, evil, or neutral depends on the country they work for. Only on a few points is it different than the Assassin.
Kinda like a secret agent who assassinates someone to keep them from blowing his country up.

Yeah, I know, but this is in "general roleplaying" not "3.5" and is discussing assassins, not Assassins in particular.

When I think "assassin", I think of a skillset. Skill with a gun, bow, and/or dagger/knife, stealth, subtlety, use of poison. Not all of those are necessary. One assassin, for instance, could be a grifter who blends in with a crowd and slips some poison in someone's wine. Another might be a sniper who can sneak past a fortress full of guards to silently deliver an arrow or crossbow bolt.

As for the Assassin's Creed guys, it depends on what happens. Ezio may or may not be evil, depending on who controls him. If you kill guards (not Templar guards, just regular old Florence guards - although the guys guarding the Codex pages pre-assassination attempt on Lorenzo Medici by the Pazzi could very well be Templars working for the Pazzi) whenever they get in your way, bully for you, you're evil. If you kill or punch citizens just because, you're chaotic evil. If you only accept the memory sequences as canon, or regularly get past annoying guards by knocking them out/disarming them/using smokebombs, you're neutral at worst, good at best. Probably similar with Altair.

Eldonauran
2012-08-28, 08:33 PM
In D&D Good characters murder people all the time. They are justified because those they kill are "Evil".

Why can't a Good guy specialize in killing "Evil" people, considering he already does plenty of it?

Killing someone just because they are evil, is evil. One has to be deserving of death (ie, commited an act of evil that warrants death) before killing is justified and even then, it is not a Good act. Well, if we are talking about D&D. I hope so. The BoED (as much handwaiving that goes towards it) clarifies that the act of killing is, at best, a neutral act.

There is a fine, but very definate, line between killing and murdering.

Emmerask
2012-08-28, 08:45 PM
Evil? No more than murder-hobos, imho.

Both are evil yes, if you play a murder-hobo and pretend he is a good guy thats a problem with the understanding of good in d&d ^^


In D&D Good characters murder people all the time. They are justified because those they kill are "Evil".

Why can't a Good guy specialize in killing "Evil" people, considering he already does plenty of it?

Murdering or killing while a a thin line to walk, there is a difference :smallwink:

I can say that my Paladin has not murdered a single being in a 1 year running d&d campaign.

Then again I play in a roleplay heavy group, no murdering hobo stuff in that campaign :smallbiggrin:

Kyberwulf
2012-08-28, 08:46 PM
I have a Problem with the Characters in Assassin's Creed. I don't think the characters really fit the term, Assassin, in the first place. They are more avengers and protecters. They kill people for the greater good, and other motivations. They don't get paid.

I think to actually quilify as an assassin. You basicly have to do one thing. Kill people for money. Doesn't matter who, or what motivations there are for the killing. I think assassins should never be of the Good alignement. There is that who mercenary aspect to it. Coupled to that is the fact, your killing someone for personal gain.

That being said. I don't think that you should pigeon-hole the class into being Set in black, so to speak. There are "Professional" assassin's and assassin's that are just crazy. Professional assassins do the job. No malice. no colleterial damage. The assassin in Grosse Point Blank is a good example of this. Also Slyvester Stallon's Assassin in .. I think it was Assassin is another example of this. Mark Wallberg's character in The Big Hit is another example. These Assassins are neural in their outlook. They get the job, do the job, and then get paid. That's the extent.

Then, there are the Evil-ish Assassins. These are the one that take the delight in the murder. Love killing and do as much damage and destruction as possible. Deadpool, Bullseye, ... yeah this list is A LOT longer.

Scarlet-Devil
2012-08-28, 08:47 PM
In D&D Good characters murder people all the time. They are justified because those they kill are "Evil".

Why can't a Good guy specialize in killing "Evil" people, considering he already does plenty of it?

How many (good/neutral) characters have you designed, or seen played, who specifically had the motivation of 'killing things' when they risked their life on insane adventures?

Common character motivations that I've seen include things like: making a fortune, questing for knowledge or power, or rescuing kidnapped/enslaved individuals. A Good fighter might go into an adventure expecting life-and-death circumstances, and is presumably willing to risk their life for their objective, but if he goes into it thinking 'I'm going to kill anything and everything that tries to stop me from taking that pile of gold' then he's lost the respect for life that made him Good.

Likewise, if he trains with the motivation of becoming better at killing things, as opposed to 'being a better swordsman', then he also has no respect for the inherent dignity of living things, and is evil, or possibly neutral at best.

An Assassin, as per the D&D prestige class, is a hired killer, solely devoted to the practice of murder, who is willing to kill someone for no purpose other than to be accepted for assassin training.

Edit: Kind've late...

Chromascope3D
2012-08-28, 08:48 PM
In D&D Good characters murder people all the time. They are justified because those they kill are "Evil".

Why can't a Good guy specialize in killing "Evil" people, considering he already does plenty of it?

The thing is, there are hundreds of cases of assassins killing for malevolent purposes, and scant few killing (independently) for the 'greater good.' The literal, dictionary definition of an assassin is: "A murderer of an important person in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons." The whole 'assassin means sneaky guy who kills sneakily' is a modern interpretation.

Good characters don't murder people, or at least, not for the same reasons or with the same methods I said earlier. They fight evil people and monsters, sure, kill them usually, but they don't outright murder them in cold blood. If they did, they wouldn't be good (as in, they'd generally make sure that the person they were fighting actually deserved to be killed). Generally, when you fight someone, there's a conscious effort to do so on both sides. With an assassin, there isn't. He goes in, kills the person while they're unable to defend themselves, coldly and methodically. That's what makes it a murder.

I guess my point is that there's little reason for a good guy to become an assassin... because it's really hard for him to both stay in that line of work and stay good at the same time. If you make a mistake and kill an innocent bystander whom you thought was your target, then that'll stay on your conscience for a long time, whereas it'd just be a minor inconvenience for an evil character. And it's probably a common occurrence, too, if you aren't an omniscient video game character. :P

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-28, 08:49 PM
Killing someone just because they are evil, is evil. One has to be deserving of death (ie, commited an act of evil that warrants death) before killing is justified and even then, it is not a Good act. Well, if we are talking about D&D. I hope so. The BoED (as much handwaiving that goes towards it) clarifies that the act of killing is, at best, a neutral act.

There is a fine, but very definite, line between killing and murdering.

For one thing, I agree. An evil act is what justifies the killing, not them being Evil. However, that does nothing to change my argument. They still kill an Evil person for doing something Evil, just like any other good character does. That doesn't change a thing. And being "evil" usually means that you have done something "evil" and thus are "deserving of death". If you hadn't, how would your character be Evil?

Furthermore, what is the difference between "killing" and "murder"? And how is it that a Good assassin would be "murdering" and not "killing"? You can't make that argument without defining both.

To me, there is not even close to a definite difference between a Good guy killing the BBEG in combat after the quest and him sneaking up via stealth and "murdering" the BBEG to end his reign of terror. In the end the BBEG dies both ways, and each death is justified by the BBEG and ending his actions. The difference between a fighter and an assassin is method. It shouldn't have to be a difference of morality.

Kish
2012-08-28, 08:51 PM
I've always had a problem with this. To me, being an assassin is not necessarily evil. I admit that Assassin's Creed has shaded my perception here, but I can't help but think that an individual pursuing a career in contract killing does not necessarily have to be evil, assuming they choose their targets with some discernment as well as kill targets for a "greater good" purpose.
You can't meet the basic requirement to become an assassin if you do that. You have to be willing to kill someone just to become an assassin to become one.

Obviously you can be a killer without being evil in D&D; nearly every PC is a killer.

Emmerask
2012-08-28, 09:00 PM
To me, there is not even close to a definite difference between a Good guy killing the BBEG in combat after the quest and him sneaking up via stealth and "murdering" the BBEG to end his reign of terror. In the end the BBEG dies both ways, and each death is justified by the BBEG and ending his actions. The difference between a fighter and an assassin is method. It shouldn't have to be a difference of morality.

The means to an end are actually very very important if you want to consider an action overall evil or good.

I want to create world piece, a good goal isnīt it?
therefore I kill every human being on earth to achieve it :smallbiggrin:

This is one of the most extreme examples but still to illustrate that means are of importance it is valid :smallwink:

As for the example of the bbeg, it could very well be that he sees the errors of his way when confronted with the heroes and if spared by the heroes after foiling his plans atones and becomes one of the major forces of good in the universe...
an unlikely scenario but still a possibility denied by the sneaking murderer.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-28, 09:09 PM
The thing is, there are hundreds of cases of assassins killing for malevolent purposes, and scant few killing (independently) for the 'greater good.' The literal, dictionary definition of an assassin is: "A murderer of an important person in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons." The whole 'assassin means sneaky guy who kills sneakily' is a modern interpretation.

If you wish for the historical perspective, you're on the wrong side. Back in the day, assassins would be lauded as heroes as much as they would be demonized as monsters. Furthermore historically, most assassins weren't hired killer (the word has the root in Hashishim, a European name for a Muslim religious sect who supposedly ate hash before they went into battle and had the connotation of one killing a target for a purpose, any negative connotation associated with Islam, not assassins) but were people attempting to kill those they opposed in some way, like a tyrant or a rival lord. Assassins were not always pushed to the evil realm in the past. Them as evil is the modern invention. Furthermore, its names specifically "political and religious reasons". Politics is largely amoral, however religious can include both ends of the morality spectrum.


Good characters don't murder people, or at least, not for the same reasons or with the same methods I said earlier. They fight evil people and monsters, sure, kill them usually, but they don't outright murder them in cold blood. If they did, they wouldn't be good (as in, they'd generally make sure that the person they were fighting actually deserved to be killed). Generally, when you fight someone, there's a conscious effort to do so on both sides. With an assassin, there isn't. He goes in, kills the person while they're unable to defend themselves, coldly and methodically. That's what makes it a murder

Once again, I have to ask for a definition of a murder and how it differs from any other killing. It seems to me you're arguing against the method, which seems absurd. There is nothing morally superior in charging headlong at your enemy in face-to-face combat above stabbing them in the back when they don't see you coming. If that were the case, why can a rogue be Good? Or a Deep-wood Sniper?


I guess my point is that there's little reason for a good guy to become an assassin... because it's really hard for him to both stay in that line of work and stay good at the same time. If you make a mistake and kill an innocent bystander whom you thought was your target, then that'll stay on your conscience for a long time, whereas it'd just be a minor inconvenience for an evil character. And it's probably a common occurrence, too, if you aren't an omniscient video game character. :P

This point applies to any Good character. You can't use the probability of an instance of mistaken identity to argue for the alignment classification. It could happen to anyone. And its increased probability should not be used to argue that assassins can't be good.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-28, 09:24 PM
The means to an end are actually very very important if you want to consider an action overall evil or good.

I want to create world piece, a good goal isnīt it?
therefore I kill every human being on earth to achieve it :smallbiggrin:

This is one of the most extreme examples but still to illustrate that means are of importance it is valid :smallwink:

As for the example of the bbeg, it could very well be that he sees the errors of his way when confronted with the heroes and if spared by the heroes after foiling his plans atones and becomes one of the major forces of good in the universe...
an unlikely scenario but still a possibility denied by the sneaking murderer.

If this is true, than rogues cannot be Good either (Sneak attack anyone?). Or the deepwood sniper (hides in the woods and shots without being seen? How evil!) Or the Skullclan hunter (actively SEEKS OUT undead to kill them? Evil!)

The assassin to me is just a method, not a morality. If you condemn that method to the realm of evil, then you condemn all methods like it to the realm of evil. That's an unfair Pandora's Box to open.

There is nothing patiently evil about putting a knife in someones back rather than their chest, ceterus paribus.

As for chances for redemption? Can you really consign a whole group to evil because they deny redemption? There are paladins who do the same thing.

Example. Alistair from DA:O. He's a good guy. Yet he throws a fit if you let Logann be redeemed. Because Logann deserves death. And death is what Alistair demands. Punishment which fits the crime, not forgiveness. Forgiveness as a universal good is a western fallacy. Its a relic from our Christian past which our secular society has yet to give up, but in most the world it is not seen as that important of a good, especially compared to justice, which would be the good of a Good Assassin.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-28, 09:32 PM
Yeah, I know, but this is in "general roleplaying" not "3.5" and is discussing assassins, not Assassins in particular.

When I think "assassin", I think of a skillset. Skill with a gun, bow, and/or dagger/knife, stealth, subtlety, use of poison. Not all of those are necessary. One assassin, for instance, could be a grifter who blends in with a crowd and slips some poison in someone's wine. Another might be a sniper who can sneak past a fortress full of guards to silently deliver an arrow or crossbow bolt.

As for the Assassin's Creed guys, it depends on what happens. Ezio may or may not be evil, depending on who controls him. If you kill guards (not Templar guards, just regular old Florence guards - although the guys guarding the Codex pages pre-assassination attempt on Lorenzo Medici by the Pazzi could very well be Templars working for the Pazzi) whenever they get in your way, bully for you, you're evil. If you kill or punch citizens just because, you're chaotic evil. If you only accept the memory sequences as canon, or regularly get past annoying guards by knocking them out/disarming them/using smokebombs, you're neutral at worst, good at best. Probably similar with Altair.

You're thinking the way I am. Assassin is a set of skills. Not a morality. Its being good a staying hidden under the moment you take your opponent down. that's not opposed to good at all. You CAN be good and do it. You're just a more sophisticated rogue in that sense.


Then, there are the Evil-ish Assassins. These are the one that take the delight in the murder. Love killing and do as much damage and destruction as possible. Deadpool, Bullseye, ... yeah this list is A LOT longer.

I don't agree with your assessment of Deadpool as evil, but that is a discussion for another place and time.

Nor do I think being an assassin requires being paid. I assure you that the list of unpaid assassins in history dwarfs those of paid assassins by several powers of ten. Most assassins assassinate for a cause (Gavrilo Princip is the archtype).

Eldonauran
2012-08-28, 09:50 PM
For one thing, I agree. An evil act is what justifies the killing, not them being Evil. However, that does nothing to change my argument. They still kill an Evil person for doing something Evil, just like any other good character does. That doesn't change a thing. And being "evil" usually means that you have done something "evil" and thus are "deserving of death". If you hadn't, how would your character be Evil?

In D&D, a character can be good, neutral or evil (Lawful or chaotic too) simply by means of their outlook on life or belief system. Someone who has done nothing but would, without hesitation, kill someone simply to further their own goals, possesses an evil alignment. I easily give way that what a character does heavily influences their alignment but what they do is usually a sure indication of what they are on the inside.

Someone deserving of death is, for example, someone who has taken another's life without provocation. Usually local laws determine this and it can vary from place to place. The BoED, for instance, condemns the taking of innocent life and it is justified by killing you back.


Furthermore, what is the difference between "killing" and "murder"? And how is it that a Good assassin would be "murdering" and not "killing"? You can't make that argument without defining both.

Murder seems pretty simple to me. Unprovoked, intentional taking of another's life. Killing could be a number of different things ranging from an accident to the executioner's blow merited by a death sentence. These definitions work fairly well in the D&D settings.


To me, there is not even close to a definite difference between a Good guy killing the BBEG in combat after the quest and him sneaking up via stealth and "murdering" the BBEG to end his reign of terror. In the end the BBEG dies both ways, and each death is justified by the BBEG and ending his actions. The difference between a fighter and an assassin is method. It shouldn't have to be a difference of morality.

In that specific situation, I dont see a difference either. The BBEG brought his sentence upon himself by his actions. Reign of terror seems to speak volumns regarding the actions that merit his death. However, one specific example, extreme as it may be, doesnt resolve the inherent difference between the two.

I feel there is a very real difference between being an Assassin and merely participating in an 'assassination'.

I hope i expressed myself well. If not, let me know,.

KnightOfV
2012-08-28, 09:50 PM
IMO, Good characters dislike killing and do not believe it is ever the ideal solution. Good characters will learn how to fight for the sole purpose of defending themselves, loved ones, their country, etc. but never kill lightly. Good characters do not EVER think that the end justifies the means. If there is an evil warlord, who wants to start a war killing thousands- It does not matter how evil this warlord is, he will be called out for his crimes and confronted face-to-face because anything else would be dishonorable, wrong, immoral, whatever.

Assassins by their skill set and thematically, can believe killing is the ideal solution. They will do so by any means necessary- a knife from the shadows, poison, while the target is sleeping, as they play with their children... anything. Assassins believe the ends justify the means, which in D&D land, is an Evil mindset. Ending a war, saving countless lives by killing one old man in his sleep, is not a good act because you did it wrong way. Lawful good believes civilization gives the old man a right to a trial. Chaotic Good believes the man has an inherent right to defend himself and know why he is being killed. Any Good knows you just don't sneak into people's homes and kill them- even if they deserve it. If your 'Good' party is a bunch of murdering hobos killing orcs just so they can buy better stuff, maybe they aren't really that Good.

I can't see Neutrality working either, just because when your identity is 'assassin' you really have to have some apathy towards life and a belief that some lives are better than others- again, an Evil mindset in D&D land. Good governments do not hire assassins because assassins are murderers. Paladins do not work with assassins because the Paladin's code respects all life, while an Assassin treats certain lives as expendable. That's why assassins come from secret societies with extremist views, or Evil governments silencing dissent.

Don't get me wrong, I've read plenty of stories with awesome assassins and thought 'wow he's cool!' or even sympathized with their actions, but that is because real world morality is not black and white like D&D. Death attack and Poison use disregard the 'Good' conduct of treating life as as valuable because you can use the abilities to kill characters who are unaware of your intent. Yes, announcing your presence giving the enemy a chance to surrender is Good, shooting first is Evil. Nuances make you Neutral.

So yes, by D&D morality, assassins are always evil. Have fun with it, bad guys can be quite interesting. :smallbiggrin:

Anyways, this is all just for fun, so feel free to disagree. Just a different way to think about it.

TheCountAlucard
2012-08-28, 10:11 PM
Tommy, you realize that the Avenger is literally an April Fool's Day prank, right? And that the picture is quite honestly a recolor of the normal assassin picture? And that all his mechanics are the same, except he's been fluffed as lawful? :smallconfused:

WitchSlayer
2012-08-28, 10:24 PM
Tommy, you realize that the Avenger is literally an April Fool's Day prank, right? And that the picture is quite honestly a recolor of the normal assassin picture? And that all his mechanics are the same, except he's been fluffed as lawful? :smallconfused:

There are Avengers in 4e as well.

Remmirath
2012-08-28, 10:43 PM
The difference is that they donīt take money to kill someone, they take money to protect and serve their kingdom/republic/whatever.

Actually I donīt remember any of my "good" chars taking a contract to kill someone because it feels just evil ^^

Usually. You still get the mercenaries (though those are of course often at least in a grey area) and many parties of adventurers - at least, in my experience, 'kill these guys and we'll give you some treasure and items' is a fairly common type of quest for adventurers of all alignments.

Now, I wouldn't have a good character take that kind of quest - unless they were completely certain that the person to be taken out needed to be taken out and was evil (evil priest corrupting the town, the evil lord of the castle who is raising undead, what have you).

I agree that the assassin who does it simply for money - murder for hire and all that - is evil. As described in strict D&D rules, the assassin class does have to be taken by someone who is evil, because you have to kill someone just to get in. I think that the question here is more about assassins in general, including perhaps re-worked D&D assassins, who operate in that fashion but not necessarily purely for money. I believe that to be an assassin one must only specifically seek out and kill certain targets - and, I think, you could swing some of those as certainly neutral and possibly even good.


How many (good/neutral) characters have you designed, or seen played, who specifically had the motivation of 'killing things' when they risked their life on insane adventures?

I've seen some good characters who had the specific motivation of seeking out and killing evil people, and I've seen some of both who have the specific motivation of seeking out and killing creatures of certain species (this mostly coming from rangers and the like). None of those are what I would consider the best examples of good or neutral characters, but they seem to be fairly common.


Common character motivations that I've seen include things like: making a fortune, questing for knowledge or power, or rescuing kidnapped/enslaved individuals. A Good fighter might go into an adventure expecting life-and-death circumstances, and is presumably willing to risk their life for their objective, but if he goes into it thinking 'I'm going to kill anything and everything that tries to stop me from taking that pile of gold' then he's lost the respect for life that made him Good.

An assassin could have most of those motivations as well, though. All of them, in fact. I would actually assume that most of them would have motivations beyond (and probably not including, or they'd've gone for some other class/skill set most likely) 'kill everything!'.


Likewise, if he trains with the motivation of becoming better at killing things, as opposed to 'being a better swordsman', then he also has no respect for the inherent dignity of living things, and is evil, or possibly neutral at best.

Possibly. Just killing things, I'd agree. 'Killing these few things so that other things can live and have a good life' is more of a grey area, and that depends a lot on how you interpret alignments (and I suppose your own sense of morality as a necessary part of that).


An Assassin, as per the D&D prestige class, is a hired killer, solely devoted to the practice of murder, who is willing to kill someone for no purpose other than to be accepted for assassin training.

True. You can certainly change that up a bit in your game if you feel like it, though.


Murder seems pretty simple to me. Unprovoked, intentional taking of another's life. Killing could be a number of different things ranging from an accident to the executioner's blow merited by a death sentence. These definitions work fairly well in the D&D settings.

In some cases, the assassination could be more or less the same thing as the executioner's blow, however - depending on the organisation in question and how much legitimate authority they have, and so forth. That would certainly be an unusual case, but not one that I'm willing to rule out in all settings.


I feel there is a very real difference between being an Assassin and merely participating in an 'assassination'.

I can see where you're coming from on that, but I disagree; I feel that what makes you an assassin is participating in an assassination. If the PCs are sent to sneak into a castle and destroy the necromancer, for instance, I would say that for that mission at least they are assassins. To have the class, I'd tend to say that they need only make a habit of such things.

Now, I'm not trying to say that assassins can all be great people and that there shouldn't be an alignment restriction on the class. In most cases, I think they are definitely evil, and in most cases I think the restriction makes sense. I do think there is some room to play around with it, and have some who are other alignments - with the proper circumstances surrounding them.

Sucrose
2012-08-28, 10:51 PM
I can see where you're coming from on that, but I disagree; I feel that what makes you an assassin is participating in an assassination. If the PCs are sent to sneak into a castle and destroy the necromancer, for instance, I would say that for that mission at least they are assassins. To have the class, I'd tend to say that they need only make a habit of such things.

Now, I'm not trying to say that assassins can all be great people and that there shouldn't be an alignment restriction on the class. In most cases, I think they are definitely evil, and in most cases I think the restriction makes sense. I do think there is some room to play around with it, and have some who are other alignments - with the proper circumstances surrounding them.

I think that the person you were quoting was making a differentiation between an assassin, as one who assassinates someone, and an Assassin, who has the prestige class abilities and has, per RAW, murdered someone for no reason beyond the desire to learn better assassination skills.

A homebrew assassin class who does not have the Assassin's roleplay requirement could reasonably be nonevil. An Assassin, however, has much less room for ambiguity.

Remmirath
2012-08-28, 11:19 PM
I think that the person you were quoting was making a differentiation between an assassin, as one who assassinates someone, and an Assassin, who has the prestige class abilities and has, per RAW, murdered someone for no reason beyond the desire to learn better assassination skills.

A homebrew assassin class who does not have the Assassin's roleplay requirement could reasonably be nonevil. An Assassin, however, has much less room for ambiguity.

That is more or less what I'm trying to say, so I suppose I agree in that case - I probably misread or misunderstood something somewhere along the line there.

Since this isn't in the 3.0/3.5 subforum, I've been working under the assumption that the topic is concerning assassins in general rather than the assassin prestige class specifically and completely as written. I completely agree that the assassin prestige class, as written, must be evil - although I do also think that simply removing that requirement isn't a large enough change to consider it a different class, and I don't see a problem with doing so and replacing it with some other requirement.

I expect that some of my misunderstanding stemmed from my view of treating classes and prestige classes as primarily what skills and abilities they have, and worrying about the requirements and flavour either secondarily or not at all because those can easily be tweaked to fit each individual campaign.

LibraryOgre
2012-08-29, 01:52 AM
I like how Hackmaster handles this (this should surprise no one).

Assassins cannot be good. "Murdering people for profit (or salary) is considered an evil vocation even whilst in the employ of a benevolent ruler." (pg 57, Hackmaster PH) If they choose to be neutral, however, they must have the Nagging Conscience quirk... if you do something against your stated alignment, you get a -1/5% on all rolls until you've over-atoned for it... and each sin adds another one.

The 1e situation was a bit different. While you had to START as evil, your alignment could later change (with the attendant penalties, including difficulty training).

I should add, before people start talking about the standard adventurer as a "murder hobo". Generally, I don't define the killing adventurers do as "murder". Murder, in older law codes, implies secretiveness... adventurers are pretty upfront about their killings, and those they kill are usually outlaws, so not protected by any law that punishes murder (or the adventurers themselves are outlaws, so are just as legally killable.) An assassin is different. While he might work in an adventuring capacity, his training is still towards murder... if he never works as a professional assassin, he might migrate to a good alignment. But if he takes up the murderin' life, he's still a murderer.

VanBuren
2012-08-29, 02:09 AM
Contract assassins? Unless there's some weird edge case, they're evil. However, they are not automatically "kill on sight" types. Sure, there are some psychopaths who figure out they can get paid for what they like to do, but the majority are simply mercenaries with a focus on stealth and sniping.

Assassins who, while still getting paid for their work, have loyalty to a government or group and act as a special ops member for them? Almost always neutral, usually lawful.

Vigilante assassins? Usually evil, but if they actually know what they're doing, pretty much all alignments are possible.

And Water Bear? The Creed doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you want". It means that free will is important above all else.

Overall, I would rate assassins as Blue, Black, and sometimes White. They are efficient, and work for themselves or for their nation.

To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic.

They would seem to be the good guys


Shaun: "Good guys?" Let's not get carried away.

Rebecca: What's that supposed to mean?

Shaun: In case you've forgotten, Rebecca, we're Assassins. I could look it up for you, if you like. Basically, it means we assassinate people.

Desmond: Only when we have to.

Shaun: It's a choice. You're choosing to kill.

Desmond: I haven't killed anyone.

Shaun: No. Not yet. But what do you think all this is for, eh? You think Lucy is giving you Ezio's abilities so you can build schools in South America and deliver rice to starving Indonesians? What are you Desmond, a vegan? You'd be the first vegan assassin in history.

Rebecca: Look, it's not ideal. And taking a life is never easy. But sometimes there's no other way. Sometimes, Desmond, people have to die for things to change.

Shaun: She's got a point. But don't fool yourself into thinking you have no say. I mean, isn't it that what we're all about here? Safe-guarding free will?

That said, I've killed very people good people in my time through the games...

Yora
2012-08-29, 03:35 AM
In my opinion, yes. Without a doubt. They are contracted murderers.

In modern criminal psychology, contract killers are regarded as a subset of serial killers. They just let others do the picking for them. It's not just a job.

Morithias
2012-08-29, 03:52 AM
I really think this is a problem with the "Assassin" class rather than the concept of the assassin as a whole. For some reason I have no problem believing the Deathstalkers are all Lawful Evil (speciality priest of the god of murder Bhaal and all that), yet the Assassin everyone seems to have problems with cause it's just so...well..

Generic.

In a world where killing is the solution to 90% of the problems, having someone who is specialized at killing easily and swiftly with little to no danger of innocents hurt in the crossfire, just strikes people as...hypocritical.

And that is all I'm going say considering I've been getting a ton of warning on the forums lately due to not being able to keep myself in line during these debates.

kardar233
2012-08-29, 04:15 AM
Let's spin this a bit.

Say you have a character whose job it is to hunt down convicted criminals (of crimes punishable by death) and kill them. Obviously somehow they escaped execution so they're generally hardasses. It's very risky to expose yourself to them and they're marked for death any way so you might as well kill them in the way that's safest for you, which happens to be a knife in the back when they're not paying attention. And no twist here; the court rulings are just and these people deserve to die.

That person would have the same skillset as the usual assassin, but would be Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good depending on mindset.

Conners
2012-08-29, 05:17 AM
Would you consider the guys whose job it was to assassinate Hitler to be evil?

Mastikator
2012-08-29, 05:33 AM
Common guys, what's so terrible about killing people for money?

Conners
2012-08-29, 05:38 AM
If it's just for money, then quite a bit. If you're killing people for money, and so they don't do terrible crimes, it can be seen as necessary or reasonable.

Inglenook
2012-08-29, 09:46 AM
[insert post here about how the alignment system is inherently flawed and has no basis in reality]

KillianHawkeye
2012-08-29, 10:40 AM
There are Avengers in 4e as well.

They aren't remotely the same.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-29, 11:06 AM
Would you consider the guys whose job it was to assassinate Hitler to be evil?

G-G-G-G-Godwin'ed!

Conners
2012-08-29, 11:20 AM
Decided to pick the most extreme example I could think of :smalltongue:. Depends where you draw the line between assassin and soldier, mostly.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-08-29, 12:05 PM
Let's spin this a bit.

Say you have a character whose job it is to hunt down convicted criminals (of crimes punishable by death) and kill them. Obviously somehow they escaped execution so they're generally hardasses. It's very risky to expose yourself to them and they're marked for death any way so you might as well kill them in the way that's safest for you, which happens to be a knife in the back when they're not paying attention. And no twist here; the court rulings are just and these people deserve to die.

That person would have the same skillset as the usual assassin, but would be Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good depending on mindset.

Funny, and here I was trying to think of a good character concept that would work with just the core books. now to see if the DM is willing to remove the Evil requirement on the PrC.


But yes, in general I agree that my issue with Assassins as Evil is how generic the class is. To give a class like that the same alignment requirement as Death Stalkers, Black Guards and Dread Necromancers is ridiculous. Actually, come to think of it, Dread necromancers just have to be non-good, Assassins have to be properly Evil.... because..... <reason>?

Especially when it's been made clear that Assassins also can be 100% Good thanks to the book of exalted deeds.

Now I have no problem accepting that assassins can't be good, I'd be fine with that as a requirement, after all you have to be somewhat pragmatic to even consider that way of working and it's not something that comes natural to most Good characters.

But the alignment requirement, and the "must have killed someone just to become an assassin" requirement are pure fluff requirements, based on the very specific fluff that the class is meant to be hired killers. But the mechanics are fairly generic and can be used in many, many ways that does not involve being a hired killer (and being a hired killer tends to not work to well in an adventuring group anyway since you won't exactly be working while adventuring) which makes the fluff requirements cumbersome and awkward.

Sgt. Cookie
2012-08-29, 12:07 PM
Is there really a line? Soldiers are people who kill for money, are they evil?

Emmerask
2012-08-29, 12:57 PM
Is there really a line? Soldiers are people who kill for money, are they evil?

They are not payed to kill, they are payed to defend/serve their country,
this service may well involve killing people but its not exclusive.
For example most soldiers in the current German army have not killed a single human, they still get payed :smallwink:

An assassin on the other hand is payed explicitly to kill someone.

paladinofshojo
2012-08-29, 02:30 PM
If you're going to or have deliberately end somone's life for the sake of someone else's political or financial benifet in exchange for some sort of monetary gain, then you're probably not a paladin.....





But yes, in general I agree that my issue with Assassins as Evil is how generic the class is. To give a class like that the same alignment requirement as Death Stalkers, Black Guards and Dread Necromancers is ridiculous. Actually, come to think of it, Dread necromancers just have to be non-good, Assassins have to be properly Evil.... because..... <reason>?

.

Being interested in death or undeath is not a crime, there's nothing inherently evil about studying such topics. The problem is that such type of topics are usually misused or misunderstood, which leads to people assuming that it's the magic itself that's "evil". Take the example of Victor Frankenstein from the novel "Frankenstein". He isn't evil, obsessed maybe, arrogant maybe, but his only crime is trying to gain more knowledge about the balance between life and death.

There's a line between studying life and death and being paid to kill someone....

kyoryu
2012-08-29, 02:45 PM
Prediction: This thread will devolve into two topics:

Immutable vs. Mutable fluff (it *says* you have to kill someone to get the PrC! vs. But that's just fluff and can be ignored!)
Deontologism vs. Utilitarianism.

So I don't think anyone's really going to convince anyone of anything here :smallbiggrin:

Emmerask
2012-08-29, 03:43 PM
Prediction: This thread will devolve into two topics:

Immutable vs. Mutable fluff (it *says* you have to kill someone to get the PrC! vs. But that's just fluff and can be ignored!)
Deontologism vs. Utilitarianism.

So I don't think anyone's really going to convince anyone of anything here :smallbiggrin:

Utilitarianism only works for omniscient beings or in hindsight (but who can tell when the ripples of your actions become meaningless or if they do at all)
therefore the whole concept of Utilitarianism just does not work for human beings :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:

kyoryu
2012-08-29, 03:59 PM
Utilitarianism only works for omniscient beings or in hindsight (but who can tell when the ripples of your actions become meaningless or if they do at all)
therefore the whole concept of Utilitarianism just does not work for human beings :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:

Yes, I'm aware that you already went there. I just wanted to call it out more explicitly.

:smallbiggrin:

Jack of Spades
2012-08-29, 04:08 PM
Prediction: This thread will devolve into two topics:

Immutable vs. Mutable fluff (it *says* you have to kill someone to get the PrC! vs. But that's just fluff and can be ignored!)
Deontologism vs. Utilitarianism.

So I don't think anyone's really going to convince anyone of anything here :smallbiggrin:

Welcome to the internet, have a cookie :smallbiggrin:

Anyhow, OT:
Assassins are evil because monks are lawful, bards aren't and druids are neutral on one of the axes.

The assassin PrC isn't there to represent Ezio and Altair, who fight and kill in the name of justice and freedom. The assassin PrC is there to represent the cold-hearted killer. If you have a problem with that, then you now understand one of the many reasons I don't like the game construct of classes. This particular PrC was built with a specific character type in mind, and thus the class is restricted to that type of character. DnD is wonky like that. The assassin PrC is there for the Master Assassin that gets sent by the BBEG to dispense with any enemies deemed too powerful. He does not care who these people are, only that they end up under his blade.

Now, are all assassins evil-aligned?
Professional killers are almost definitely so. At best they are a very lawful neutral. Think the guy in Hitman (at least his premise, haven't played the games).
Altair is not an assassin in the sense that DnD frames them. While assassination is his main directive, taken together his work makes him more of a super-spy type: he destroys local governments instead of just killing a person or two.
Ezio pushes against the "assassin" definition pretty hard, especially as he gets older. In DnD terms, he better fits the rogue class-- (somewhat) capable of sneaking, but also a strong social figure.

TuggyNE
2012-08-29, 05:01 PM
Decided to pick the most extreme example I could think of :smalltongue:. Depends where you draw the line between assassin and soldier, mostly.

IIRC, none of those involved in the various plots to assassinate Hitler were professional assassins. (Whether that is why they failed I am not qualified to judge.) And, in general, the distinction between an amateur assassin and a professional seems fairly significant.

VanBuren
2012-08-29, 05:15 PM
Also, they weren't attempting to kill him because someone hired them to do it. I think that's a very important distinction from the concept that WotC had in mind.

Conners
2012-08-29, 05:32 PM
IIRC, none of those involved in the various plots to assassinate Hitler were professional assassins. (Whether that is why they failed I am not qualified to judge.) And, in general, the distinction between an amateur assassin and a professional seems fairly significant. Devastatingly good point. I guess you could be an assassin who assassinates only very evil people? But that'd be a pretty rare and perhaps odd exception.

TuggyNE
2012-08-29, 05:40 PM
Also, they weren't attempting to kill him because someone hired them to do it. I think that's a very important distinction from the concept that WotC had in mind.

Yeah, that was what I was trying to get at by distinguishing professional (primarily paid to take people out as a career) from amateur (primarily kills for their own reasons, often as a one-off).


Devastatingly good point. I guess you could be an assassin who assassinates only very evil people? But that'd be a pretty rare and perhaps odd exception.

That is, a vigilante-for-hire with a strong moral code? You'd have to presuppose a scattered community of similarly vigilante-minded clients for that to work, which seems ... a bit implausible. (If you have a single organization that hunts down Evil characters, that's more of an amateur job to my mind, although it's a bit of a grey area. "Good-aligned Assassin" implies that there are multiple clients that want Evil entities taken out.)

Conners
2012-08-29, 06:11 PM
Come to think of it, does the Assassin need to be a mercenary? Perhaps they could be something more like the Assassin's Creed "Assassin" (or more adequately named, "Rambo")?

Mike_G
2012-08-29, 06:19 PM
Good characters don't murder people, or at least, not for the same reasons or with the same methods I said earlier. They fight evil people and monsters, sure, kill them usually, but they don't outright murder them in cold blood. If they did, they wouldn't be good (as in, they'd generally make sure that the person they were fighting actually deserved to be killed). Generally, when you fight someone, there's a conscious effort to do so on both sides. With an assassin, there isn't. He goes in, kills the person while they're unable to defend themselves, coldly and methodically. That's what makes it a murder.


So a Rogue can be Good, by the RAW. How do you interpret his Sneak attack other than an attack made while someone isn't able to defend himself?

Alignment is the opiate of the masses. Cast off your shackles and just play the fully realized character you want to play. If that guy is a trained killer who targets evil people, that's a perfectly valid concept.

Eldonauran
2012-08-29, 06:31 PM
So a Rogue can be Good, by the RAW. How do you interpret his Sneak attack other than an attack made while someone isn't able to defend himself?

Who's saying the rogue is dealing lethal damage? A sap works fairly well for knocking someone out for a very long time with a sneak attack. Otherwise, if dealing lethal damage, he's placing his blow in a very effective place. Generally, the idea that you are using lethal damage means you are intending to kill something. For a Good character to be doing this (dealing lethal damage) there should be a fairly good reason.


Alignment is the opiate of the masses. Cast off your shackles and just play the fully realized character you want to play. If that guy is a trained killer who targets evil people, that's a perfectly valid concept.

In my opinion, the alignment system works just fine as long as its confined to the D&D universe. In my opinion, its people that take it out of that setting or fail to take each and every action and motivation to its logical conclusion that seem to have a problem.

I've never had an issue with the alignment system. I 'got' it the first moment I read it.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-29, 06:34 PM
That said, I've killed very people good people in my time through the games...

But then again, that's you, isn't it? Not them. Fully synced they don't kill any good guys. At least not intentionally.


They are not payed to kill, they are payed to defend/serve their country,
this service may well involve killing people but its not exclusive.
For example most soldiers in the current German army have not killed a single human, they still get payed :smallwink:

An assassin on the other hand is payed explicitly to kill someone.

Yet members of the German intelligence agency likely have carried out political killings to protect Germany. And just like the soldiers of Germany they get paid. And yet they are protecting people, just like soldiers.


Come to think of it, does the Assassin need to be a mercenary? Perhaps they could be something more like the Assassin's Creed "Assassin" (or more adequately named, "Rambo")?

Yes. As I said before, there are more unpaid assassins in history than paid assassin by many powers of ten. Does anyone here think Brutus and Casius were paid? Gavrilo Princip? John Wilks Booth? Most assassins kill for a reason, usually religious or political. However, the jump from religious reasons to fighting for the sole sake of the good (or for evil for that matter) isn't all that big of a leap.

Assassin is a method, not a morality. There should not be a presumption that they are cold and heartless (Were the men of Operation Valkyrie heartless?). There should be no presumption that they get paid. They have a target, they seek them out, and like a rogue (though more efficiently) they kill them. If their motivation is for Good and their target is Evil, then what makes THEM Evil then?

Mike_G
2012-08-29, 07:21 PM
Who's saying the rogue is dealing lethal damage?


I am.

I can have a Good aligned Rogue, and, while the Paladin is hacking the BBEG's minions to death face to face, I can sneak around the flanks and shove my shortsword into the BBEG's kidney and do a bunch of d6's and he can die.

No sane DM will force an alignment change for that.



A sap works fairly well for knocking someone out for a very long time with a sneak attack. Otherwise, if dealing lethal damage, he's placing his blow in a very effective place. Generally, the idea that you are using lethal damage means you are intending to kill something. For a Good character to be doing this (dealing lethal damage) there should be a fairly good reason.


Granted, but hacking some Ogre to death with my Holy Avenger for a good reason, or sneaking up on the Ogre, studying him for three rounds and putting a crossbow bolt into his brain stem with my Death Attack for a good reason both result in a dead Ogre, and rescued villagers.

Why is the sneaky way Evil?

Smarter? Sure. But Evil? I'm unconvinced.




In my opinion, the alignment system works just fine as long as its confined to the D&D universe. In my opinion, its people that take it out of that setting or fail to take each and every action and motivation to its logical conclusion that seem to have a problem.

I've never had an issue with the alignment system. I 'got' it the first moment I read it.

It's got nothing to do with "getting" anything. I can "get" stuff and still find it annoying, unrealistic, and confining.

Water_Bear
2012-08-29, 07:30 PM
The problem with saying "Assassins aren't evil! Look at that guy from Valkyrie!" is that it's kind of missing the point.

In D&D 3.5, Alignment is absolute. It is explained, over and over, that Evil people can think that their evil means lead to good ends, but that that doesn't change their alignment or make them any less Evil. Whether for profit, or out of a sense of justice, or because you think it'll impress a movie star, assassinating people is neutral at best. Training to be a master of the arts of assassination requires that a character doesn't have the respect for life required to be Good, and is well on their way to becoming Evil.

In addition, Assassins in D&D 3.5, regardless of their fluff, use methods which are absolutely evil. Their spell list is full of spells like "Heart Ripper" "Magic Circle against Good"and "Fangs of the Vampire King," [Evil] spells which are designed to kill ruthlessly and efficiently even if it means inflicting undue pain. They are trained in Poison Use, called out as Evil in BoED and primarily associated with evil races like the Drow. While they have a Paralysis option for their Death Attack, it is a method of attack which relies on initiating violence against people who are unprepared for it and relies on deceit to function.

Maybe the problem is that the Assassin is too cool looking a class, and has been too romanticized; like people who want to play Good Vampires because they read too much Anne Rice. Or maybe it's because they put "Evil Only" rather than "Any Non-Good." Either way though, Assassins are absolutely Evil in D&D 3.5.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-08-29, 07:44 PM
Why is the sneaky way Evil?

Smarter? Sure. But Evil? I'm unconvinced.

Aye. Nobody in Team Fortress 2 could be described as anything except varying degrees of evilness, or just outside the alignment system entirely (or just have their alignments as "PC"), except for mayyybe the Engineer. But to use TF2 as an example, I find the efficient, cold attitudes of the Sniper and Spy to be less evil than the overzealous, trigger-happy, rocket-launching rampaging Soldier.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-08-29, 08:52 PM
If you're going to or have deliberately end somone's life for the sake of someone else's political or financial benifet in exchange for some sort of monetary gain, then you're probably not a paladin.....




Being interested in death or undeath is not a crime, there's nothing inherently evil about studying such topics. The problem is that such type of topics are usually misused or misunderstood, which leads to people assuming that it's the magic itself that's "evil". Take the example of Victor Frankenstein from the novel "Frankenstein". He isn't evil, obsessed maybe, arrogant maybe, but his only crime is trying to gain more knowledge about the balance between life and death.

There's a line between studying life and death and being paid to kill someone....

I do agree, heck I've even played a good necromancer myself. But plenty of the spells involved are marked [Evil] and many of the gods involved in many such cases are also Evil. Creating undead is an evil act and undead are always evil. So logically many of the classes dealing with such things (especially creating such things) should be far, far more evil than a class that is good at killing living things. Granted, killing them in a way that arguably isn't honorable, but honor and morals are fairly separate. And my point was that there's much stronger cases for other classes with similar or lesser alignment restrictions than there is for assassins to have the evil requirement. (Especially when there are examples in other books of Good variants of the class, but those did come out later, but it's still something that could have been changed in an Errata.)

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-29, 09:22 PM
Aye. Nobody in Team Fortress 2 could be described as anything except varying degrees of evilness, or just outside the alignment system entirely (or just have their alignments as "PC"), except for mayyybe the Engineer. But to use TF2 as an example, I find the efficient, cold attitudes of the Sniper and Spy to be less evil than the overzealous, trigger-happy, rocket-launching rampaging Soldier.

And all much less evil than the Pyro.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-29, 09:27 PM
And all much less evil than the Pyro.

Eh, if Meet The Pyro is canon, I'd peg it as some variety of Neutral. Like an animal or a small child, it literally cannot comprehend or understand that it is hurting and killing people.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-08-29, 09:36 PM
Eh, if Meet The Pyro is canon, I'd peg it as some variety of Neutral. Like an animal or a small child, it literally cannot comprehend or understand that it is hurting and killing people.

Considering there are items that let you see aspects of Pyroland... I'd call it canon. Although the Heavy is either embellishing or even dumber than he appears to be, because his gun "only" fires 2400 rounds per minute, not 10000 as he says in Meet the Heavy.

However, if you consider psychopaths and certain or all sociopaths evil, then I don't think pure insanity is an excuse for non-evil alignment.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-29, 09:42 PM
Psychopaths and sociopaths at least know what they are doing in most cases, they just either don't care or think it's a good thing. Pyro is so crazy it think it's actually being nice and helpful and friendly, that's an entirely different level of lunacy - the real evil person is whoever gave Pyro its equipment.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-29, 09:57 PM
The problem with saying "Assassins aren't evil! Look at that guy from Valkyrie!" is that it's kind of missing the point.

You're the one missing the point. In the REAL world we live in, assassins aren't black and white. They are not contract killers. They are people who kill for a purpose, some to fight tyrants, some for personal gain, and some to avenge wrongs. Your view of assassins as evil is itself the REAL romanticized view of them, stemming from an Enlightenment era throwback, when war was done "with honor", real men "didn't hide like cowards", and attacking from behind is something of a "evil" strategy done by "savages". It's not. Its a smarter strategy, and our modern warfare is based almost exclusively on it.


In D&D 3.5, Alignment is absolute. It is explained, over and over, that Evil people can think that their evil means lead to good ends, but that that doesn't change their alignment or make them any less Evil. Whether for profit, or out of a sense of justice, or because you think it'll impress a movie star, assassinating people is neutral at best. Training to be a master of the arts of assassination requires that a character doesn't have the respect for life required to be Good, and is well on their way to becoming Evil.

Killing is, in itself, a neutral act. The literature makes that ABUNDANTLY clear. What determines the the morality of killing is WHO is being killed and WHY they are being killed. Kill an orphan for fun. EVIL. Kill an evil Baron to stop him from releasing a horde of demons into the Material Plane. GOOD. If that WERE NOT the case, there could be NO GOOD in D&D, because in the end every PC kills things!!!

But what you and others keep doing is throwing around terms like "assassinate" and "murder" using the connotations associated with those words as if that alone proves your point. But if the target and intent are what matter, than killing is killing. "Assassinate" and "murder" are just killing with an evil connotation. But what do reason do you have to justify that connotation? What's so different between the Paladin walking up puting a Smite Evil to the demi-lich Acererak's face, the rogue sneaking attacking him, and the assassin "assassinating" him, if all three have the intent of putting an end once and for all to his evil scenes?

Seriously guys! Someone please tell me what makes killing, what makes murder, what makes assassinating, and how are they different and why is an Assassin only capable of doing one and not the others?

And how is "mastering the arts of assassination" any different than "mastering the art of the sword" or "mastering the art of hand-to-hand combat"?
In the end, the purpose is to kill things. So why does the art of assassination require a lack of "respect for life", and the other two not?


In addition, Assassins in D&D 3.5, regardless of their fluff, use methods which are absolutely evil. Their spell list is full of spells like "Heart Ripper" "Magic Circle against Good"and "Fangs of the Vampire King," [Evil] spells which are designed to kill ruthlessly and efficiently even if it means inflicting undue pain. They are trained in Poison Use, called out as Evil in BoED and primarily associated with evil races like the Drow.

I'll give you this. Assassins have [Evil] spells. But you miss that this is exactly what I'm arguing against. Why? I don't think assassins should be innately evil, so why do they have spells.

And why is poison use innately evil?


While they have a Paralysis option for their Death Attack, it is a method of attack which relies on initiating violence against people who are unprepared for it and relies on deceit to function.

And pray tell, how is that different that Sneak Attack?

Oh, right, its not any different, because Death Attack is just a modified Sneak Attack.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-08-29, 10:09 PM
And how is "mastering the arts of assassination" any different than "mastering the art of the sword" or "mastering the art of hand-to-hand combat"?
Well, uh, actually, hand-to-hand can be used for self-defense or nonlethal combat. Sword use remains a good example, though.

And why is poison use innately evil?

'Cause the BoED/BoVD says so.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-29, 10:14 PM
So here are two challenges for y'all:

What makes killing a murder (the evil kind of killing)? And why is an Assassin only capable of this kind of killing?

Ninjas are assassins by nature. Why can they be good and assassins cannot?

snoopy13a
2012-08-29, 11:18 PM
What makes killing a murder (the evil kind of killing)? And why is an Assassin only capable of this kind of killing?

Ninjas are assassins by nature. Why can they be good and assassins cannot?

Under the common law, murder is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought, and there must not be a mitigating factor.

So, let's look at that:

1) It has to be a killing

2) It must be unlawful. Thus, killings which are (a) accidents, (b) justified (self-defense, defense of others, apprehension of a dangerous criminal), (c) excusable (insanity, infancy), or (d) state-sanctioned (execution, warfare, killing of an outlaw) are not murder.

3) There must be malice involved. Malice is satisified by: (a) intent to kill, (b) intent to cause serious injury, or (c) extreme recklessness that demostrates a callous regard for human life, or (d) felony murder where a person is guilty of murder if a non-participant of a crime dies during the committing of a dangerous felony (typically burglary, robbery, escape, kidnapping, rape, and arson)--even if the death was accidental or caused by an accomplice, or even a third party.

4) There must not be a mitigating factor. An unlawful intentional killing is mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if the killer was reasonably provoked (e.g., catches spouse in adultery). Dueling may also be a mitigating factor--not sure on that one. As a side note, a killing caused by criminal negligence or recklesness (non-extreme) is involuntary manslaughter.

Assassins are paid money to intentionally kill someone, and assassins kill in cold blood (so their killings are never mitigated to intentional manslaughter). Unless the killing is state-sanctioned, the assassin is a murderer.

Most adventurers kill in self-defense, during war-time, or the killings are sanctioned by law (such as "dead or alive" bounties or getting rid of the local goblin menace). Or they are killing monsters, which aren't considered "people." But in some cases, adventurers are murderers.

Regarding ninjas: I have no idea. Maybe because someone can be trained as a ninja without having to kill anyone? Whereas, an assassin, by the very term, is a paid killer. Semantically, it would be the difference between training to kill someone and actually killing someone. Of course, ninjas who have killed for pay are assassins.

Kish
2012-08-29, 11:29 PM
So here are two challenges for y'all:

What makes killing a murder (the evil kind of killing)?

It's been pointed out to you that assassins, to join the prestige class, have to kill someone, a target assigned to them by their recruiter, for no reason other than to join the assassins. You haven't responded to this at all, and have just gone on repeating your assertions that "assassin" should just mean "someone who kills."

Do you think killing someone you know nothing about, so that you can join an organization and for no other reason, is not evil? I'd like an answer.


And why is an Assassin only capable of this kind of killing?

You keep repeating this question, and it keeps not being answered because, frankly, the premise is goofy. Being able to kill in self defense in addition to the killings you commit for money doesn't make you not a murderer for money. There is no balance sheet on which you tally up the people you've killed for justifiable reasons and the people you've killed for unjustifiable reasons, and if the first column is longer, congratulations, you're good.

On a side note, which supplement in the Ninja class, anyway?

(Yes, I realize the original question went beyond 3ed D&D; however, since the current conversation is talking about death attacks and evil spells, I'm addressing the assassin class in D&D terms.)

karkus
2012-08-29, 11:45 PM
Awesome question. I myself have asked this for a while.

But to be honest, it's not that much different than being an adventurer. Are assassins Evil? Yes. They kill for money. Are Assassins Evil? Not at all. They're simply highly-trained Rogues, and sometimes (with interesting results) Bards and Rangers, proficient in the ways of swift death. Pay very close attention to my capitalizations. The former, "assassin" refers to the occupation. The latter, "Assassin" refers to the Prestige Class. In fact, there is nothing about STAYING Evil; it only says that you have to be Evil to take the first level (you can't be an ex-Assassin).

But, in conclusion, Assassins should not be Evil if they are not actually Evil.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-29, 11:53 PM
1) It has to be a killing

[...]

3) There must be malice involved. Malice is satisified by: (a) intent to kill, (b) intent to cause serious injury, or (c) extreme recklessness that demostrates a callous regard for human life, or (d) felony murder where a person is guilty of murder if a non-participant of a crime dies during the committing of a dangerous felony (typically burglary, robbery, escape, kidnapping, rape, and arson)--even if the death was accidental or caused by an accomplice, or even a third party.

4) There must not be a mitigating factor. An unlawful intentional killing is mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if the killer was reasonably provoked (e.g., catches spouse in adultery). Dueling may also be a mitigating factor--not sure on that one. As a side note, a killing caused by criminal negligence or recklesness (non-extreme) is involuntary manslaughter.

An assassin can, just like another Good player, work within the bounds of all of this. In fact, many Good player fail in many of these regards on a regular basis. Good guys are not magically immune to the "malice" when dealing with bad guys (hell barbarians Rage). When the BBEG tells you he will unleash a horde of demons, he in no way justifies his death as "not murder". Yet even a paladin wouldn't hesitate to stop him.


2) It must be unlawful. Thus, killings which are (a) accidents, (b) justified (self-defense, defense of others, apprehension of a dangerous criminal), (c) excusable (insanity, infancy), or (d) state-sanctioned (execution, warfare, killing of an outlaw) are not murder.

A Law/Chaos distinction, not Good/Evil. Can even be mitigated by another authority (deity, lord, state, sense of justice, honor code, paladin code).


Assassins are paid money to intentionally kill someone, and assassins kill in cold blood (so their killings are never mitigated to intentional manslaughter). Unless the killing is state-sanctioned, the assassin is a murderer.

No. As I've said almost four times now, assassins don't have to be paid. In fact, the vast majority AREN'T PAID. And what does it mean to "kill in cold blood" and why is it that assassins can only do this?

And how does "state sanctioned" justify it, but not "the demands of justice and what is Good"?


Most adventurers kill in self-defense, during war-time, or the killings are sanctioned by law (such as "dead or alive" bounties or getting rid of the local goblin menace). Or they are killing monsters, which aren't considered "people." But in some cases, adventurers are murderers.

I'm only talking about Good adventurers. And seeking out the BBEG to end his reign of terror is rarely done with the intent of "talking sense into him" or "bringing him to the proper authorities". To most good parties, its to STOP him, with that little tag of "NO MATTER WHAT" which often means to KILL him. In that sense, an assassins methods are rarely that substantially different from anyone else's, he just cuts to the chase much quicker.


Regarding ninjas: I have no idea. Maybe because someone can be trained as a ninja without having to kill anyone? Whereas, an assassin, by the very term, is a paid killer. Semantically, it would be the difference between training to kill someone and actually killing someone. Of course, ninjas who have killed for pay are assassins.

Once again, the pay to kill thing. Assassin are not NECESSARILY paid to kill.
Historically, the opposite is the rule, not exception.

Furthermore, historically ninjas were assassins. So why can one train to be a ninja and not kill, yet not train to be an assassin and not kill (note: I already beef with a number of the requirements for assassin, including the "must kill")? Like I've said, to me the assassin, like the ninja, is a technique or method, not a morality.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-29, 11:54 PM
But, in conclusion, Assassins should not be Evil if they are not actually Evil.

The profoundness of your statement is beautiful in its simplicity.

CosmicOccurence
2012-08-29, 11:58 PM
Ok lets take an example adventure:

Undead have been attacking a town, the village blames the local wizard (a known necromancer) who lives a mile outside the village. Mayor/Headman hires PCs to end the problem (and PCs do get paid quite a bit for what they do, or at least have a reward, so technically they are now assassins in all but class levels).

Pretty standard right?

I fail to see the difference between PCs barging into the place, killing the things that are attacking them for invading the tower, then going and fighting the wizard (who at this point is acting in self defense, whether he's guilty or not). versus a member of the assassin PrC sneaking in, assassinating the dude, and hightailing it out of there. End situation, they both die, actually the PCs cause more death, which is more evil.

On poison, I see no difference in pain between a long fight (several cuts) and a sword in the gut, than a death by poison. Both are very very painful.

On spells. Wizards and Clerics both have evil spells on their lists. Do they have to use them, no. Neither do assassins. Many of there spells are not remotely evil.

In addition the prerequisite for assassin is stupid and limiting. You're joining the assassins that kill people planning treason/mass murder of populace without totally embarrassing and ruining their family name. You kill a minor baron to join. That baron was about to attack the nearest town because he had no money, and needed more. There, good assassin entry.

Edit: If a person ends up being killed by sombody, I would actually call assassination "more good" than normal. It's quick, and much more painless, and there is not realization while fighting that you're going to die.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-30, 12:11 AM
It's been pointed out to you that assassins, to join the prestige class, have to kill someone, a target assigned to them by their recruiter, for no reason other than to join the assassins. You haven't responded to this at all, and have just gone on repeating your assertions that "assassin" should just mean "someone who kills."

Do you think killing someone you know nothing about, so that you can join an organization and for no other reason, is not evil? I'd like an answer.

You seem to ignore the fact that this whole thread exists because of my beef with the requirements for the assassin. So what do you think my answer might be?


You keep repeating this question, and it keeps not being answered because, frankly, the premise is goofy. Being able to kill in self defense in addition to the killings you commit for money doesn't make you not a murderer for money. There is no balance sheet on which you tally up the people you've killed for justifiable reasons and the people you've killed for unjustifiable reasons, and if the first column is longer, congratulations, you're good.

On a side note, which supplement in the Ninja class, anyway?

(Yes, I realize the original question went beyond 3ed D&D; however, since the current conversation is talking about death attacks and evil spells, I'm addressing the assassin class in D&D terms.)

The paid assassin thing again. That is a modern construct. Rejection of assassins as "mercenaries paid to kill a single target in secret for an employer" is the exact premise on which I stand.

Assassins are incredibly efficient rogues, ones who use their intellect to stay hidden and to hit targets in a way which would most efficiently bring them down. And they kill the target for a reason or purpose. While money can be one, it is not the only.

As for Ninja, I believe its Complete Adventurer, but I'd have to look.

As for the question, I keep asking it because I'm convince none of you have an answer. You say no one answers it because its "goofy", and I'd agree if you and others believe it is some how self-evident, but I'm inclined to believe it hasn't been answered because no one can answer it. If you could, you would have already. Yet you haven't. And still refuse to.

Winthur
2012-08-30, 12:30 AM
I don't understand why would you label people like Gavrilo Princip or John Wilkes Booth or even that guy who shot Gandhi or whoever else as assassins when they're really only known for killing one person in their life and they haven't trained the art of assassination as a career.

karkus
2012-08-30, 12:48 AM
The profoundness of your statement is beautiful in its simplicity.

What do you mean?

EDIT: I realized a few minutes ago that, because "killing someone for no reason other than to blah blah blah" is an Evil act, you could count as being evil during your 1-2 nights of your contract, when you join. You are then free to assign your alignment from there on out, due to there being no "ex-Assassins." Try reading the description of the Atonement spell, because it says that it is just about the only logical way to shift alignments so suddenly.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-30, 12:49 AM
Ok lets take an example adventure:

Undead have been attacking a town, the village blames the local wizard (a known necromancer) who lives a mile outside the village. Mayor/Headman hires PCs to end the problem (and PCs do get paid quite a bit for what they do, or at least have a reward, so technically they are now assassins in all but class levels).

Pretty standard right?

I fail to see the difference between PCs barging into the place, killing the things that are attacking them for invading the tower, then going and fighting the wizard (who at this point is acting in self defense, whether he's guilty or not). versus a member of the assassin PrC sneaking in, assassinating the dude, and hightailing it out of there. End situation, they both die, actually the PCs cause more death, which is more evil.

On poison, I see no difference in pain between a long fight (several cuts) and a sword in the gut, than a death by poison. Both are very very painful.

On spells. Wizards and Clerics both have evil spells on their lists. Do they have to use them, no. Neither do assassins. Many of there spells are not remotely evil.

In addition the prerequisite for assassin is stupid and limiting. You're joining the assassins that kill people planning treason/mass murder of populace without totally embarrassing and ruining their family name. You kill a minor baron to join. That baron was about to attack the nearest town because he had no money, and needed more. There, good assassin entry.

If a person ends up being killed by sombody, I would actually call assassination "more good" than normal. It's quick, and much more painless, and there is not realization while fighting that you're going to die.

Thank you. Great illustration.


What do you mean?

What I means is that you put it as simply as it could possibly be put.
An assassin is not evil unless the character is actually Evil.
If they are a good guy, then they are Good.

karkus
2012-08-30, 01:06 AM
Thanks for clearing that up, BootStrapTommy.

But to nearly everyone else, let's get something straight here so that we'll stop arguing over it:

The only reason that the "killing someone" requirement is so vague/limiting is because if they specifically stated what it was, clever players (well, some people would call them smartasses) could more-than-easily find a Good way to spin it. It's almost the exact same thing for a lich. If they stated that you'd have to kill an innocent child, you could kill a child painlessly to relieve it from agonizing death from, say, a disease. By stating the process as "unspeakably evil," however, they primarily seal off any loopholes.

There are near-infinite number of reasons for someone to die, and you could even say "I'm killing this person because the Assassins told me to as my requirement." and have it "not count." What I believe that the requirement MEANS is that you have to do a single contract (a "mission" for highly-trained assassins) on your own, I suppose so as to prove that you are capable of doing so.

It would also mean that you cannot "double-dip" an adventure by being hired to do such-and-such by the king while simultaneously killing so-and-so for the Assassins if the two tasks, for the most part, overlap.

mcv
2012-08-30, 01:08 AM
Everywhere in this thread, I wonder how people feel about assassinations by the government. I realize it's risky to get real world politics involved in a discussion of alignment and assassinations. But I just have to ask.


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.
What about SEALs? Do they have honour? They have performed a rather famous assassination and got paid to do it. What about the US president? Is he evil for ordering assassinations? I'm sure a lot of people would say so, but there are also a lot of people who clearly think this sort of thing is okay.

Alignment is very much depending on point of view and what kind of morality you have.

I do think these acts are evil acts, but I don't think the people who performed them necessarily have no honour, nor are they necessarily irredeemably evil because of it. They do a lot of other things as well; the SEALs risk their lives in recon and rescue operations, the president tries to run a country as best he can, and he does that using a mix of good and noble ideals and dirty pragmatism.

And what about soldiers? They take people's lives too, and not always out of self-defense. Often they even end up killing people they're not supposed to kill, and whose death serves no purpose at all. In primitive societies life was cheap, and it was common for soldiers to rape and plunder. Were most people evil back then?


He murders people for no other reason than personal gain. Sure, the contractor might have valid reasons, but the assassin himself does not.
But doing a job for personal gain is neutral, is it not? And what if he agrees with the cause he's killing for? And is the person ordering the assassination really less evil than the person performing it?

I'm not entirely sure where I'm heading with this, other than the conclusion that alignment is arbitrary and a realistic society is not so black and white. I personally do think assassinations are evil even when done for a supposedly good cause, but modern politics shows clearly that a lot of people disagree with that. And what makes my morality more valid than theirs? But that inevitably leads to moral relativism of course.

Geostationary
2012-08-30, 01:22 AM
I don't understand why would you label people like Gavrilo Princip or John Wilkes Booth or even that guy who shot Gandhi or whoever else as assassins when they're really only known for killing one person in their life and they haven't trained the art of assassination as a career.

An assassin is one who has assassinated someone. The quantity of people killed is immaterial to your status as an assassin, as the act of assassination makes you into one. Such people are better known and possibly more common, as killing multiple high-profile targets can be rather difficult if you don't work in intelligence, crime, or a similar field. Note that I refer to actual assassins, not the D&D class.

BootStrapTommy
2012-08-30, 01:54 AM
The only reason that the "killing someone" requirement is so vague/limiting is because if they specifically stated what it was, clever players (well, some people would call them smartasses) could more-than-easily find a Good way to spin it. It's almost the exact same thing for a lich. If they stated that you'd have to kill an innocent child, you could kill a child painlessly to relieve it from agonizing death from, say, a disease. By stating the process as "unspeakably evil," however, they primarily seal off any loopholes.

One of my buddies said brought up something similar. He said "Imagine if an Assassin could be good. Then realize how broken a Paladin-Assassin would be."


Everywhere in this thread, I wonder how people feel about assassinations by the government. I realize it's risky to get real world politics involved in a discussion of alignment and assassinations. But I just have to ask.

Not real-life, but the Avenger works something relatively close to a real-world state sanctioned assassin. And it can be Good, but only Lawful Good.

TuggyNE
2012-08-30, 02:11 AM
An assassin is one who has assassinated someone. The quantity of people killed is immaterial to your status as an assassin, as the act of assassination makes you into one. Such people are better known and possibly more common, as killing multiple high-profile targets can be rather difficult if you don't work in intelligence, crime, or a similar field. Note that I refer to actual assassins, not the D&D class.

I strongly suspect WotC would have done well to name the Assassin PrC "Contract Killer" or similar instead; the design space intended is, in fact, professional murderers (as evidenced by the implied guild membership, requirement to kill someone for no particular reason, and even the Evil alignment prerequisite). In particular, nearly all historical amateur assassins (those that have been brought up so far, and others) would properly be represented by other classes. You don't need a class feature called "Death Attack" to line up a shot on someone in a car, or construct and set a time bomb with an acid-based trigger, or even smother someone in their bed. (Some of them were arguably Feat Rogues or something similar.)

So while it is technically accurate to call those who've assassinated once "assassins", I don't think it's helpful to the discussion, because it confuses the issue. (At any rate, putting some kind of qualifier — perhaps "amateur" — would help.)

Note that I can see a certain argument for a jaded Neutral alignment with certain professional killers, but essentially none for a Good alignment. Even if you're performing Good acts, the manner in which you've trained is non-Good. (I'd personally extend that a bit further to other classes as well, as I tend to have higher standards for Good than most, but the Assassin class is more clearcut.) This would also extend to special forces: I respect those who train for government-sponsored assassinations, and I can even understand why they might be necessary, but I do not consider them Good.


One of my buddies said brought up something similar. He said "Imagine if an Assassin could be good. Then realize how broken a Paladin-Assassin would be."

... I really don't get this. In what way do the class features synergize? Two half-casters, one Int-based, one Wis-based, one using light armor, the other heavy, one specializing in mounted combat, the other in hiding... for that matter, even if you go purely on vague fluff ideas, I still don't get it (primarily because they operate on entirely different worldviews).

Xiander
2012-08-30, 02:13 AM
An assassin is one who has assassinated someone. The quantity of people killed is immaterial to your status as an assassin, as the act of assassination makes you into one. Such people are better known and possibly more common, as killing multiple high-profile targets can be rather difficult if you don't work in intelligence, crime, or a similar field. Note that I refer to actual assassins, not the D&D class.

This seems to be part of the key to this discussion. The missing parts is that there are othere definitions of the word.
Lets look at the three relevant definitions.

1) As above, an assassin is a killer who has assasinated at least one person.

2) an assassin is someone wo kills people for money.

3) An assassin is a character whith at least one level in the discussed prestice class.



Now 1 and 2 are most likely evil. I am not ruling out wierd scenarios were a good aligned hired killer exists. I am however saying that most hired killers would glow red under detect evil.

Three is per definition always evil. Why? Because it says so in the prestice class entry.
The question stated at first in this thread was why it says so. To which my only answer is, because the writer of the class envisioned the class as a cult of remorseless, depraved killers, who would only accept a new member if that member showed of a fitting amount of callousness by killing someone just to gain entry.

I could go through the skillset of the assassin step by step and argue for why it does not make the charater who has it evil, but really i think it is enough to make the point that if you are willing to refluff assassins from "doomgloom death cultists" to individuals specialized in a clean and silent kill, go for it.

You might want to change the name though.

mcv
2012-08-30, 03:45 AM
Not real-life, but the Avenger works something relatively close to a real-world state sanctioned assassin. And it can be Good, but only Lawful Good.

Only Lawful Good? That's worse than the requirement to be evil. I can see Lawful Neutral, I can see Chaotic Good. But I'd say Lawful Good would involve sticking to the principles of justice, insisting on a fair trial, etc.

Not everything a government does is automatically Lawful. Governments bend the rules quite a bit to suit their needs. Lawful does not mean "government aligned", it means "sticking to the rules". If the rules allow killing without a trial, they're not Good rules, and if the rules don't allow that, then breaking them for a Good cause is not Lawful.

Forum Explorer
2012-08-30, 04:05 AM
So I read over the thread and here's what I think.

Real life Assassin's are not always evil anymore then you would say soldiers or spies are always evil.


D&D Assassin's should not always have to be evil. (Seriously using that in a thread complaining about that very thing is a silly argument). By strict wording of the rules they don't need to take money to kill either. WotC wanted them to be evil but did a bad job of getting that across in the fluff due to really stupid logic. Multiple times really (Poisons are evil!:P)

As such the OP is a valid complaint. In the D&D world it makes no sense for Assassins to always be evil. Even an assassin's guild might not be evil. It depends on so many factors that are generally left up to the DM.

kardar233
2012-08-30, 05:54 AM
Only Lawful Good? That's worse than the requirement to be evil. I can see Lawful Neutral, I can see Chaotic Good. But I'd say Lawful Good would involve sticking to the principles of justice, insisting on a fair trial, etc.

Not everything a government does is automatically Lawful. Governments bend the rules quite a bit to suit their needs. Lawful does not mean "government aligned", it means "sticking to the rules". If the rules allow killing without a trial, they're not Good rules, and if the rules don't allow that, then breaking them for a Good cause is not Lawful.

As my earlier post was asking, what if a convicted criminal escapes execution, and a character is paid to hunt him down? I'd say that's a Lawful Good act.

Kish
2012-08-30, 06:04 AM
You seem to ignore the fact that this whole thread exists because of my beef with the requirements for the assassin. So what do you think my answer might be?

You just indicated that your answer is, "I refuse to acknowledge it, because I don't like it."


The paid assassin thing again. That is a modern construct.

Because D&D morality is modern morality. Your point?


Rejection of assassins as "mercenaries paid to kill a single target in secret for an employer" is the exact premise on which I stand.

Assassins are incredibly efficient rogues, ones who use their intellect to stay hidden and to hit targets in a way which would most efficiently bring them down. And they kill the target for a reason or purpose. While money can be one, it is not the only.

So you disagree fundamentally, and entirely, with the DMG description of the assassin class. And you started this thread because...you want the forum to agree that your homebrewed assassin class has some form of universal validity? I truly don't get it. You do not need permission to replace the assassin class with something homebrewed; you cannot have "the D&D description of the assassin class is WRONG WRONG WRONG," any more than you can have "they're describing wizards wrong by saying you can be a human, an elf, or the other races listed, they should all be Maiar."


As for the question, I keep asking it because I'm convince none of you have an answer. You say no one answers it because its "goofy", and I'd agree if you and others believe it is some how self-evident, but I'm inclined to believe it hasn't been answered because no one can answer it. If you could, you would have already. Yet you haven't. And still refuse to.
Fellow, I described very clearly why it's self-evident in the rest of the paragraph you just mostly ignored. Nothing says an assassin cannot commit other types of killing in addition to the murders for money, any more than anything says Xykon the lich couldn't kill in clear and unambiguous self-defense in addition to all his murders for fun. So what? Someone who commits 100 murders for money and 10 self-defense killings is fully as evil as someone who commits 100 murders for money and 0 killings for any other reason.

kardar233
2012-08-30, 07:04 AM
So you disagree fundamentally, and entirely, with the DMG description of the assassin class. And you started this thread because...you want the forum to agree that your homebrewed assassin class has some form of universal validity? I truly don't get it. You do not need permission to replace the assassin class with something homebrewed; you cannot have "the D&D description of the assassin class is WRONG WRONG WRONG," any more than you can have "they're describing wizards wrong by saying you can be a human, an elf, or the other races listed, they should all be Maiar."

I'll demonstrate the thought process that would lead to me posting a thread like this.


Hmm, I've always wanted to play an Assassin. Shame they're only allowed to be Evil-aligned, and I'm making a character for a Good/Neutral campaign.
Do I really have to be Evil to be an Assassin? Well, there is the requirement to kill someone just to join the guild, but that's pretty contrived. Ignoring that, these mechanics (as long as you change Magic Circle to be of whatever alignment you are) don't necessarily have to be Evil, just someone who specializes in stabbing enemies without getting stabbed back.
I don't know if I can pitch this to my DM, he's pretty staid about these things. I wonder if the Playground can give me some good arguments for this...

Kitten Champion
2012-08-30, 07:17 AM
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression that a class description isn't necessarily the same as a profession. Although naturally your character's skills would direct them to certain callings over others, ultimately class titles are just themes supplied by the game to develop your character into a general archetypal direction.

The assassin class is a person with certain capabilities -- which are at the discretion of the user. All classes can be an assassin professionally, they may only do so in certain circumstances, but as we've seen in this thread there are a number of conditions where one can be convinced that assassination is morally justified.

Can a professional assassin be good? In my view -- not really -- lawful neutral perhaps, but not good in terms D&D modern romanticism with specific ideas about governance and justice. However, I don't see how having assassin skills should be more or less morally complicated than having any martial skill set or malignant magicks. You don't need a terribly immoral background either, if states employ espionage, trained assassins aren't that far of a stretch. They're simply the Western variant of Ninja.

If a class is going to have an alignment requirement, it should relate to a component of the skills required for such a class, like praying to an evil god or using wicked magic. I'm not a fan of alignment, but it makes some sense that way.

Xiander
2012-08-30, 07:18 AM
I'll demonstrate the thought process that would lead to me posting a thread like this.


Hmm, I've always wanted to play an Assassin. Shame they're only allowed to be Evil-aligned, and I'm making a character for a Good/Neutral campaign.
Do I really have to be Evil to be an Assassin? Well, there is the requirement to kill someone just to join the guild, but that's pretty contrived. Ignoring that, these mechanics (as long as you change Magic Circle to be of whatever alignment you are) don't necessarily have to be Evil, just someone who specializes in stabbing enemies without getting stabbed back.
I don't know if I can pitch this to my DM, he's pretty staid about these things. I wonder if the Playground can give me some good arguments for this...


If this was your goal, i'd start by stating, "I do not want to play an assassin, but I would like to use a variant of the prestige class for something else."

kardar233
2012-08-30, 07:24 AM
If this was your goal, i'd start by stating, "I do not want to play an assassin, but I would like to use a variant of the prestige class for something else."

I would say that I'd like to play an Assassin (Prestige class from DMG, or the mechanics thereof) but not necessarily an assassin (hired killer). I subscribe to the school of thought that the description and name of a class are not necessarily integral to the class itself.

I get a newsletter monthly. It's called the "Tin Pig Whistle", but assures me that I can call it whatever I like as long as I acknowledge it's newsprint.

Roderick_BR
2012-08-30, 07:42 AM
Hmm... that's a thougie. The "assassin" prestige class in 3.x is an obvious take on the AD&D assassin, an specialized NPC that was, as quoted, an hired professional murderer. A normal fighter killing someone is not considered fully evil because the "target" has a chance to defend itself or run away, or be protected. Assassins use underhanded "cowards" methods. Also, fluffy-wise, they usually had to be part of evil-aligned mercenary guilds and stuff.
And that stigma was transported for today's games.

However, I think that, yes, you could have good/neutral-aligned assassin guilds, dedicated to "silently solve problems" by eliminating specific targets.
Because rules wise, you could have a character just play a high level rogue with a few wizard/sorcerer levels to kill a corrupt politician quietly, in the same way an assassin would. He would just lack the poison and death attack abilities, but dealing more damage than the target has HP, or using some instadeath spell would work the same.

I guess this is a case where the prestige class doesn't need to be restricted by alignment. You would just have a hard time finding a non-evil organization to teach the tools of the trade, IF you require background for prestige classes.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-30, 07:52 AM
The assassin wasn't an NPC in AD&D.
Maybe in second edition, but second edition was *way* sanitized.
In first edition, they were a PC class in the Players Handbook, just like thieves.
Now, what makes an assassin evil, to me, is not their methods, but their amorality.

Xiander
2012-08-30, 08:04 AM
I would say that I'd like to play an Assassin (Prestige class from DMG, or the mechanics thereof) but not necessarily an assassin (hired killer). I subscribe to the school of thought that the description and name of a class are not necessarily integral to the class itself.

I get a newsletter monthly. It's called the "Tin Pig Whistle", but assures me that I can call it whatever I like as long as I acknowledge it's newsprint.

My point exactly.



The assassin wasn't an NPC in AD&D.
Maybe in second edition, but second edition was *way* sanitized.
In first edition, they were a PC class in the Players Handbook, just like thieves.
Now, what makes an assassin evil, to me, is not their methods, but their amorality.

By that rationale (which i agree with), if you made a moral assassin, he could easily be good. Only thing which prevents that is the rules, which say that all assassins are evil.

snoopy13a
2012-08-30, 10:04 AM
No. As I've said almost four times now, assassins don't have to be paid. In fact, the vast majority AREN'T PAID. And what does it mean to "kill in cold blood" and why is it that assassins can only do this?

And how does "state sanctioned" justify it, but not "the demands of justice and what is Good"?




By "cold-blood," I simply meant without provocation. Legally, intentional murder can be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if the killer was provoked. Assassins don't kill their victims because they saw them cheating with their girlfriends (the most common form of provocation). Assassins aren't the only ones who kill in cold blood.

State-sanctioned simply means the killing was lawful; it does not necessarily mean that it was "just" or "good." A headsman is paid to intentionally kill people. However, because the people he kills are condemned criminals, he is not deemed to be a murderer. Likewise, an assassin employed by a king isn't a murderer if the king sanctions the assassin's actions. Again, it isn't a issue of right or wrong, but rather one of murder vs. non-murder. And since your comment was concerned with how murder is different from other homicides, I didn't address the morality, just the legality.

Yeah, most real-life assassins are unpaid, lone-wolf nut-jobs, but aren't we talking about assassins who are hired or work for an organization in this thread?

Ravens_cry
2012-08-30, 10:22 AM
By that rationale (which i agree with), if you made a moral assassin, he could easily be good. Only thing which prevents that is the rules, which say that all assassins are evil.
If you want a moral assassin, don't play the Assassin prestige class, its fluff entry requirements pretty much enforce the amorality, or play the Avenger (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a).:smalltongue:

Winthur
2012-08-30, 10:25 AM
Note that I refer to actual assassins, not the D&D class.

While I was referring to the D&D class all along. In The Hobbit, Bilbo sneaks around a little but doesn't really disarm traps or open locks, so if he were a D&D character giving him Rogue classes seems to not really work; he's really a commoner with Hide ranks. And IMHO John Wilkes Booth wouldn't have an "Assassin" class either.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-30, 10:42 AM
While I was referring to the D&D class all along. In The Hobbit, Bilbo sneaks around a little but doesn't really disarm traps or open locks, so if he were a D&D character giving him Rogue classes seems to not really work;
Bilbo probably has better than average Constitution, Dexterity and probably has at least some ranks in Slight of Hand.
Of course, he also has a magic item that grants him Greater Invisibility.

Wightsbane
2012-08-30, 11:00 AM
In my haughty opinion:

----------

A lowercase-a-assassin is anybody who kills a specific person(s) for political/social ends, which is called a lowercase-a-assassination, and may happen to make money off of the kill as a side note to the political end.


Good: von Stauffenberg
Evil: John Wilkes Booth

A Rogue is somebody who took a base class in killing by being stealthy

A Hitman/Contract Killer is somebody who either kills because: they love killing and happens to have found people to pay them; and/or just kills because somebody paid them to, not because of anything the victim did, but because they deemed person's right to exist as less than some amount of money.


Whether they put their own pleasure or an amount of money above somebody else's right to exist, they are still evil, even if a good person happens to have hired them against another evil (cough Belkar cough), simply because that's not what the hitman cares about.

Soldiers don't necessarily count because it has been almost universally accepted that governments can use them as disposable tools against other governments' disposable tools [your mileage may extremely freaking vary].

An Uppercase-A-Assassin is a contract killer who took a prestige class in using stealth to do what they love (killing others and/or making money).

Also, Rambo isn't an Uppercase-Assassin, he's a Rogue/Ranger lowercase-assassin.

----------

"Why is poison Evil?"

Because most DMs say so; others don't have to for their own campaigns, they could define it as chaotic for putting "accomplishing something" over "doing something" instead of evil for (?).

Xiander
2012-08-30, 11:40 AM
If you want a moral assassin, don't play the Assassin prestige class, its fluff entry requirements pretty much enforce the amorality, or play the Avenger (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a).:smalltongue:

Oh, I already know that, I am just stating flat out that the reason the assassin class requires evil alignment, is because it says so in the book.

My point being that it's no biggie to change it (hence the avenger).

Of course the name has connotations which leads to assumption drawing towards evil.

Lord Tyger
2012-08-30, 11:41 AM
I think the thing to keep in mind here is that Assassin is a prestige class. Prestige classes often assume specific fluff, much more than base classes do. It's like saying (Pathfinder Example) why does the Lion Blade class require me to have Taldor affinity? Is there anything about mastering movement within crowds and movement of your own body that somehow makes you love Taldor? No, but the Prestige Class is specifically for the fluff of that particular rogue-like group.

Xiander
2012-08-30, 12:10 PM
I think the thing to keep in mind here is that Assassin is a prestige class. Prestige classes often assume specific fluff, much more than base classes do. It's like saying (Pathfinder Example) why does the Lion Blade class require me to have Taldor affinity? Is there anything about mastering movement within crowds and movement of your own body that somehow makes you love Taldor? No, but the Prestige Class is specifically for the fluff of that particular rogue-like group.

This is a valid point.

I did mention earlier that the writers probably imagined an assassins guild who killed without remorse, and with no thought for anyone but the highest bidder. So they made the class evil.

We can argue for days about the likelihood of the existence of an assassins guild with a different more ethical codex. But the fact remains that the prestige class, as written is intended for killers with no mercy and less conscience.

However, the point stands that it is fluff not mechanics that makes it so. Change the name the fluff and the entry requirements (an possibly the poison use ability depending on how hung up on that you are), and there is no big problem in playing a good character with the assassin skillset.

Water_Bear
2012-08-30, 12:19 PM
However, the point stands that it is fluff not mechanics that makes it so. Change the name the fluff and the entry requirements (an possibly the poison use ability depending on how hung up on that you are), and there is no big problem in playing a good character with the assassin skillset.

The problem with homebrewing a non-Evil Assassin is that the spell list needs a huge overhaul; while the SRD list only has a few [Evil] spells, the splats added on a ton of them. And since [Evil] has a lot of the best low-level "kill/maim something immediately" spells it's going to be a chore to make it as effective as a spellcaster.

Also Poison Use needs to go. I know, it makes no sense, but neither does most of the alignment system; if you can throw out poison use, why not throw out any other Evil act. Maybe replace it with something like Stunning Fist.

Starbuck_II
2012-08-30, 12:28 PM
The problem with homebrewing a non-Evil Assassin is that the spell list needs a huge overhaul; while the SRD list only has a few [Evil] spells, the splats added on a ton of them. And since [Evil] has a lot of the best low-level "kill/maim something immediately" spells it's going to be a chore to make it as effective as a spellcaster.

Also Poison Use needs to go. I know, it makes no sense, but neither does most of the alignment system; if you can throw out poison use, why not throw out any other Evil act. Maybe replace it with something like Stunning Fist.

1. Poison Use isn't evil.
2. Wizards have evil spells too, but not all Wizards are evil. So you can leave the evil spells in the Assassin list and make the class non-evil.
If the player wants to dabble in evil spells, his choice.

Water_Bear
2012-08-30, 12:37 PM
1. Poison Use isn't evil.
2. Wizards have evil spells too, but not all Wizards are evil. So you can leave the evil spells in the Assassin list and make the class non-evil.
If the player wants to dabble in evil spells, his choice.

1. BoED/BoVD disagree with you there.
2. Wizards have a few of both [Evil] and [Good] spells among the hundreds of published spells available to them. Assassins have a significant portion of their very small spell list as [Evil], with no [Good] ones.

Forum Explorer
2012-08-30, 12:56 PM
1. BoED/BoVD disagree with you there.
2. Wizards have a few of both [Evil] and [Good] spells among the hundreds of published spells available to them. Assassins have a significant portion of their very small spell list as [Evil], with no [Good] ones.

1. which is very stupid. I mean they put using poison as more evil then just killing things.

2. Perhaps a better example would be Dread Necromancer instead which has lots of evil spells and almost no good ones?


Oh but I am of the opinion that if you are going to play a serious RP using D&D rules you need to toss the alignment system overboard.

VanBuren
2012-08-30, 01:28 PM
But then again, that's you, isn't it? Not them. Fully synced they don't kill any good guys. At least not intentionally.

Eh, that was supposed to say very few. :smalltongue:

Off the top of my head, I can only really think of two. Dante Moro in the second one--had to be killed because he was fighting you, but thanks to a failed murder attempt by his boss, had the mental state of a child--and one guy in Revelations who was being all sneaky sneaky, so you assumed he was up to some Templar shenanigans, only for it to turn out that he was attempting to build an army to fight them, but thought it would be fun to tell no one.

Well, you also do cause a massive explosion in a city that's in a cave, so I'm sure a lot of people die from smoke. That's probably not gonna do wonders for his alignment.

Water_Bear
2012-08-30, 01:40 PM
1. which is very stupid. I mean they put using poison as more evil then just killing things.
2. Perhaps a better example would be Dread Necromancer instead which has lots of evil spells and almost no good ones?

Oh but I am of the opinion that if you are going to play a serious RP using D&D rules you need to toss the alignment system overboard.

Well, this isn't about how stupid the rules are, otherwise we'd be arguing that Assassins shouldn't have Hit Points. Like it or not, the alignment system is actually pretty consistent between books; the problem is that most people have strong emotional attachments to their preferred systems of morality, and can't let it go for the sake of a game.

And I've DM'd and played in a lot of very serious RP heavy 3.5 games where the alignment system was a benefit rather than a hindrance. Making the distinction between Good-Evil and Law-Chaos, as well as the ambiguity about Intent v Result means that you can really end up with a lot of gray area. Aside from the Paladin, Good characters can commit and rationalize Evil acts, and the temptation to do Evil for the greater good is fun to play with.

havocfett
2012-08-30, 05:20 PM
1. BoED/BoVD disagree with you there.

This is because BOED is immensely terrible in almost every way, shape and form. Basing alignment arguments off of it is worse than normal alignment arguments, which have a bad tendency to be pretty terrible to begin with.

According to the BOED, it's more evil to use a knockout poison to nonlethally bypass guards than it is to stab them in the face.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-08-30, 05:27 PM
This is because BOED is immensely terrible in almost every way, shape and form. Basing alignment arguments off of it is worse than normal alignment arguments, which have a bad tendency to be pretty terrible to begin with.

According to the BOED, it's more evil to use a knockout poison to nonlethally bypass guards than it is to stab them in the face.

Do you actually have BoED? Because I don't, but I heard once that knockout poisons were given an exception. It may be true, it may just be the poster used logic, I dunno.

Water_Bear
2012-08-30, 05:49 PM
Only Poison which causes Ability Damage/Drain is Evil by BoED, so stuff like Drow Poison is fine and dandy. The idea is to avoid unnecessary suffering, which fits if you think of how your Strength withering away from poison would actually feel.

They also make the point of saying that killing when it isn't warranted for convenience, like killing guards when you could incapacitate them with nonlethal damage and magic or sneak past them, is usually Evil.

Good in D&D is supposed to be a difficult path; balancing the needs of Justice with a Respect for Life. When you come to an easy solution like poisoning people or assassinating them, it is probably morally questionable. Temptation, Ends-Don't-Justify-the-Means, etc.

Mike_G
2012-08-30, 06:20 PM
Only Poison which causes Ability Damage/Drain is Evil by BoED, so stuff like Drow Poison is fine and dandy. The idea is to avoid unnecessary suffering, which fits if you think of how your Strength withering away from poison would actually feel.


That's really, really stupid.

I'm a medic, so I'm not just talking crap here. Some poisons can cause permanent disability or even death, but aren't all that painful. That's why more people will take a bottle of pills to kill themselves rather than step off a ledge or jump in front of a train. Because it hurts less.

You know what hurts a lot? Being repeatedly smacked with a sword. Or a mace. Or, I dunno maybe being burned up with fire or acid.

All of which is fine for Good Aligned PCs.

So, the argument that poison is evil because it hurts is just fascinatingly stupid. Apart from being false, it's just so poorly presented that it makes my blood boil to contemplate it.

Now, some classes or religions or organizations might consider it dishonorable. That's fine and dandy. I mean, the medieval church tried to restrict the use of crossbows, so there is precedent if you want to say that worshipers of St Cuthbert are forbidden from using poison and must strike unbelievers with the Spiky Mace of Sweet Reason to show how merciful they are but just stop saying that being set on fire hurts less than a bottle of Vicodin and a fifth of Smirnov.

Because you're so, so very wrong.

Menteith
2012-08-30, 06:38 PM
D&D 3.5 uses an Objective Alignment System, and I believe that most toddlers wouldn't have a problem finding logical fallacies and absurd "morals" within it by RAW. I don't believe that most groups run alignment by hard RAW, but I don't have the data to support or undermine my position.

Morithias
2012-08-30, 06:57 PM
That's really, really stupid.

I'm a medic, so I'm not just talking crap here.

*Snip*

Very well put. Although we can't confirm you're a medic, you got to love how forums work. You can get people with all kinds of experiences, knowledge and understanding...yet we can't agree on virtually anything.

At least our lives are enhanced via learning new things and understanding new revelations and ideas, because I'm just going to say this, and I think it's the one thing everyone is going to agree on.

We're never going to find a "morality" system that is 100% correct in all instances. At least not without making a 1000+ page book with endless editing.

Either way, keep talking people, the more we discuss and research the more we can advance as a culture.

Eldonauran
2012-08-30, 07:06 PM
Some poisons can cause permanent disability or even death, but aren't all that painful. That's why more people will take a bottle of pills to kill themselves rather than step off a ledge or jump in front of a train. Because it hurts less.

:smallbiggrin: Great point.

For the real world.

Chemistry and physics usually take a backseat where D&D is concerned (and most fantasy games too). D&D assumes all poison use is evil, except a few exceptions.

We are never going to be able to simulate reality in any real, meaningful way. Let alone morality. Its even more complex than chemistry and less tangible. We simply have to have a few set-in-stone foundations that build the box in which we simulate our virtual reality.

Kaun
2012-08-30, 07:20 PM
I think it boils down to what you are willing to do to achieve your goals.

What determines good and evil isn't the final outcome of a persons actions but the path they walked to get there.

Rebecca: Look, it's not ideal. And taking a life is never easy. But sometimes there's no other way. Sometimes, Desmond, people have to die for things to change.

See this is not completely true. While people dying can be the quickest and easiest option, it is defiantly never the only option.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-30, 07:46 PM
Such as if you're poisoning an Evil person, and using a Ravage. Then it's A-OK, because doing evil to evil is fine by BoED standards.

Water_Bear
2012-08-30, 08:05 PM
Such as if you're poisoning an Evil person, and using a Ravage. Then it's A-OK, because doing evil to evil is fine by BoED standards.

I think Ravages and Afflictions were probably a (very deeply stupid) compromise by WotC. They probably knew saying Poison is evil would irritate all the players who use Good Rogues, so they threw them a metaphorical bone.

And BoED never claimed violence/harm couldn't be justified, but one of the biggest criterion is always how discriminate the violence is. The Paladin can't Smite a non-Evil creature, Ravages/Afflictions can't hurt non-Evil targets, and most [Good] AoE spells ensure that Good creatures in their areas will be okay. So they make a warped kind of sense; it's harmful, but is supernaturally guaranteed to only hurt the truly wicked.

The Random NPC
2012-08-30, 09:12 PM
Such as if you're poisoning an Evil person, and using a Ravage. Then it's A-OK, because doing evil to evil is fine by BoED standards.

I'm sure you already know this, but for those of you that don't, ravages and afflictions turn your spiritual corruption into physical corruption, making them act like poisons and diseases to Evil creatures. So it's A-OK in the same way as using natural poisons against the creature that creates it (e.g. snake venom against snakes.)

The Glyphstone
2012-08-30, 09:41 PM
I'm sure you already know this, but for those of you that don't, ravages and afflictions turn your spiritual corruption into physical corruption, making them act like poisons and diseases to Evil creatures. So it's A-OK in the same way as using natural poisons against the creature that creates it (e.g. snake venom against snakes.)

Except that by BoED's rules...using snake venom against snakes is Evil, because it does stat damage.

Starbuck_II
2012-08-31, 10:43 AM
I think Ravages and Afflictions were probably a (very deeply stupid) compromise by WotC. They probably knew saying Poison is evil would irritate all the players who use Good Rogues, so they threw them a metaphorical bone.


So, Poison use Covers Ravage use.
If a Assasin uses Ravages instead of normal poisons, is he still have to be evil by that criteria?

If not, then we've at least found some compromise.

Bouregard
2012-08-31, 12:01 PM
Yes an assassin is evil. But why is that bad? I like evil characters. They don't have to be baby-eating and dog-kicking menace.

The central part of an assassin is killing people.
Why is that evil?

-if you decide that the world is a better place without a specific person, then you'll automatically claim to know the future. How can you know it's not better for the world if he stays vertical? Keep in mind your deed is irreversable
-no chance of redemption for the victim
-no chance of explaining his possible innocence
-your victim might not even know what it did, there are people out there who do horrible deeds but honestly think that they are helping
-you strike the first blow so it's not self defence
-you'll cause grief to his loved ones


A good or neutral aligned assassin is not an assassin anymore, he's an executioner serving either his own moral code or the law of either the people or a deity.

2xMachina
2012-08-31, 01:06 PM
Yes an assassin is evil. But why is that bad? I like evil characters. They don't have to be baby-eating and dog-kicking menace.

The central part of an assassin is killing people.
Why is that evil?

-if you decide that the world is a better place without a specific person, then you'll automatically claim to know the future. How can you know it's not better for the world if he stays vertical? Keep in mind your deed is irreversable
-no chance of redemption for the victim
-no chance of explaining his possible innocence
-your victim might not even know what it did, there are people out there who do horrible deeds but honestly think that they are helping
-you strike the first blow so it's not self defence
-you'll cause grief to his loved ones


A good or neutral aligned assassin is not an assassin anymore, he's an executioner serving either his own moral code or the law of either the people or a deity.

D&D 3.5 right? Divination, pure and simple. The universe tells you the target is better off dead.

MukkTB
2012-08-31, 02:06 PM
The 3.5 assassin class is evil. It probably goes with some evil assassin guild. If I made a rogue, called myself an assassin, and killed a dragon that had been eating peasants I wouldn't be evil. It wouldn't matter if I didn't take it in a 'fair' fight regardless of what the lawful stupid would have you believe. Killed is killed. It wouldn't matter that I collected the reward for killing it as long as I hadn't sat their waiting for the dragon to kill more people so the reward would get bigger. This is really pretty standard hero work.


Just stop worrying about that one prestige class. Use something else. One that doesn't require random murder to get into.

Bouregard
2012-08-31, 02:06 PM
D&D 3.5 right? Divination, pure and simple. The universe tells you the target is better off dead.

Wrong. Divination is a clerical spell. And even deities can't look into the future without limits. Divination will give you a correct response for short term consequences, long term however is not certain.

Libertad
2012-08-31, 02:28 PM
Since a lot of D&D adventurers kill sapient monsters and bandits for material gain, having assassins always be of evil alignment is inconsistent. They might not be "good," but a lot of sword-for-hire guys in supplements are morally neutral.

Also, Book of Exalted Deeds was an ill-thought out compromise. Ravages and Slayers of Domiel do the exact same thing as poison and assassinations, except against evil people.

I just make the Assassin PrC open to "any alignment" and waive the "must kill to join the assassin's guild" prerequisite. In my games, Assassins could just as easily be spec ops-style guys or guerrilla fighters in addition to standard killers-for-hire.

kardar233
2012-08-31, 03:05 PM
Yes an assassin is evil. But why is that bad? I like evil characters. They don't have to be baby-eating and dog-kicking menace.

The central part of an assassin is killing people.
Why is that evil?

-if you decide that the world is a better place without a specific person, then you'll automatically claim to know the future. How can you know it's not better for the world if he stays vertical? Keep in mind your deed is irreversable
-no chance of redemption for the victim
-no chance of explaining his possible innocence
-your victim might not even know what it did, there are people out there who do horrible deeds but honestly think that they are helping
-you strike the first blow so it's not self defence
-you'll cause grief to his loved ones


A good or neutral aligned assassin is not an assassin anymore, he's an executioner serving either his own moral code or the law of either the people or a deity.

You can't really know the future (outside of Divinations, as another mentioned) but considering that the Assassin is an INT-focused class, you should be pretty smart. Extrapolate.

Anyways, it's not usually rocket surgery to figure out that the world would be better off without this guy, whether he's a nasty all-conquering warlord, a baby-eating Blackguard or whatever. When you start getting into gray areas, then you might make mistakes. So what? A mistake is an excuse for dramatic tension.

paladinofshojo
2012-08-31, 07:07 PM
:smallsigh: The problem here is that people think that just because Assassin's Creed came out that Assassins went from "hired killers" to "morally complex and mysterious servants of some higher power".....
The definition of an assassin is one who commits murder, especially of a politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives.

That word automatically makes sure that they can't be anything but evil, considering that the definition of murder boils down to unlawful homicide of one sapient being by another with malice aforethought. There's no way that an assassin can justify his homicide as self-defense or military discretion because he/she premediates about killing their victims.

Starbuck_II
2012-08-31, 07:27 PM
That word automatically makes sure that they can't be anything but evil, considering that the definition of murder boils down to unlawful homicide of one sapient being by another with malice aforethought. There's no way that an assassin can justify his homicide as self-defense or military discretion because he/she premediates about killing their victims.
No, you just yell out, "it's coming at us!" right before kill it. It worked on South Park.

That way you justify killing it as self-defense. :smallbiggrin:

Forum Explorer
2012-09-01, 01:22 AM
:smallsigh: The problem here is that people think that just because Assassin's Creed came out that Assassins went from "hired killers" to "morally complex and mysterious servants of some higher power".....
The definition of an assassin is one who commits murder, especially of a politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives.

That word automatically makes sure that they can't be anything but evil, considering that the definition of murder boils down to unlawful homicide of one sapient being by another with malice aforethought. There's no way that an assassin can justify his homicide as self-defense or military discretion because he/she premediates about killing their victims.

except this is the D&D world where you plan and murder sapient beings all the time. Assassins just don't get a pass for some reason. And why? Because they're assassins of course.

I mean killing the king because he starved out your village or conquered your land is all of those things but it can be done by paladins without causing them to fall.

The Random NPC
2012-09-01, 02:37 AM
Except that by BoED's rules...using snake venom against snakes is Evil, because it does stat damage.
I meant that Ravages are stupid, and should be just as evil as poisons.


You can't really know the future (outside of Divinations, as another mentioned) but considering that the Assassin is an INT-focused class, you should be pretty smart. Extrapolate.

Anyways, it's not usually rocket surgery to figure out that the world would be better off without this guy, whether he's a nasty all-conquering warlord, a baby-eating Blackguard or whatever. When you start getting into gray areas, then you might make mistakes. So what? A mistake is an excuse for dramatic tension.

Rocket surgery sounds awesome.

kardar233
2012-09-01, 02:48 AM
Rocket surgery sounds awesome.

It's a great compromise between rooting around in someone's noggin and fiddling with explody things. You get to root around in the noggin of an explody thing! Double trouble! *Eddie Izzard smile*

Kelb_Panthera
2012-09-01, 02:52 AM
In regards to Assassins (the class), murder has a specific definition in 3.5 that is not the same as the dictionary definition.


Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose. The book then lists a handful of examples
theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like.It then excuses one of these examples under special circumstances.
Killing an evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil, because it still stops the creatures predations on the innocent. Though this exception is noted to be only for creatures of "irredeemable evil."

Also of note is the fact that committing a single evil act does not automatically make a character evil. Consistently evil behavior and outlook are required for for a character to carry an aura of evil.

I'll agree that the class should have a non-good alignment restriction; but I think evil-only is a bit too far, given D&D's listed definitions for what's evil.

On defining the alignment of a character's actions, IMO the only reasonable course is to only hold a character responsible for the actions he actually takes. Penalizing a character for the unforseeable consequences of an action can only end in everyone being as evil as fiends.

An example: I kill a mosquito that was sucking on my arm.

I didn't know that in the next week that mosquito was going to contract malaria and pass it to a pregnant woman, who would have later given birth to a child that grows up to be a genocidal dictator, causing her to lose the pregnancy.

By killing a mosquito I've caused the deaths of millions. Does this mean I've commited an evil act? If so, does that not make every action potentially evil until it's full ramifications are known? When is it decided that the ramifications are fully known, and who decides this? Is it a non-evil act until the point in time that child orders his first hit/ kills his first victim? Does it become a good act if a decendant of one of the slaughtered would've built a devices that ripped open space-time and destroyed the world?

While this example is extreme (and a little ridiculous,) it's only a logical extreme of holding a character repsonsible for information he couldn't have had.

As for IRL assassins, who the F*** cares. There is no "alignment" IRL and trying to shoehorn people into one of nine-ish boxes is impossible since not everyone agrees with what qualities and characteristics go in each box.

TuggyNE
2012-09-01, 05:22 AM
It's a great compromise between rooting around in someone's noggin and fiddling with explody things. You get to root around in the noggin of an explody thing! Double trouble! *Eddie Izzard smile*

As Presti shows us here (http://rustyandco.com/comic/level-5-27/).

kardar233
2012-09-01, 07:15 AM
As Presti shows us here (http://rustyandco.com/comic/level-5-27/).

Also: relevant link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I) is relevant. Warning: contains things almost as funny as Eddie Izzard.

Gensuru
2012-09-01, 07:26 AM
If all Assassins are evil, then frankly so are any and all thieves. Why? Because their skills are geared towards stealing things. Doesn't matter if you're only using your trap-disabling skills in the current evil overlords fortress of most mean and evil doom, your skills are those of a thief, stealing is wrong so you are by necessity evil. Yeah. Good argument people -_- Last time I checked, Paladins were not pacifists. They carry weapons for a reason. Little hint: that reason is not "to look good".

What is an assassin? A stealth-type specialised in killing. If he kills for money and doesn't care who the target is so long as he gets his gold, that's evil. It is also the reason why most assassins and their respective organizations have chosen that path. If he however restricts himself to targets who have comitted evil and maybe even works for free or because his rightful, benevolent ruler demands it how can he be evil? Because he doesn't face his opponent in an open battle? Spread that kind of belief around and see how many more rogues you find for your group to disable traps and whatnot >.<

The problem is that this kind of benevolent, honorable assassin is quite rare. An organisation of them is even rarer. Seeing how they will kill for good ideals rather than money, they need some other way to finance their organisation. Being sponsored by a good King or a temple would be an option I suppose. The Robin Hood type thief is still a thief. He steals. Stealing is wrong. Still people seem less inclied to automatically call those thieves evil oô Now that that's cleared up, let's start a crusade on any and all rogues. Let's start a crusade on anything not a Paladin or a cleric of a good god, in fact. Might save time.

As for this "you can't predict the future" crap-argument. Yes. You can't. Maybe that band of goblins your noble Paladin just slaughtered like pigs could have eventually raided a village, leaving only one surivor who just so happened to have the potential to become a hero greater than anyone has seen and who will, due to this trauma, go on to become the greatest force of good in his generation. And maybe the goblins could have just done the predictable thing and murdered a village full of farmers just like they did the month before. But don't act! You can never know if the evil you want to prevent might not be part of some greater divine plan for good. Best to let it all happen. Sit back and enjoy the sho...I mean sit back and weep at the fate of those poor unfortunate victims that you can't save for risk of preventing the greater divine good.

Hence why you don't send in the royal assassins whenver the mood strikes you. You send the buggers out only when any and all other methods either have failed or don't look like they stand a chance. Or are your good kingdoms the kind that doesn't have any sort of information network because spys are evil meanies and thus they get overrun by the first halfway competent villain every 3 months?

One should think alignment was simple enough in this case: You kill because you enjoy murder or because it benefits you personally? evil. You kill despite your dislike of it because it's the only thing you CAN do aside from letting evil prosper? Evil was well? Explains all the fallen Paladins I suppose. If only pacifism is good, how come we have so many heros left? But no. In order to be good you have to send every last being that you kill an official challange-letter the week before you arrive and insist on at least a ratio of 1:1 to offer a fair chance to your victim. Actually since you are good they may have the numerical advantage. The numerical advantage may NEVER be on your side. You also must NEVER kill your evil victim. Chuck them in prison or let them escape so they may think on their evil misdeeds. And if they just start killing helpless farmers again...well send them another letter and give them a second chance...and a third...and a fourth...and a...well you get the idea. =)

Water_Bear
2012-09-01, 09:08 AM
So, I'm kind of sick of this argument going in circles. Therefore, I will now present a logical argument that the Assassin is fundamentally, mechanically, Evil.

So the first question we have to ask is, is what the Assassin does any different from what any other class does. When is Violence generally, and lethal force specifically, justified? What rules must a Good character obey?


Violence
Violence is a part of the D&D world, not inherently evil in the context of that world. ...

That said there are certain limits on the use of violence that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name of good must have a just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. ... violence is an appropriate means of stopping further evil (as opposed to paying back evil already committed).

The second consideration is that violence must have good intentions. ...

The third consideration is one of discrimination. Violence cannot be considered good when directed at noncombatants...

Finally the means of violence must be as good as the intentions behinds it. ...

Within these limits, violence in the name of good is an acceptable practice in the D&D universe.

This gives us a nice 4-part test; are the assassin's standard tactics evil.

1. Is it a Just Cause?
Sometimes; presumably a more highminded assassin might take on a job to kill some tyrant or other scourge, not for revenge but just to stop them from continuing their evil. Obviously, the "murder someone just to get in" requirement in the prerequisites is being ignored here.

2. Good Intentions?
Again, there's no reason why not. Assassins are expected to take paying jobs, and probably will most of the time, but Hit-Men in fiction often take pro-bonno cases and I don't see why an Assassin wouldn't be able to.

3. Is the Violence Discriminate?
Here's our first hurdle; by definition, the Assassin's Death Attack will always target a noncombatant. If the target "recognizes the Assassin as an enemy" it will automatically fail. So, by definition, no killing using Death Attack can ever qualify as a Good act.

4. Are the Means Good?
An assassin is trained to use Poison (Evil) and cast [Evil] spells, but they don't have to. Fighting with their Sneak Attack and non-[Evil] spells they could certainly meet the fourth requirement, though they take a drop in power to do so.

So, the methods of the Assassin prestige class will almost never produce violence which qualifies as a Good act by RAW, and the class encourages and enables the use of Evil combat tactics. But does this mean that the Assassin is totally evil? After all, don't the ends justify the means sometimes?


Ends and Means
When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? ... In the D&D universe the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve.

Oh. Okay.

So, in summation; the Assassin prestige class is Evil. It teaches methods which can only be used to commit Evil or Neutral acts of violence such as Poison Use and Death Attack, encourages the casting of [Evil] spells, and it's philosophy of the Ends Justifying the Means is fundamentally non-Good.

Wulfram
2012-09-01, 09:17 AM
The Assassin prestige class has an overly broad name. They are evil, because of how they're defined and the requirements to get in to it.

Leaving the specific class behind, a guy who assassinates someone may or may not be evil, depending on target and motivation. Killing a dictator to stop a war doesn't make you evil. Killing someone just because you were payed to do it does.

In a fairly distopian setting, someone who regular assassinates people could be considered good - if this is their way of fighting a tyrannical government.

The Glyphstone
2012-09-01, 10:16 AM
If all Assassins are evil, then frankly so are any and all thieves. Why? Because their skills are geared towards stealing things. Doesn't matter if you're only using your trap-disabling skills in the current evil overlords fortress of most mean and evil doom, your skills are those of a thief, stealing is wrong so you are by necessity evil. Yeah. Good argument people -_- Last time I checked, Paladins were not pacifists. They carry weapons for a reason. Little hint: that reason is not "to look good".

This, and the entire rest of your counter-arguement, falls apart because stealing isn't Evil, it's unlawful/Chaotic.

Xiander
2012-09-01, 10:16 AM
So, I'm kind of sick of this argument going in circles. Therefore, I will now present a logical argument that the Assassin is fundamentally, mechanically, Evil.

So the first question we have to ask is, is what the Assassin does any different from what any other class does. When is Violence generally, and lethal force specifically, justified? What rules must a Good character obey?



This gives us a nice 4-part test; are the assassin's standard tactics evil.

1. Is it a Just Cause?
Sometimes; presumably a more highminded assassin might take on a job to kill some tyrant or other scourge, not for revenge but just to stop them from continuing their evil. Obviously, the "murder someone just to get in" requirement in the prerequisites is being ignored here.

2. Good Intentions?
Again, there's no reason why not. Assassins are expected to take paying jobs, and probably will most of the time, but Hit-Men in fiction often take pro-bonno cases and I don't see why an Assassin wouldn't be able to.

3. Is the Violence Discriminate?
Here's our first hurdle; by definition, the Assassin's Death Attack will always target a noncombatant. If the target "recognizes the Assassin as an enemy" it will automatically fail. So, by definition, no killing using Death Attack can ever qualify as a Good act.

4. Are the Means Good?
An assassin is trained to use Poison (Evil) and cast [Evil] spells, but they don't have to. Fighting with their Sneak Attack and non-[Evil] spells they could certainly meet the fourth requirement, though they take a drop in power to do so.

So, the methods of the Assassin prestige class will almost never produce violence which qualifies as a Good act by RAW, and the class encourages and enables the use of Evil combat tactics. But does this mean that the Assassin is totally evil? After all, don't the ends justify the means sometimes?



Oh. Okay.

So, in summation; the Assassin prestige class is Evil. It teaches methods which can only be used to commit Evil or Neutral acts of violence such as Poison Use and Death Attack, encourages the casting of [Evil] spells, and it's philosophy of the Ends Justifying the Means is fundamentally non-Good.

Thank you, for a very well crafted argument.

I do not agree entirely with your conclusion though. It seems to me that using your arguments to claim assassins must be evil weakens it as compared to arguing that they cannot be good.

Especially the arguments about [evil] spells and death attack fail to actually work toward establishing the assassin class as evil. Rather I think they establish it as non-good.

I kept my post short as i am lacking concentration, but i will gladly expand upon it later when i am less hungry and distracted.

Gensuru
2012-09-01, 10:30 AM
So, I'm kind of sick of this argument going in circles. Therefore, I will now present a logical argument that the Assassin is fundamentally, mechanically, Evil.

So the first question we have to ask is, is what the Assassin does any different from what any other class does. When is Violence generally, and lethal force specifically, justified? What rules must a Good character obey?



This gives us a nice 4-part test; are the assassin's standard tactics evil.

1. Is it a Just Cause?
Sometimes; presumably a more highminded assassin might take on a job to kill some tyrant or other scourge, not for revenge but just to stop them from continuing their evil. Obviously, the "murder someone just to get in" requirement in the prerequisites is being ignored here.

2. Good Intentions?
Again, there's no reason why not. Assassins are expected to take paying jobs, and probably will most of the time, but Hit-Men in fiction often take pro-bonno cases and I don't see why an Assassin wouldn't be able to.

3. Is the Violence Discriminate?
Here's our first hurdle; by definition, the Assassin's Death Attack will always target a noncombatant. If the target "recognizes the Assassin as an enemy" it will automatically fail. So, by definition, no killing using Death Attack can ever qualify as a Good act.

4. Are the Means Good?
An assassin is trained to use Poison (Evil) and cast [Evil] spells, but they don't have to. Fighting with their Sneak Attack and non-[Evil] spells they could certainly meet the fourth requirement, though they take a drop in power to do so.

So, the methods of the Assassin prestige class will almost never produce violence which qualifies as a Good act by RAW, and the class encourages and enables the use of Evil combat tactics. But does this mean that the Assassin is totally evil? After all, don't the ends justify the means sometimes?



Oh. Okay.

So, in summation; the Assassin prestige class is Evil. It teaches methods which can only be used to commit Evil or Neutral acts of violence such as Poison Use and Death Attack, encourages the casting of [Evil] spells, and it's philosophy of the Ends Justifying the Means is fundamentally non-Good.



1. Like I stated already: One can, theoretically, easily imagine an organisation of assassins who ONLY take evil targets. The issue of financing their organisation aside. Just because GENERALLY assassins are from evil organisations doesn't mean the opposite is absolutely impossible. "Murder someone just to get in" can easily be adjusted for a good guild if you add in a guild-specific rule against murdering innocents.

3. Define non-combatant. Because if it's anyone not currently fighting no hero may henceforth stop the evil baron who sends his minions out to do the dirty work oô Convenient. So the easy way to avoid death at the hands of good characters is to throw down one's sword. One is no longer a combatant so they may not harm a hair on one's head. And as killing anything non-combat is evil execution might be a tricky thing. Prisons will not have less than pleasant conditions because as we all know, torture is evil. Likewise any sort of ambushing tactic against monsters has to be forbidden. Want to kill a bunch of unaware orcs? Sorry you'll have to walk up to them and state your intentions first. How exactly is a murdering bastard who just yesterday slaughtered an entire village of men, women and children a non-combatant just because he happens to be eating dinner in his fortress at the moment? So you would argue that to not be evil you have to make that guy aware of your presence and your intentions, allowing him to call on his guards to help him fight you off. Likely winning in the process. Good plan.


4. Why exactly is poison more evil than any other weapon? Is it because it's purpose is to kill? And I suppose all your farmers have swords because they make such great walking sticks. Or shovels. Heck given the type, poison may be a lot kinder to the victim that your hunk of metal.


Your logic is certainly sound but... How exactly is giving a murdering tyrant a painless death via poison worse than violently crushing a bandit's legs with a warhammer/mace in battle and potentially having to fight off a few of his buddies before you can return and cave his head in to put him out of his misery?

Gensuru
2012-09-01, 10:40 AM
This, and the entire rest of your counter-arguement, falls apart because stealing isn't Evil, it's unlawful/Chaotic.



Yes. So stealing from people and potentially leaving them to starve: not evil, only chaotic. That's certainly going to make a lot of people feel better about themselves.

And thank you for missing the point of that part. Allow me to repeat myself.

If one's skillset allows you to generically state one's general alignment, any rogue with skills suitable for stealing is the exact bloody same no matter what he uses those skills for. Likewise anyone with the skills of a fighter is the exact same according to your logic. Hence there shall be no more difference between a loyal soldier, a knight dedicated to use his sword for a good cause and a murdering mercenary who will kill even children if the pay is right.

The Random NPC
2012-09-01, 10:53 AM
Poison is Evil because "it causes suffering." The reasoning is also stupid.

paladinofshojo
2012-09-01, 01:13 PM
except this is the D&D world where you plan and murder sapient beings all the time. Assassins just don't get a pass for some reason. And why? Because they're assassins of course.

I mean killing the king because he starved out your village or conquered your land is all of those things but it can be done by paladins without causing them to fall.

I think you're confusing murder with homicide, remember every murder is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder. To qualify as a murder it has to be unlawful killing. Since most sapient being that you plan to kill in D&D are probably willing to kill you first due to the fact that they're monsters or on the opposite side of some war or conflict, you can easilly justify killing them as self-defense or military action, considering that they are armed and fighting back. However, an assassination on the otherhand, is killing a victim who is currently helpless. That is why assassination is evil.

An assassin wouldn't kill a king due to those reasons, there are only two reasons why an assassin kills a person, either for money or fanatical motives. If a rival lord hires the assassin to kill the king or a cult sends him to eliminate the king, THEN he's an assassin. Furtermore, to qualify as an assassination the king has to be helpless, so he has to be poisoned, or smothered in his sleep, or thrown off the balcony, etc. Hardly a Lawful Good paladin's method of bringing justice to the wicked.


1. Like I stated already: One can, theoretically, easily imagine an organisation of assassins who ONLY take evil targets. The issue of financing their organisation aside. Just because GENERALLY assassins are from evil organisations doesn't mean the opposite is absolutely impossible. "Murder someone just to get in" can easily be adjusted for a good guild if you add in a guild-specific rule against murdering innocents.



Setting aside the hypocracy of using the same alignment system that you've just made a mockery of by trying to make a clearly stated evil-class into good. There are certain flaws in this argument.

1) Who exactly is going to pay for assassins with moral character? I mean it's not like those peasants or serfs have the money to pay a guild to take out their cruel overlord. And why would a Good-aligned king or lord need them when they have their own men-at-arms and knights that get the job done.

2) What kind of good-aligned character would pay someone to murder someone else? As I've stated before, an assassination is an assassination only when the victim is helpless. Which means something along the lines of poisoning, killing when one's asleep, or other underhanded tactics that the majority of paladins look down upon. The reason why these tactics are given to evil characters is because they're dishonorable. So you assume that Good-aligned characters (who probably don't take part in such actions) would pay someone to do them?

Morithias
2012-09-01, 01:18 PM
Furtermore, to qualify as an assassination the king has to be helpless, so he has to be poisoned, or smothered in his sleep, or thrown off the balcony, etc. Hardly a Lawful Good paladin's method of bringing justice to the wicked.

I love how having combat advantages is considered evil. In order to be good the rebel alliance who is out gunned by the empire on a 10 to 1 scale has to face them head on and in an "honorable" nature.

Waukeen knows that won't just end with them all getting overrun and slaughtered by the Empire's superior fire power.

Sometimes in order to do the greater good one must commit a lesser evil. That's the whole argument of many great works of fiction.

But go ahead, face the empire whose Calvary units make your units look like cannon fodder. I'm sure the fact that you fought in a "Good" nature will be of great meaning to the slaves who are being burned at the stake to form a giant symbol of the empire since you failed to save them.

Water_Bear
2012-09-01, 01:26 PM
I do not agree entirely with your conclusion though. It seems to me that using your arguments to claim assassins must be evil weakens it as compared to arguing that they cannot be good.

Especially the arguments about [evil] spells and death attack fail to actually work toward establishing the assassin class as evil. Rather I think they establish it as non-good.

I honestly thought about saying they should be non-Good instead of Evil; in terms of having the tools to do Evil, but being able to avoid it, they are in the same position as Dread Necromancers and Clerics of Evil gods.

The main reason I stuck with Evil is that Prestige classes tend to be "X Only" instead of "Any non-X" because they are supposed to represent more specific concepts. If there was an Assassin base class I would be fine with Any non-Good as a requirement, but that's a bit of a quibble.

The point is that they lean heavily toward the Evil side, at least according to the normal alignment rules. If you think they're stupid, as many do, there are a ton of official variants which remove or replace them. My personal favorites are Honor from Oriental Adventures and Taint from Heroes of Horror, and you can have Assassins at any end of either of those scales.


3. Define non-combatant.

With regards to who is a noncombatant, in my mind it comes to "is the person ready and able to fight?"

A soldier on the battlefield or a guard on patrol is a combatant. A paranoid Wizard or Cleric with buff spells up 24/7 is a combatant. Most monsters are combatants as long as they are conscious. But people who are unable (children, commoners) to fight or not prepared to fight (tyrant eating dinner) are noncombatants by default.


So the easy way to avoid death at the hands of good characters is to throw down one's sword. One is no longer a combatant so they may not harm a hair on one's head. ... Likewise any sort of ambushing tactic against monsters has to be forbidden. Want to kill a bunch of unaware orcs? Sorry you'll have to walk up to them and state your intentions first.


Obviously it's more pragmatic to attack people at their weakest and never give quarter, but Good is supposed to be about ideals trumping practicality. After all, why do we want to kill Tyrants in the first place except that they harm the defenseless and wage total war; by defeating them with the same methods, you're not being any better than they are.

Plus the restriction is fairly minor in practice; you don't have to give the Ogres a chance to finish their dinner before attacking, so long as you don't slaughter them in their sleep.

paladinofshojo
2012-09-01, 01:46 PM
I love how having combat advantages is considered evil. In order to be good the rebel alliance who is out gunned by the empire on a 10 to 1 scale has to face them head on and in an "honorable" nature.

Waukeen knows that won't just end with them all getting overrun and slaughtered by the Empire's superior fire power.

Sometimes in order to do the greater good one must commit a lesser evil. That's the whole argument of many great works of fiction.

But go ahead, face the empire whose Calvary units make your units look like cannon fodder. I'm sure the fact that you fought in a "Good" nature will be of great meaning to the slaves who are being burned at the stake to form a giant symbol of the empire since you failed to save them.



There's a line between using guerilla forces to harass a larger army and killing someone in their sleep. The former has you fighting against someone who is armed and ready to fight back, the latter has you killing a helpless victim. D&D has a clear-cut alignment system, I believe someone already stated it but BOoEDs already stated the ends don't justify the means.

Menteith
2012-09-01, 01:48 PM
(From "Things Mr. Welch is no longer allowed to do in an RPG")

1683. Killing the orc horde by drowning them all at once is heroic. Killing them by drowning them one at a time is an alignment check.

Jack of Spades
2012-09-01, 01:54 PM
So the easy way to avoid death at the hands of good characters is to throw down one's sword. One is no longer a combatant so they may not harm a hair on one's head. And as killing anything non-combat is evil execution might be a tricky thing.

Well, (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GracefulLoser)there's a (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainsWantMercy) precedent. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ISurrenderSuckers) :smallamused:


I love how having combat advantages is considered evil. In order to be good the rebel alliance who is out gunned by the empire on a 10 to 1 scale has to face them head on and in an "honorable" nature.

Waukeen knows that won't just end with them all getting overrun and slaughtered by the Empire's superior fire power.

Sometimes in order to do the greater good one must commit a lesser evil. That's the whole argument of many great works of fiction.

But go ahead, face the empire whose Calvary units make your units look like cannon fodder. I'm sure the fact that you fought in a "Good" nature will be of great meaning to the slaves who are being burned at the stake to form a giant symbol of the empire since you failed to save them.
The Empire is being dishonorable by pushing its advantage and raining walkers down on Hoth. Nothing the rebels could do would ever measure up to the Empire's might, so they have full rights to use every dirty trick in the book. The big picture is more important than the small.

I mean, come on, dude. I hate DnD's alignment system, but I can at least wrap my head around the rationales they used.

Forum Explorer
2012-09-01, 02:15 PM
I think you're confusing murder with homicide, remember every murder is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder. To qualify as a murder it has to be unlawful killing. Since most sapient being that you plan to kill in D&D are probably willing to kill you first due to the fact that they're monsters or on the opposite side of some war or conflict, you can easilly justify killing them as self-defense or military action, considering that they are armed and fighting back. However, an assassination on the otherhand, is killing a victim who is currently helpless. That is why assassination is evil.

An assassin wouldn't kill a king due to those reasons, there are only two reasons why an assassin kills a person, either for money or fanatical motives. If a rival lord hires the assassin to kill the king or a cult sends him to eliminate the king, THEN he's an assassin. Furtermore, to qualify as an assassination the king has to be helpless, so he has to be poisoned, or smothered in his sleep, or thrown off the balcony, etc. Hardly a Lawful Good paladin's method of bringing justice to the wicked.



Setting aside the hypocracy of using the same alignment system that you've just made a mockery of by trying to make a clearly stated evil-class into good. There are certain flaws in this argument.

1) Who exactly is going to pay for assassins with moral character? I mean it's not like those peasants or serfs have the money to pay a guild to take out their cruel overlord. And why would a Good-aligned king or lord need them when they have their own men-at-arms and knights that get the job done.

2) What kind of good-aligned character would pay someone to murder someone else? As I've stated before, an assassination is an assassination only when the victim is helpless. Which means something along the lines of poisoning, killing when one's asleep, or other underhanded tactics that the majority of paladins look down upon. The reason why these tactics are given to evil characters is because they're dishonorable. So you assume that Good-aligned characters (who probably don't take part in such actions) would pay someone to do them?

Have you never had a quest to go to the necromancers tower and kill him? You are being hired by what is likely a Lawful authority. Money is being offered as a reward (and accepting that money is not evil.) You are assassinating him in pretty much every way. Just because you barged in loudly doesn't change what you are doing. An Assassin does exactly the same thing but just kills by surprise.

Why do they have to be helpless? And are they truly helpless when they have bodyguards and an army at their disposal? Or possess magic upon awaking that can destroy you with a word? You can assassinate people without coup de gracing them. For example hitting with a poisoned sword in the middle of a fight.

1.) Well to take a fictional example of 'good' assassins. The Black Fang from Fire Emblem assassinated corrupt nobles who were abusing their position. They were killing for an ideological cause rather then wealth so that didn't come into play.

For a slightly more evil example, Hugh the Hand was often hired to kill corrupt and evil individuals (though he himself was pretty evil) by peasants who would basically spend their life savings in order to save up enough money.

2) Why would a good character hire an assassin? Plenty of reasons most of them being they are helpless themselves. For example, "My father is being controlled by the evil vizor. Kill him to break the curse and I'll reward you with anything in the kingdom!"

Or because sometimes not using a subtle method like an assassin will cause an entire war to break out causing the death of hundreds.

tomandtish
2012-09-01, 03:16 PM
While as written the Assassin PRC says he has to be evil (presumably because of the requirement to kill someone for no other purpose than to join), there’s a way you could incorporate the requirement and still have a valid neutral character. There’s even a valid modern fictional basis.

Your character has been working for his government for several years, going on mission of various type: espionage, infiltration, artifact retrieval. However, you are aware that there are a few agents who are considered the elite. The best. You ask your spy master how you could join them.

He advises you that it requires the ultimate commitment to your realm. A willingness to do whatever is required of you, no matter the consequences. You may be asked to do things with no explanation at all.

You agree and say you want in. He hand you a list with two names on it and says that these people need to die by the end of next week.

“But why?” you ask.

“That is not for you to know. You have your assignment. If you complete it, you’ll be one of our top agents”.

And the modern equivalent? James Bond. Remember, his 00 status means he has killed two people in cold blood on the orders of his government. You could certainly tweak the class into something similar.

Gensuru
2012-09-01, 03:53 PM
I think you're confusing murder with homicide, remember every murder is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder. To qualify as a murder it has to be unlawful killing. Since most sapient being that you plan to kill in D&D are probably willing to kill you first due to the fact that they're monsters or on the opposite side of some war or conflict, you can easilly justify killing them as self-defense or military action, considering that they are armed and fighting back. However, an assassination on the otherhand, is killing a victim who is currently helpless. That is why assassination is evil.

An assassin wouldn't kill a king due to those reasons, there are only two reasons why an assassin kills a person, either for money or fanatical motives. If a rival lord hires the assassin to kill the king or a cult sends him to eliminate the king, THEN he's an assassin. Furtermore, to qualify as an assassination the king has to be helpless, so he has to be poisoned, or smothered in his sleep, or thrown off the balcony, etc. Hardly a Lawful Good paladin's method of bringing justice to the wicked.



Setting aside the hypocracy of using the same alignment system that you've just made a mockery of by trying to make a clearly stated evil-class into good. There are certain flaws in this argument.

1) Who exactly is going to pay for assassins with moral character? I mean it's not like those peasants or serfs have the money to pay a guild to take out their cruel overlord. And why would a Good-aligned king or lord need them when they have their own men-at-arms and knights that get the job done.

2) What kind of good-aligned character would pay someone to murder someone else? As I've stated before, an assassination is an assassination only when the victim is helpless. Which means something along the lines of poisoning, killing when one's asleep, or other underhanded tactics that the majority of paladins look down upon. The reason why these tactics are given to evil characters is because they're dishonorable. So you assume that Good-aligned characters (who probably don't take part in such actions) would pay someone to do them?


Politics? Efficiency? I already gave the example of killing the evil baron inside his own fortress. Now you can either sacrifice a lot of soldiers and tell their left behind loved ones why you got their loved-one killed in a straight up attack against a well defended fortress or you can send in an assassination specialist and take the bad guy out with minimal loss of life. And a good king is hardly the only person with the necessary ressources. A temple of good can serve just as well. If that temple decided that a secret order of assassins to supplement the local Paladins is what is needed why not? Some Kings may take issue with a Temple having a battle-worthy army at the ready.

And I never said that the good assassins would get paid at all. I said their organisation needs funding. You know... to provide weapons and stuff. The assassins themselves could be almost monk-like in their dedication to do good. They sacrifice their honor and their lives for the greater good. After each assassination they speak prayers and whatnot. They do their sad work because for the greater good of the many, it has to be done and they are willing to make the sacrifice. A Paladin may fight in the open and get glory and rewards for his great deeds. They? They are forgotten at best. In the purest form, this kind of organisation would assassinate people who have done evil deeds and who can't be stopped by any other means without sacrificing a lot of innocent people. They'd never even take as little as a single contract in the traditional sense of killing someone for monetary compensation.

Dishonorable? Why does a hero do good? For the honor? the glory? Or does he do good because it is the right thing to do? If you aren't willing to sacrifrice your life or your honor for that...why do you even bother? One who cares more for honor than for doing good will fold like a house of cards at the first real problem oô

Xiander
2012-09-01, 04:13 PM
I honestly thought about saying they should be non-Good instead of Evil; in terms of having the tools to do Evil, but being able to avoid it, they are in the same position as Dread Necromancers and Clerics of Evil gods.

The main reason I stuck with Evil is that Prestige classes tend to be "X Only" instead of "Any non-X" because they are supposed to represent more specific concepts. If there was an Assassin base class I would be fine with Any non-Good as a requirement, but that's a bit of a quibble.

The point is that they lean heavily toward the Evil side, at least according to the normal alignment rules. If you think they're stupid, as many do, there are a ton of official variants which remove or replace them. My personal favorites are Honor from Oriental Adventures and Taint from Heroes of Horror, and you can have Assassins at any end of either of those scales.


For the record, i am not a big fan of the alignment rules, but I believe they can bring something to the game if handled correctly. (one of these days i will write a thorough essay on logical alignment... and everyone will probably disagree:smallwink:)

The point you make here, is completely true, the prestige class was written to be evil. I already admitted as much, but I hold that the main reason it is so, is that the writers envisioned evil fluff. If that evil fluff is absent, as it might be in a home-brew setting, the class being evil instead of non-good seems shaky at best.

I can see the argument that some of the abilities granted by the class leans toward evil, but for each of those abilities there is a class who has something like it without the alignment clause.
Death attacks are evil-ish because they can only be used against an unaware opponent. But the entire sneak attack mechanic is also build upon fighting at an advantage, if not directly ambushing your opponent.
Poison has been dubbed evil... for some reason, yet the druid spell Poison has no [evil] next to its name. Why is that? (inconsistency in the ideas of different writers i bet).
Evil spells are not absent from the spell lists of clerics and wizards. And they to are arguably weaker for not using these spells.

Okay, the assassin as a class has all of those. Giving it many questionable abilities, and was written to be evil, but my point remains. The class is evil because whoever came up with it wanted it to be. I personally think it can easily be played as non-good.

However, the opposite point is also true: You can play a hired killer with much the same skill set, without the assassin prestige class.

Morithias
2012-09-01, 04:26 PM
There's a line between using guerilla forces to harass a larger army and killing someone in their sleep. The former has you fighting against someone who is armed and ready to fight back, the latter has you killing a helpless victim. D&D has a clear-cut alignment system, I believe someone already stated it but BOoEDs already stated the ends don't justify the means.

The ends don't justify the means...the ends don't justify the means.

There is an orc camp near your village. Each orc camp has their own war priest and will not fight without him due to religious reasons. The orc camp is too large and powerful to be taken on the Paladin way (aka if you try frontal invasion all that will happen is slaughter).

A rogue is told "go into the war camp and assassinate their priest it will prevent them from fighting us and save hundreds of lives".

The rogue then turns and goes "Sorry, the ends don't justify the means, performing an act of assassination is evil as read in the holy book of exalted deeds".

The village is slaughtered.

Did the rogue perform a good act by refusing to assassinate him? Even though it directly lead to the deaths of hundreds.

Edit: Oh and the war priest is like a king, a total non-combatant. His job is to lead not to fight.

Water_Bear
2012-09-01, 04:43 PM
The ends don't justify the means...the ends don't justify the means.

There is an orc camp near your village. Each orc camp has their own war priest and will not fight without him due to religious reasons. The orc camp is too large and powerful to be taken on the Paladin way (aka if you try frontal invasion all that will happen is slaughter).

A rogue is told "go into the war camp and assassinate their priest it will prevent them from fighting us and save hundreds of lives".

The rogue then turns and goes "Sorry, the ends don't justify the means, performing an act of assassination is evil as read in the holy book of exalted deeds".

The village is slaughtered.

Did the rogue perform a good act by refusing to assassinate him? Even though it directly lead to the deaths of hundreds.

Edit: Oh and the war priest is like a king, a total non-combatant. His job is to lead not to fight.

Yes.

D&D Alignment is based on deontological ethics; Good is a set of absolute moral principles which govern whether any action is right or wrong independent of its consequences. Only intent to do Good followed by a correctly performed Good action is Good in D&D.

What you're talking about is consequentialist ethics; whether an action is right or wrong depends primarily or solely on it's consequences. An action, even well intentioned, which injures others cannot be good by that reasoning.

Either way, it's completely arbitrary; there is no universal ethics or morality, so arguing whether something is "really" good is meaningless. The only thing that matters is what the rules say about Alignment, and they are very consistently against the methods used by the Assassin, as I demonstrated above.

TuggyNE
2012-09-01, 04:51 PM
Did the rogue perform a good act by refusing to assassinate him? Even though it directly lead to the deaths of hundreds.

Yes, although he was stupid not to e.g. kidnap the warpriest instead. Take A Third Option, anyone?

Morithias
2012-09-01, 06:39 PM
Yes, although he was stupid not to e.g. kidnap the warpriest instead. Take A Third Option, anyone?

What if the war priest was over his carrying capacity? Halfing rogue carrying a fat orc? Don't see that happening anytime soon.

Also what if he doesn't have a bag of holding.

etc etc

I'm just saying there is easily a theoretical situation that is realistic and reasonable where his only choice is "Run away", "kill the war priest" or "die"

Jack of Spades
2012-09-01, 07:18 PM
Yes.

D&D Alignment is based on deontological ethics; Good is a set of absolute moral principles which govern whether any action is right or wrong independent of its consequences. Only intent to do Good followed by a correctly performed Good action is Good in D&D.

What you're talking about is consequentialist ethics; whether an action is right or wrong depends primarily or solely on it's consequences. An action, even well intentioned, which injures others cannot be good by that reasoning.

Either way, it's completely arbitrary; there is no universal ethics or morality, so arguing whether something is "really" good is meaningless. The only thing that matters is what the rules say about Alignment, and they are very consistently against the methods used by the Assassin, as I demonstrated above.

This is pretty much it. Also, the reason that most people don't like DnD alignment: because Deontological ethics works great in concept but quickly appears to break down when tested. Whether or not it actually does break down is almost definitely off-topic in the Playground.

Also, from page 2:

Prediction: This thread will devolve into two topics:

Immutable vs. Mutable fluff (it *says* you have to kill someone to get the PrC! vs. But that's just fluff and can be ignored!)
Deontologism vs. Utilitarianism.

So I don't think anyone's really going to convince anyone of anything here :smallbiggrin:
Yep. Still going on.

The Random NPC
2012-09-01, 08:02 PM
Yes, although he was stupid not to e.g. kidnap the warpriest instead. Take A Third Option, anyone?

Also better done with an Assassin, than a Fighter, as the Assassin can paralyze the ork.

Chromascope3D
2012-09-01, 08:17 PM
Were that theoretically to happen, then the rogue would go in and kill the chieftains, because they're evil. An assassin could do the same and it wouldn't be an evil action. However, one action doesn't determine your alignment. The rogue could easily refuse to assassinate an innocent bystander, because he has other skills to earn him pay, or a place in an adventuring party. A rogue can get away with not accepting an assassination job. An assassin generally can't, because he has no other skills to earn him his pay.

A rogue can assassinate, as in he has skills and tricks which give him an edge in combat, but he also has some that make him useful outside of it.
An assassin can only assassinate, he has no other skills other than to be able to kill quickly and efficiently. He is not a thief, he is not a con, and he is not a trickster. He is a killer, first and last.
Because a rogue can fill any of those roles, there's no alignment restriction upon them (Although I could see one restricting them to any non-lawful).

In short: Saying a rogue is the same as an assassin because of sneak attack is a weak argument because the rogue doesn't have to use it if he does not wish to. Thus it cannot be logically sound to use it in this argument.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-09-01, 08:19 PM
Were that theoretically to happen, then the rogue would go in and kill the chieftains, because they're evil. An assassin could do the same and it wouldn't be an evil action. However, one action doesn't determine your alignment. The rogue could easily refuse to assassinate an innocent bystander, because he has other skills to earn him pay, or a place in an adventuring party. A rogue can get away with not accepting an assassination job. An assassin generally can't, because he has no other skills to earn him his pay.

A rogue can assassinate, as in he has skills and tricks which give him an edge in combat, but he also has some that make him useful outside of it.
An assassin can only assassinate, he has no other skills other than to be able to kill quickly and efficiently. He is not a thief, he is not a con, and he is not a trickster. He is a killer, first and last.
Because a rogue can fill any of those roles, there's no alignment restriction upon them (Although I could see one restricting them to any non-lawful).

In short: Saying a rogue is the same as an assassin because of sneak attack is a weak argument because he doesn't have to use it if he does not wish to. Thus it cannot be logically sound to use it in this argument.

Except assassins have rogue levels 99% of the time. And have 4+int skill points.

Chromascope3D
2012-09-01, 08:30 PM
It's true that most assassins start out as rogues. But considering (going off of 3.5 and Pathfinder) there's nothing limiting assassins to starting out as rogues, that argument isn't entirely sound either (almost any class could take assassin with its prerequisites.)

Morithias
2012-09-01, 08:43 PM
An assassin generally can't, because he has no other skills to earn him his pay.


The assassin’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Int), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Forgery (Int), Gather Information (Cha), Hide (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Open Lock (Dex), Search (Int), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex), Use Magic Device (Cha), and Use Rope (Dex).

Note something there. How about I snip it out and bold it for you.

Craft (Int)

Also note that this is not "Craft poisons only" or "only craft evil items" this guy could very easily have craft (word smith).

So yeah, you're quite wrong there.

Forum Explorer
2012-09-01, 08:53 PM
Yes.

D&D Alignment is based on deontological ethics; Good is a set of absolute moral principles which govern whether any action is right or wrong independent of its consequences. Only intent to do Good followed by a correctly performed Good action is Good in D&D.

What you're talking about is consequentialist ethics; whether an action is right or wrong depends primarily or solely on it's consequences. An action, even well intentioned, which injures others cannot be good by that reasoning.

Either way, it's completely arbitrary; there is no universal ethics or morality, so arguing whether something is "really" good is meaningless. The only thing that matters is what the rules say about Alignment, and they are very consistently against the methods used by the Assassin, as I demonstrated above.

The problem here is that this argument doesn't really apply to me and I presume many other people. I've never played a D&D game where morality worked like that.

Chromascope3D
2012-09-01, 09:18 PM
Rogues have 8 base skill points over at most 10 levels. Assassins have 4. That's anywhere from 4 to 40 extra skill points at level 20. Also, considering craft is always a class skill, having it is not much of an accomplishment.
I apologize for my nitpickable statement that could've and was easily blown out of proportion. I wasn't even explicitly referring to their skill lists, that was just the word I used because it fit best. But since you apparently want to have this (arbitrary) argument, let's have it.
{table=head]Skill|Rogue|Assassin
Appraise|X|
Balance|X|X
Bluff|X|X
Climb|X|X
Craft|X|X
Decipher Script|X|X
Diplomacy|X|X
Disable Device|X|X
Disguise|X|X
Escape Artist|X|X
Forgery|X|X
Gather Information|X|X
Hide|X|X
Intimidate|X|X
Jump|X|X
Knowledge (local)|X|
Listen|X|X
Move Silently|X|X
Open Lock|X|X
Perform|X|
Profession|X|
Search|X|X
Sense Motive|X|X
Sleight of Hand|X|X
Spot|X|X
Swim|X|X
Tumble|X|X
Use Magic Device|X|X
Use Rope|X|X
[/table]
It's true that they have nearly as many skills as the rogue. But they don't have nearly as many skill points, thus their skills will be more concentrated. An assassin won't be as skilled as a rogue of equal character level. This only reinforces my argument.

Morithias
2012-09-01, 09:26 PM
It's true that they have nearly as many skills as the rogue. But they don't have nearly as many skill points, thus their skills will be more concentrated. An assassin won't be as skilled as a rogue of equal character level. This only reinforces my argument.

An expert or commoner won't be as skilled as a rogue of equal character either.

Hell the commoner only gets 2 + int points, which means the assassin is better at making a living than the commoner. The Aristocrat has the exact same level of skill points. Hell the aristocrat doesn't have either craft or profession as class skills.

paladinofshojo
2012-09-02, 02:01 AM
The problem here is that this argument doesn't really apply to me and I presume many other people. I've never played a D&D game where morality worked like that.

Then why are you arguing over the assassin D&D class requirements? :smallconfused:



Have you never had a quest to go to the necromancers tower and kill him? You are being hired by what is likely a Lawful authority. Money is being offered as a reward (and accepting that money is not evil.) You are assassinating him in pretty much every way. Just because you barged in loudly doesn't change what you are doing. An Assassin does exactly the same thing but just kills by surprise. By definition, assassin is a contract murder, murder is unlawful killing. You just stated that you have lawful authority, therefore what you're doing is not murder, but execution. Just because you use a word doesn't make the definition change.


Why do they have to be helpless? And are they truly helpless when they have bodyguards and an army at their disposal? Or possess magic upon awaking that can destroy you with a word? You can assassinate people without coup de gracing them. For example hitting with a poisoned sword in the middle of a fight. I feel that Ubisoft and its gaming franchise is to blame for this rationale...:smallsigh: Assassins aren't warrior-monk ninjas, they're just the next rung up from hitmen and hired goons. Assassins don't fight, they murder. Therefore they don't have opponents, they have victims. THAT is why they have to be helpless. A hero who's paid to go out and defeat the Big Bad dragon is more like a mercenary because he's fighting someone/something on more or less equal footing.


1.) Well to take a fictional example of 'good' assassins. The Black Fang from Fire Emblem assassinated corrupt nobles who were abusing their position. They were killing for an ideological cause rather then wealth so that didn't come into play. Technically, the Black Fang is more like a mercenary group rather than assassins.




2) Why would a good character hire an assassin? Plenty of reasons most of them being they are helpless themselves. For example, "My father is being controlled by the evil vizor. Kill him to break the curse and I'll reward you with anything in the kingdom!"

Or because sometimes not using a subtle method like an assassin will cause an entire war to break out causing the death of hundreds.

The problem here is that you seem to confuse assassination with something it is not. Assassination is subtle so that the party involved doesn't claim responsability for the deed. If the party behind the deed is unsubtle about their action and is unlawful then it's terrorism. If the party is unsubtle and lawful, then it's execution. If the party is subtle and lawful, then it's a black operation. You're confusing black ops. with assassination.

VanBuren
2012-09-02, 04:15 AM
The problem here is that this argument doesn't really apply to me and I presume many other people. I've never played a D&D game where morality worked like that.

The discussion isn't about you, though. It's about the assassin. Whether or not RAW morality lines up with your own personal morality is... well, not very relevant.

Xiander
2012-09-02, 06:57 AM
Yes.

D&D Alignment is based on deontological ethics; Good is a set of absolute moral principles which govern whether any action is right or wrong independent of its consequences. Only intent to do Good followed by a correctly performed Good action is Good in D&D.

What you're talking about is consequentialist ethics; whether an action is right or wrong depends primarily or solely on it's consequences. An action, even well intentioned, which injures others cannot be good by that reasoning.

Either way, it's completely arbitrary; there is no universal ethics or morality, so arguing whether something is "really" good is meaningless. The only thing that matters is what the rules say about Alignment, and they are very consistently against the methods used by the Assassin, as I demonstrated above.

I know I am repeating myself here, but i would argue that assasinating the orc warpriest in this situation would probably be neutral.

Wightsbane
2012-09-02, 09:12 AM
D&D Alignment is based on deontological ethics; Good is a set of absolute moral principles which govern whether any action is right or wrong independent of its consequences. Only intent to do Good followed by a correctly performed Good action is Good in D&D.

What you're talking about is consequentialist ethics; whether an action is right or wrong depends primarily or solely on it's consequences. An action, even well intentioned, which injures others cannot be good by that reasoning.

If I may invoke Rule Zero: "D&D Alignment is based on deontological ethics" because that's what most DM's want to do; mine happens to not ecept for specific characters who put the rules above the people who wrote them, and they are called Lawful Neutral.


The problem here is that you seem to confuse assassination with something it is not. Assassination is subtle so that the party involved doesn't claim responsability for the deed. If the party behind the deed is unsubtle about their action and is unlawful then it's terrorism. If the party is unsubtle and lawful, then it's execution. If the party is subtle and lawful, then it's a black operation. You're confusing black ops. with assassination.

Exactly: if your primary motive in killing people is to serve your country, then you are basically Lawful, even if they happen to pay you. If your primary motivation for killing people is for fun or profit, then you are basically Evil, even if you happen to be hired by Good guys. The Capital-A-Assassins are people who took a prestige class based on hiring yourself to anybody with money, lowercase-a-assassins are sneaky killers whose Class could be Rogue, Ranger, or anything like that.

Eldonauran
2012-09-02, 09:20 AM
I know I am repeating myself here, but i would argue that assasinating the orc warpriest in this situation would probably be neutral.

To repeat the BoED, taking life is, at best, a Nuetral act. So, I would agree with you. Most 'adventures' are Nuetral in concept, unless you are really going out of your way to kill the chieftains without thought of reward.

Menteith
2012-09-02, 10:41 AM
To repeat the BoED, taking life is, at best, a Nuetral act. So, I would agree with you. Most 'adventures' are Nuetral in concept, unless you are really going out of your way to kill the chieftains without thought of reward.

Cite?

Having just looked through it pretty recently, I'm pretty sure that there are [Good] ways to destroy certain things. While murder is [Evil], there are many instances where killing a creature is a [Good] act in D&D, rather than neutral. I'll post a page # when I get back to my books.

Emmerask
2012-09-02, 11:19 AM
The ends don't justify the means...the ends don't justify the means.

There is an orc camp near your village. Each orc camp has their own war priest and will not fight without him due to religious reasons. The orc camp is too large and powerful to be taken on the Paladin way (aka if you try frontal invasion all that will happen is slaughter).

A rogue is told "go into the war camp and assassinate their priest it will prevent them from fighting us and save hundreds of lives".

The rogue then turns and goes "Sorry, the ends don't justify the means, performing an act of assassination is evil as read in the holy book of exalted deeds".

The village is slaughtered.

Did the rogue perform a good act by refusing to assassinate him? Even though it directly lead to the deaths of hundreds.

Edit: Oh and the war priest is like a king, a total non-combatant. His job is to lead not to fight.

Well there are a lot more factors to consider,
I mean you want the assassin prc to be more differentiated then "it is evil",
yet to achieve this you use another stereotype "orcs are all evil".

Ie the example is from the get go not feasible.

Maybe this was actually Orc land and the evil human kingdom has driven them from it.
Maybe you could use diplomacy to achieve a compromise...
etcetc

Using a stereotype to dispel believe in another just canīt work :smalltongue:

Knaight
2012-09-02, 11:38 AM
That's why more people will take a bottle of pills to kill themselves rather than step off a ledge or jump in front of a train. Because it hurts less.

I agree with you about most of this, but there are other major reasons for the bottle of pills. Suicide involves overcoming a survival instinct, and this is much easier when it comes to something that isn't strongly mentally associated with dying. Taking a bunch of pills doesn't seem as deadly as jumping in front of a train or off a ledge, or shooting yourself (and it isn't going by the statistics). Added to that is that suicide is usually accompanied by an extremely low self worth, where negatively impacting other people by jumping in front of a train is seen as abhorrent, but where dying through something that could pass as an accident just makes things better for friends and family, because really, it isn't as if you're a good part in their life.

Consider this: You do see suicides and suicide attempts with pills that are extremely painful. Acetaminophen kills you over a period of days, through extremely painful organ failure. That doesn't stop people from taking a bunch of Tylenol. That suggests that the reasons are a lot more complex than just "what hurts most".

That said, the whole "it causes suffering argument" really is incredibly stupid. We're talking about lethal combat, suffering is really part of the deal regardless, particularly when fire and acid are flying around.

Starbuck_II
2012-09-02, 12:30 PM
The ends don't justify the means...the ends don't justify the means.

There is an orc camp near your village. Each orc camp has their own war priest and will not fight without him due to religious reasons. The orc camp is too large and powerful to be taken on the Paladin way (aka if you try frontal invasion all that will happen is slaughter).

A rogue is told "go into the war camp and assassinate their priest it will prevent them from fighting us and save hundreds of lives".

The rogue then turns and goes "Sorry, the ends don't justify the means, performing an act of assassination is evil as read in the holy book of exalted deeds".

The village is slaughtered.

Did the rogue perform a good act by refusing to assassinate him? Even though it directly lead to the deaths of hundreds.

Edit: Oh and the war priest is like a king, a total non-combatant. His job is to lead not to fight.

Yes according to BoED, it was non-evil to not kill him.
You are not responsible for others actions; only your own.
You might feel guilty, but you didn't do anything wrong. This is referred to as Surviver's guilt.

The ends never justify the means. The means justify the ends.

Mike_G
2012-09-02, 12:33 PM
"Poison is Evil, because it will make the evil general of the invading horde suffer! It's Evil to inflict unnecessary pain."

"Ok, Galahad. What's your plan?"

"I'm going to stand face to face and bash him with my consecrated spiked mace, breaking his bones and rupturing his internal organs until he dies of shock and blood loss."

"Wait, wait. That sounds like it will hurt. How's about I sneak into his camp and put a crossbow bolt into his brainstem. One shot. He'll be in the afterlfe before he feels a thing."

"No! That's Evil because he's unprepared. I say we bash him with the spiky mace, breaking his bones and rupturing his organs. That's the only Good way to kill sentient beings."

"...Wow. Ok, you have fun with that. I'm going to stay back at camp and make dinner."

"Great. I love your stew. Oh, yeah. about that. Be sure you beat the rabbit to death slowly, so he has a chance to fight back. Don't shoot him cleanly. That would be Evil."

Thirty years of D&D and Alignment still makes my teeth hurt.

Forum Explorer
2012-09-02, 12:38 PM
Then why are you arguing over the assassin D&D class requirements? :smallconfused:


By definition, assassin is a contract murder, murder is unlawful killing. You just stated that you have lawful authority, therefore what you're doing is not murder, but execution. Just because you use a word doesn't make the definition change.

I feel that Ubisoft and its gaming franchise is to blame for this rationale...:smallsigh: Assassins aren't warrior-monk ninjas, they're just the next rung up from hitmen and hired goons. Assassins don't fight, they murder. Therefore they don't have opponents, they have victims. THAT is why they have to be helpless. A hero who's paid to go out and defeat the Big Bad dragon is more like a mercenary because he's fighting someone/something on more or less equal footing.

Technically, the Black Fang is more like a mercenary group rather than assassins.





The problem here is that you seem to confuse assassination with something it is not. Assassination is subtle so that the party involved doesn't claim responsability for the deed. If the party behind the deed is unsubtle about their action and is unlawful then it's terrorism. If the party is unsubtle and lawful, then it's execution. If the party is subtle and lawful, then it's a black operation. You're confusing black ops. with assassination.

Because the OP is? That's why he brought it up I presume.

Very well, then I move to claim that you can have an Assassin's guild that doesn't assasinate anyone because they are supported by a lawful authority or they operate in a region where no such lawful authority exists. Take the Assassin's Guild from Discworld for example.

That makes no sense. You are basically saying you can't murder someone who can fight back. Yes you can. It happens more often then the reverse in fact. Particularly in most D&D worlds which have such a violent life style (for example my friend's Assassin would perform combat assassinations. He'd go into a battle invisible and hit the target after his three rounds were up. Then he'd renew invisibility to escape.)

In what way are the Black Fang a mercenary group? :smallconfused: They don't accept money, they prefer to kill by surprise and ambush. They are even called Assassins in game. Most of the time they aren't even killing 'lawfully'

I personally would consider black ops to use assassination as a tool. If your definition is correct then again I would say that you can have Assassins who do not assassinate.


The discussion isn't about you, though. It's about the assassin. Whether or not RAW morality lines up with your own personal morality is... well, not very relevant.

Correction. Not my morality. Just not the morality presented by RAW. The OP is talking about how Assassins don't have to be evil in a real game, not the theoretical played only by RAW game.

Leliel
2012-09-02, 12:40 PM
"Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted"

Definitely a Good-aligned philosophy. :smalltongue:

Seriously, Altair/Ezzio are decent dudes with reasonable motives... but they are absolutely not "Good" in the D&D sense of the word. I could see an argument for Neutral, but honestly Evil makes the most sense to me.

Evil people can have good reasons for what they do, and oppose other Evil people. They can see what they do as necessary evil for a greater good, and think that they are the heroes in their life stories. They can be protagonists, and they can be sympathetic. But they cannot be Good.

On the bright side though, there is a Lawful (Avenger) and a Good (Slayer of <whoever>) version of the Assassin in 3.5 if you need one. Not that it makes any sense to me, but eh.

You...have never actually played the games, have you?

I don't care if this has been responded to already, but-the Assassins are Nietzsche fans, not nihilists. There is no greater cosmic order, so really, what's the point in not being generally decent to your fellow man? Think the Bleakers from Planescape.

They're a Chaotic and True Neutral organization with strong Good tendencies.

You want Evil, take the Templars. There was a case for them being Lawful Neutral in the first game, but from the time of the Renaissance onwards? The only question is whether they're Lawful Evil or so debased from their original goals they became Neutral Evil.

Knaight
2012-09-02, 12:45 PM
Thirty years of D&D and Alignment still makes my teeth hurt.
The sad part is that this particular example isn't even that bad by D&D standards. The Poison/Ravage dichotomy is even stupider.
"I'm going to sneak into this tent and poison this guy, which will have effect X."
"No, poison is bad. I'm going to sneak into this tent and use a ravage on this guy with effect X."
"That's the exact same thing."
"No it isn't, ravages only affect evil people."
"This guy is the only one I'm poisoning. This poison is only going to affect evil people."
"But it's evil because of the way you could have used it and chose not to."

Eldonauran
2012-09-02, 01:29 PM
Cite?

:smallconfused: I may need to retract that statement as I cannot find a reference to that exact statement.

All I can say is it is a conclusion that I reached after much thought. I am not saying that one doesnt have Good intentions and use Good methods in order to do so, but the actual act of killing something (IMHO) should be strictly a neutral act. HOW and WHY you do something should determine which side of the alignment spectrum it pings as.

Further thought: Animals lack the INT for moral reasoning (per D&D) and thus have a True Nuetral alignment. When they kill something, it is a nuetral act because it can not be anything else.


Having just looked through it pretty recently, I'm pretty sure that there are [Good] ways to destroy certain things. While murder is [Evil], there are many instances where killing a creature is a [Good] act in D&D, rather than neutral. I'll post a page # when I get back to my books.

Please, let me know if you find one. The closest I can get is under the 'Violence' section on pages 9-10. It mentions that violence is acceptable in certain situations but it never says it was ever Good. It goes further to says that the means behind the actions must be as Good as the intentions.

Menteith
2012-09-02, 01:40 PM
Check out Book of Vile Darkness. If I remember correctly, it states that killing prismatic dragons, fiends, and other evil creatures is a good act. I'll double check when I get back to books.

paladinofshojo
2012-09-02, 02:07 PM
Because the OP is? That's why he brought it up a presume. That doesn't really change why you're talking about something you have little experience with...


Very well, then I move to claim that you can have an Assassin's guild that doesn't assasinate anyone because they are supported by a lawful authority or they operate in a region where no such lawful authority exists. Take the Assassin's Guild from Discworld for example. If an Assassin's guild doesn't assasinate anyone, then what are they?:smallconfused: Furthermore, if there's no rule of law, then wouldn't that make any organization operating in that area shady and corrupt? The Assassin's Guild in Discworld is located in Ankh-Morpork, the largest city in that world. Hardly regarded as a place with no lawful authority.


That makes no sense. You are basically saying you can't murder someone who can fight back. Yes you can. It happens more often then the reverse in fact. Particularly in most D&D worlds which have such a violent life style (for example my friend's Assassin would perform combat assassinations. He'd go into a battle invisible and hit the target after his three rounds were up. Then he'd renew invisibility to escape.) :smallsigh: I feel like Assassin's Creed romantacism about the seedy underbelly of contract killers has gone overboard... Murder is not battle, in battle both sides know they're combating eachother. Just because you kill someone in battle doesn't make it an assassination. To qualify as an assassination, the victim has to be murdered, therefore the victim is unaware and helpless and there has to be premediation of the murder. You can't premediate murder while planning on them to fight back.


In what way are the Black Fang a mercenary group? :smallconfused: They don't accept money, they prefer to kill by surprise and ambush. They are even called Assassins in game. Most of the time they aren't even killing 'lawfully' And Assassin's would take up any cause out of altruism? The Black Fang didn't murder one person individually, many of their "assassins" are merely gaurds for their mountain fortresses. Hell, my guess is that the writers probably used the word "assassin" just to make them sound cooler.


I personally would consider black ops to use assassination as a tool. If your definition is correct then again I would say that you can have Assassins who do not assassinate. What the....? Where did you come up with that logic? An Assassination=unlawful party, subtle means. A black operation=lawful party, subtle means. In both cases there is murder and a clause of deniability but one has a legitimate authority and the other does not.


Honestly, I feel that this whole page is merely young posters arguing about why they can't play an Altair or Ezio character in Core D&D.....

VanBuren
2012-09-02, 02:25 PM
You...have never actually played the games, have you?

I don't care if this has been responded to already, but-the Assassins are Nietzsche fans, not nihilists. There is no greater cosmic order, so really, what's the point in not being generally decent to your fellow man? Think the Bleakers from Planescape.

They're a Chaotic and True Neutral organization with strong Good tendencies.

You want Evil, take the Templars. There was a case for them being Lawful Neutral in the first game, but from the time of the Renaissance onwards? The only question is whether they're Lawful Evil or so debased from their original goals they became Neutral Evil.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that the Renaissance Templars shifted to NE. Even modern Templars consider them to be a dark diversion from their goals. Though, whether that's because the Borgias were just in it for power, or because they're trying to hide the fact that the Borgias got their faces wiped all over Rome...

Jack of Spades
2012-09-02, 02:26 PM
So, there's a misconception about why certain kind of killing are Evil, and it's probably one that got written into the books at some point.

While the undue pain thing is certainly a factor, it's not even close to being the biggest one. The reason that it's more Good to face someone in combat (single combat if possible) is simple: it gives your adversary a chance to kill you back.

Once more, for the hell of it: The alignment of a killing in DnD and the romanticized chivalry it's based on is derived from whether or not the other person had a chance.

So, poison? Hell no. Not only is it (sometimes) extremely painful, it's sneaky, and you often won't even be found out. That, and in low- to middle-fantasy settings, someone who ends up poisoned won't have much recourse. They never stood a chance of survival. There's probably no chance for you being brought to justice. Hence, evil.

Death Attack? Also a no. You studied someone's movements from hiding, possibly even disguised as one of their personally guard, attacked them once, and they save-or-died. They didn't even know you were a threat to them, and now they're dead. Because you decided that they needed to be dead, for whatever reason. They had no chance of survival. You weren't even at risk. Evil act.

Rogues. Rogues can be good because they have a skillset other than 'murder things.' Sure, they have sneak attack, but that's quite a bit different than a save-or-die. Death by HP loss generally gives the opponent at least a round or two to fight back, unless you're in a high-op game or fighting too-weak opponents. Thus, they are more likely to be good than an Assassin-- although the vast majority of Rogues are Evil or Neutral.

The "honorable" way of killing someone in DnD isn't honorable because it's somehow more honorable to give someone a multitude of bleeding cuts than it is to smother them in their sleep. It's more honorable because you're making the choice to test yourself against your opponent, aware of the possibility that they could be better than you (although in most new-school games that's nowhere near likely-- we wouldn't want a precious protagonist seriously injured-- but the character doesn't know that). So there's your explanation. If you don't agree with it, then don't use the damn alignment system as Gygax, Arneson intended it. No one is stopping you. I don't like the alignment system either. That's why I don't use it. People may like the alignment system. Let them do that.

Humanity has been embroiled in the alignment debate for at least 2500 years. You're allowed to have a position. But never, ever think for a second that you will change anyone's mind. All you can hope for is to explain the position, and hope they accept that the position exists. That's all I'm trying to do.

But then again, this is the internet. Argue on.

Morithias
2012-09-02, 02:32 PM
Humanity has been embroiled in the alignment debate for at least 2500 years. You're allowed to have a position. But never, ever think for a second that you will change anyone's mind. All you can hope for is to explain the position, and hope they accept that the position exists. That's all I'm trying to do.

But then again, this is the internet. Argue on.

To be fair there is a huge difference between "argument that is full of holes and inconsistencies and hypocrisy", and one that says "take each scenario as it's own thing".

Just saying, some of us don't like accepting the RAW because we see it as the equivalent of the creators going "You act like this because we said so."

Not every D&D player is a little kid, some of us enjoy philosophy and complex morality in our tales. It's why we play Ultima 4 over Ultima 1

Knaight
2012-09-02, 02:34 PM
I feel like Assassin's Creed romantacism about the seedy underbelly of contract killers has gone overboard... Murder is not battle, in battle both sides know they're combating eachother. Just because you kill someone in battle doesn't make it an assassination. To qualify as an assassination, the victim has to be murdered, therefore the victim is unaware and helpless and there has to be premediation of the murder. You can't premediate murder while planning on them to fight back.

I'd say that it is battle being romanticized here. Tell me, why is it somehow more ethical to storm a fort and kill everyone inside than to assassinate the leader and nobody else? The troops may well be conscript soldiers, there only because they are forced to be, and it's not like they have a meaningful chance to fight back against trained professionals. They aren't any less dead.

Assassination is an ugly thing, and that isn't being contested. However, for whatever reason warfare is being portrayed as if it isn't, and that isn't remotely true. Then there's the portrayal of assassination as bad because there aren't countermeasures - that's absurd. The countermeasures are merely different, and it's a matter of picking and placing guards, of screening troops, of taking steps to prevent assassins getting close to you. We're talking about military leaders here, who are already in conflict, not murdering charismatic civilian leaders pushing some sort of populist view. They should be taking these measures, and that means that they have defenses every bit as legitimate as those used in close combat. The "assassination bad, battle good" view comes down to valuing the lives of a huge number of troops less than the lives of one commander, nothing else.

Morithias
2012-09-02, 02:42 PM
I'd say that it is battle being romanticized here. Tell me, why is it somehow more ethical to storm a fort and kill everyone inside than to assassinate the leader and nobody else? The troops may well be conscript soldiers, there only because they are forced to be, and it's not like they have a meaningful chance to fight back against trained professionals. They aren't any less dead.

Assassination is an ugly thing, and that isn't being contested. However, for whatever reason warfare is being portrayed as if it isn't, and that isn't remotely true.

And that's ignoring the fact that you might simply be out gunned. Some evil overlords have read the evil overlord list and won't leave their palace defended by troops that 4 people can get through. Assassination is not pretty, but seriously sometimes it's the best way to stop Mr. Wizard-is-going-to-drop-a-meteor-on-the-kingdom-next-door-in-24-hours.

Jack of Spades
2012-09-02, 03:03 PM
I'd say that it is battle being romanticized here. Tell me, why is it somehow more ethical to storm a fort and kill everyone inside than to assassinate the leader and nobody else? The troops may well be conscript soldiers, there only because they are forced to be, and it's not like they have a meaningful chance to fight back against trained professionals. They aren't any less dead.

Wait, you're telling me that a system which holds Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos as objective entities is romanticizing things!? :smallwink:


To be fair there is a huge difference between "argument that is full of holes and inconsistencies and hypocrisy", and one that says "take each scenario as it's own thing".

Just saying, some of us don't like accepting the RAW because we see it as the equivalent of the creators going "You act like this because we said so."

Not every D&D player is a little kid, some of us enjoy philosophy and complex morality in our tales. It's why we play Ultima 4 over Ultima 1

So, I'm not going to dig up my ethics textbooks full of examples, but believe me: every ethical system is rife with holes and inconsistencies. DnD had to choose one system. They chose Deontological ethics. Why? Probably because it's the easiest system under which to come up with a good or evil judgement on the spot. "Was that specific act, regardless of its implications or context, GOOD or EVIL?" is considerably easier to parse than "Well, it was murder, but he murdered an evil dude, but the evil dude could have inspired good in others..."

I'm not saying that you should accept the morality written into the game. I'm saying, "This is the morality written into the game. Take it or leave it." If you want more complex, realistic morality, then GOOD. But you're going to have to achieve it by first dropping or heavily editing the morality built into the system because then system wasn't built for a complex or realistic system, it was built for a world of valiant, damsel-saving heroes and puppy-kicking, orphanage-burning villains. I'm not saying accept the RAW. I'm saying UNDERSTAND the RAW. Accept that it exists and was written with a certain rationale. Because the more you can accept and rationalize the actions and morals of others, the more interesting and immersive it will be if or when you ever decide to attempt to explore those things in your own games!

paladinofshojo
2012-09-02, 03:17 PM
I'd say that it is battle being romanticized here. Tell me, why is it somehow more ethical to storm a fort and kill everyone inside than to assassinate the leader and nobody else? The troops may well be conscript soldiers, there only because they are forced to be, and it's not like they have a meaningful chance to fight back against trained professionals. They aren't any less dead.

Assassination is an ugly thing, and that isn't being contested. However, for whatever reason warfare is being portrayed as if it isn't, and that isn't remotely true. Then there's the portrayal of assassination as bad because there aren't countermeasures - that's absurd. The countermeasures are merely different, and it's a matter of picking and placing guards, of screening troops, of taking steps to prevent assassins getting close to you. We're talking about military leaders here, who are already in conflict, not murdering charismatic civilian leaders pushing some sort of populist view. They should be taking these measures, and that means that they have defenses every bit as legitimate as those used in close combat. The "assassination bad, battle good" view comes down to valuing the lives of a huge number of troops less than the lives of one commander, nothing else.

Once again someone's confusing black ops with assassination, a military leader killed in a covert mission by another nation is black ops, not assassination. This is because the party involved with the deed has legitimate authority. Military "assassinations" are almost always black ops, because they're backed by legitimate authority. Assassinations are almost always contracted in the realm of civilians and noncombatants, otherwise they wouldn't be assassinations.

Furthermore, the problem that many of the posters here have is that they're arguing over the ends justifying the means. Which D&D has specifically stated does not work.... If you don't like it, then just use something else.

Morithias
2012-09-02, 03:34 PM
Once again someone's confusing black ops with assassination, a military leader killed in a covert mission by another nation is black ops, not assassination. This is because the party involved with the deed has legitimate authority. Military "assassinations" are almost always black ops, because they're backed by legitimate authority. Assassinations are almost always contracted in the realm of civilians and noncombatants, otherwise they wouldn't be assassinations.

Since so many people are arguing this, and it tends to be the same people on the side of the so-called "RAW". Let me ask this.

Where does it say the Assassin class cant be used for military or can't be backed by legitimate authority? The class says "any evil" not "any non-lawful evil", and the Deathstalker, the Assassin's superior older brother has to be lawful evil (But at least that one I can buy with the whole god of murder thing).

Knaight
2012-09-02, 03:38 PM
Assassinations are almost always contracted in the realm of civilians and noncombatants, otherwise they wouldn't be assassinations.

That's not part of the definition. Moreover, only one side actually has to be military - it's not as if history isn't littered with military forces attacking civilian targets, armed resistance outside of a national military, so on and so forth. Added to this is that black ops assassinations are still assassinations, and that "black ops" includes more than just assassination. They aren't the same thing.

paladinofshojo
2012-09-02, 03:50 PM
Since so many people are arguing this, and it tends to be the same people on the side of the so-called "RAW". Let me ask this.

Where does it say the Assassin class cant be used for military or can't be backed by legitimate authority? The class says "any evil" not "any non-lawful evil", and the Deathstalker, the Assassin's superior older brother has to be lawful evil (But at least that one I can buy with the whole god of murder thing).

I'm not talking about D&D, I'm talking about the basic definition of the words, there's a distinction between manhunting (military killing of a specific target) and assassinations. One is lawful and the other isn't. To understand the definition of an assassin, one must have a clear definition of it first.


That's not part of the definition. Moreover, only one side actually has to be military - it's not as if history isn't littered with military forces attacking civilian targets, armed resistance outside of a national military, so on and so forth. Added to this is that black ops assassinations are still assassinations, and that "black ops" includes more than just assassination. They aren't the same thing.

No, any "assassination" a military or legitimate government partakes in is called manhunting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhunt_(military)) not assassination. Assassination is committed outside of military jurisdiction.

Boci
2012-09-02, 03:53 PM
I'm not talking about D&D, I'm talking about the basic definition of the words, there's a distinction between manhunting (military killing of a specific target) and assassinations. One is lawful and the other isn't. To understand the definition of an assassin, one must have a clear definition of it first.

Source of this basic definition? Assassination certainly has connotations of not being backed by a "legitimate authority", but I've never heard a definition that actually spelled that out.

paladinofshojo
2012-09-02, 03:56 PM
Source of this basic definition? Assassination certainly has connotations of not being backed by a "legitimate authority", but I've never heard a definition that actually spelled that out.

Here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhunt_(military))

Xiander
2012-09-02, 04:00 PM
I'm not talking about D&D, I'm talking about the basic definition of the words, there's a distinction between manhunting (military killing of a specific target) and assassinations. One is lawful and the other isn't. To understand the definition of an assassin, one must have a clear definition of it first.



No, any "assassination" a military or legitimate government partakes in is called manhunting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhunt_(military)) not assassination. Assassination is committed outside of military jurisdiction.

So basically, you are arguing that any member of the class must be evil, because of the name of the class? Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is how you come of.

Boci
2012-09-02, 04:01 PM
Here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhunt_(military))

Nice try, but no. We are talking about assassins. You need to prove that the term assassin disbars the backing of legitimate authority, not that there is a special term for the killing someone which is backed so (since that is arguably simple a more specific term within the subject of assassination).

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin

Morithias
2012-09-02, 04:04 PM
So basically, you are arguing that any member of the class must be evil, because of the name of the class? Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is how you come of.

Yeah, that's starting to be how it's coming across.

paladinofshojo
2012-09-02, 04:05 PM
So basically, you are arguing that any member of the class must be evil, because of the name of the class? Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is how you come of.

I don't suppose you've studied Eastern mythology, and Confucius's "Rectification of Names". Well, to sum it up in a nutshell, "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government and that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names)

Long story short, if names do not match the implications attached to them, then reality itself is under scrutiny...

Knaight
2012-09-02, 04:07 PM
Here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhunt_(military))

Indicating that the term manhunt is applicable means absolutely nothing as to whether or not assassination is. Look at the definition here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination)*, which also uses your source, and notice how it is also completely applicable. Moreover, it would also encompass assassination in a conflict between a military and a non-military, such as an attempted purge of an ethnic group (which is pretty much what the "invading orc army" in D&D usually translates to). Unless you want to argue that assassination is unacceptable to use against that military because it isn't sanctioned by the nonexistent military of the civilian target, you have to accept it is acceptable (or come up with some other reason to make it unacceptable).

*Read the "As military doctrine" section.

Boci
2012-09-02, 04:07 PM
I don't suppose you've studied Eastern mythology, and Confucius's "Rectification of Names". Well, to sum it up in a nutshell, "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government and that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names)

I couldn't help but notice the "should". Game designers "should" also understand the game they make and not leave blatantly exploitable loop holes in the rules.

Morithias
2012-09-02, 04:09 PM
I don't suppose you've studied Eastern mythology, and Confucius's "Rectification of Names". Well, to sum it up in a nutshell, "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government and that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names)

I'm not going to say it right on the forum since it brings up real world history and religion, but I recommend you google what a "Paladin" was.

Hint: It wasn't a paragon of virtue and goodness.

Edit: and that is ALL we are going to say on the subject less we all get yellow cards.

BootStrapTommy
2012-09-02, 07:02 PM
I don't suppose you've studied Eastern mythology, and Confucius's "Rectification of Names". Well, to sum it up in a nutshell, "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government and that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names)

Long story short, if names do not match the implications attached to them, then reality itself is under scrutiny...

First off, eastern PHILOSOPHY, not mythology. Second of all, Eastern philosophy threw formal logic to the wind and the Eastern school of names is a headache to any and all who have a logically ordered Western brain.

BootStrapTommy
2012-09-02, 07:05 PM
I'm not going to say it right on the forum since it brings up real world history and religion, but I recommend you google what a "Paladin" was.

Hint: It wasn't a paragon of virtue and goodness.

Edit: and that is ALL we are going to say on the subject less we all get yellow cards.

Paladins weren't paragons of virtue and goodness, but they were bastions in the defense of Christendom from the hordes of the Saracens.

If you have a Christian-centric world view then they are effectively the same thing.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-09-02, 07:17 PM
Paladins weren't paragons of virtue and goodness, but they were bastions in the defense of Christendom from the hordes of the Saracens.

If you have a Christian-centric world view then they are effectively the same thing.

Er, no, that was crusaders. Paladins were a specific group of French knights, and they were either paid in gold rather than land, or they were mounted warriors who were paid in land and were the precursors to knights. I forget which.

BootStrapTommy
2012-09-02, 07:52 PM
Er, no, that was crusaders. Paladins were a specific group of French knights, and they were either paid in gold rather than land, or they were mounted warriors who were paid in land and were the precursors to knights. I forget which.

They were Charlemagne's "Knights of the Round Table" and they are most famous for their battles against the Muslim Moors, who they were celebrated for turning back. Their fame comes from protecting the Christian Holy Roman Empire from Muslims invading Italy, Spain, and France. Or at least that's what they are celebrated for in the literature, which is why paladin has the connotation it has.

So like I said, protectors of Christendom from the evil Saracen Infidels.

Morithias
2012-09-02, 07:56 PM
So like I said, protectors of Christendom from the evil Saracen Infidels.

Be careful calling real people evil on this forum.

My point simply was is that what a "Paladin" was in real life is very different then in D&D.

BootStrapTommy
2012-09-02, 08:00 PM
Be careful calling real people evil on this forum.


You might want to recalibrate your sarcasm detector there, bro.

Morithias
2012-09-02, 08:04 PM
You might want to recalibrate your sarcasm detector there, bro.

Sorry. Not good with sarcasm. I pretty much need it to be blatantly obvious sarcasm or in blue text for me to get it.

Sorry again.

BootStrapTommy
2012-09-02, 08:06 PM
Sorry. Not good with sarcasm. I pretty much need it to be blatantly obvious sarcasm or in blue text for me to get it.

Sorry again.

Happens to the best of us.

BootStrapTommy
2012-09-02, 09:36 PM
By definition, assassin is a contract murder, murder is unlawful killing. You just stated that you have lawful authority, therefore what you're doing is not murder, but execution. Just because you use a word doesn't make the definition change.

Guys, seriously? Seriously, Guys? Can we stop indiscriminately mixing in Law/Chaos into Good/Evil. An Avenger is a Lawful assassin and they can be good. They carry out political assassinations in the name of their lord or church. In our real world, the majority of assassins are like Avengers. they kill in the name of an authority, be that authority a country (the most common) or a religious or political organization. however, assassinations are not unlawful. In fact, more often than not they are lawfully sanctioned.


I feel that Ubisoft and its gaming franchise is to blame for this rationale...:smallsigh: Assassins aren't warrior-monk ninjas, they're just the next rung up from hitmen and hired goons. [..] A hero who's paid to go out and defeat the Big Bad dragon is more like a mercenary because he's fighting someone/something on more or less equal footing.

Wrong. As my dictionary puts it, an assassin is "one who commits murder for political, religous, or monetary reasons." They are not contract killer. As I have brought up many times, historically unpaid assassins outnumber paid by many powers of ten, as assassinations are mostly motivated politically, not monetarily. They are people who kill single targets using the element of surprise based on an some outside motivation (be it money, their God's will, the freedom of their people, or a sense of justice). Etymologically, assassins WERE "warrior-monk ninjas". Ubisoft's Assassin's were based on the Hashishim (the etymological root of "assassin") who were Sufi Muslim warrior-monks who, according to the European lore around them, killed Crusaders and even other Muslims for religious reasons. Etymologically, Ubisoft is closer to the origin of the word than you are. Just thought I'd bring this up for you, since you seem so intent on making assassin a black-and-white definition that you actually invoked the Chinese School of Names.


Assassins don't fight, they murder. Therefore they don't have opponents, they have victims. THAT is why they have to be helpless.

Murder is not battle, in battle both sides know they're combating eachother. Just because you kill someone in battle doesn't make it an assassination. To qualify as an assassination, the victim has to be murdered, therefore the victim is unaware and helpless and there has to be premediation of the murder. You can't premediate murder while planning on them to fight back.


Assume following is true, so do rogues. Rogues sneak. Rogues use poison. Rogues back stab. Rogues fight dirty. Yet Robin Hood is a rogue. Yet Regis Rumblebelly is. What is so different between a sneak attack and a death attack? A death attack, mechanics wise, is just a modified sneak attack. Furthermore, the death attack never says anything about being helpless. The attacker just has to be hidden.

Our modern warfare is based on two principles: attack hard and attack smart. That's what an assassin does. That's not Evil. It's smart. And an assassin is not anymore evil for doing so than Seal Team 6.

It all comes down to defining what it is that an assassin does that makes they evil. As I have repeatedly asserted, they are not contract killers (history backs this claim up), so that is not it. They do not use tactics which can consistently be considered different from the rogue (stealth and sneaky), so that can't be it. It can't be because they have some naturally evil spells or methods (clerics have [evil] spells too), so that isn't it. It is not because they cannot have Good motivation because they can, so that cannot be it.

It's because you presume that it is such.


The problem here is that you seem to confuse assassination with something it is not. Assassination is subtle so that the party involved doesn't claim responsability for the deed. If the party behind the deed is unsubtle about their action and is unlawful then it's terrorism. If the party is unsubtle and lawful, then it's execution. If the party is subtle and lawful, then it's a black operation. You're confusing black ops. with assassination.

None of the distinctions you make here hold water. Like I earlier stated, you mix Law/Chaos into Good/Evil. You're trying to redefine black operations in a manner that it is not assassination. But to quote you "Just because you use a word doesn't make the definition change." The thing is governments NEVER "claim responsability" for black ops. If they did, they'd be in trouble. They are called "black" because of the fact that they are "blacked out" in official documentations. Black ops are not JUST assassins, but at times they ARE assassins. And when they are, government rarely let people know they are responsible, for quite obvious political reasons. Yet in the service of the right government, for the peace and protect of people's lives, you could hardly call the killing evil. But you can hardly call it anything but an ASSASSINATION when a government says "Hey. Go kill this bad guy, stealthy-like, and don't get caught."


Honestly, I feel that this whole page is merely *young* posters arguing about why they can't play an Altair or Ezio character in Core D&D.....

*[emphasis added]*

Honestly, I feel like it pretty bad that no one can have an opinion or make an argument sometimes without that one person coming along and trying to sound superior and belittle the other people with their limited opinions and presuppositions. And to do it with the "age" card is pretty silly, not to mention immature.

Seriously dude, that's disrespectful.

The Random NPC
2012-09-02, 10:42 PM
I'm not talking about D&D, I'm talking about the basic definition of the words, there's a distinction between manhunting (military killing of a specific target) and assassinations. One is lawful and the other isn't. To understand the definition of an assassin, one must have a clear definition of it first.



No, any "assassination" a military or legitimate government partakes in is called manhunting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhunt_(military)) not assassination. Assassination is committed outside of military jurisdiction.

From what I can gather:
1) Manhunting was only legalized in 2001. That would mean any and all manhunts were illegal before that time.
2) Black Ops (while not required to be) are frequently illegal, and would otherwise normally be referred to as clandestine.
3) People are currently questioning the legality of manhunting.
4) Just because it is authorized by the lawful government, does not mean it is a lawful action. For example, Richard Nixon.

Forum Explorer
2012-09-02, 11:32 PM
That doesn't really change why you're talking about something you have little experience with...

If an Assassin's guild doesn't assasinate anyone, then what are they?:smallconfused: Furthermore, if there's no rule of law, then wouldn't that make any organization operating in that area shady and corrupt? The Assassin's Guild in Discworld is located in Ankh-Morpork, the largest city in that world. Hardly regarded as a place with no lawful authority.

:smallsigh: I feel like Assassin's Creed romantacism about the seedy underbelly of contract killers has gone overboard... Murder is not battle, in battle both sides know they're combating eachother. Just because you kill someone in battle doesn't make it an assassination. To qualify as an assassination, the victim has to be murdered, therefore the victim is unaware and helpless and there has to be premediation of the murder. You can't premediate murder while planning on them to fight back.

And Assassin's would take up any cause out of altruism? The Black Fang didn't murder one person individually, many of their "assassins" are merely gaurds for their mountain fortresses. Hell, my guess is that the writers probably used the word "assassin" just to make them sound cooler.
.

I'm defending his point of view which I do have experience with since I have a similar opinion.

I don't know. But they have all the skills of Assassin's and kill people. But if the conditions are met they can do so without assassinating people by your definitions.

I have barely played those games at all. Honestly they have no impact on me in this discussion. Don't make such an insulting assumption. :smallannoyed:

Sure. Most do kill for ideological reasons. They murder tons of people. Or do you mean that they use groups to kill people? Because that's what they do. They isolate their target and try and kill them by stealth and numbers. You have an entire mission in which you prevent an assassination from occurring! Perhaps not every member is an assassin but most of them are.

Medic!
2012-09-02, 11:43 PM
Assassination is the specific premeditated killing of an individual, and it's always evil, even if it's for a good cause. Assassinating the most evil person in the world is still, at its core, [Evil].

Bringing in the Lawful side of the arguement only muddies the waters; it's perfectly possible (even prevelant) to see a Lawful act that is still 100% evil.

Morithias
2012-09-03, 01:03 AM
Assassination is the specific premeditated killing of an individual, and it's always evil, even if it's for a good cause. Assassinating the most evil person in the world is still, at its core, [Evil].

Bringing in the Lawful side of the arguement only muddies the waters; it's perfectly possible (even prevelant) to see a Lawful act that is still 100% evil.

Always evil.

You are in a dungeon, deep within it, you are the last of your party. Everyone but you is dead, and you can't leave the dungeon because it's more than a day to the closest town.

And a high level mage is in the process of casting "Apocalypse from the sky" at caster level 20.

For those of you who don't know, that spell does 10d6 damage to everything in a 10 mile radius per caster level. Hundreds of thousands will die if this spell goes off.

You found a magic dagger that despite you not having any assassin levels will 1/day allow you to use death attack as if you were a level 10 assassin. You have the dark template and there is no sunlight in this dungeon. It looks like your only hope to stop the magic is to sneak into the main room, and Death attack him. He has too many soldiers to take head on.

Is Assassinating him evil? It will save Hundreds of Thousands of people, and this guy is not just evil, he is casting a CORRUPT SPELL. He is VILE TO THE CORE. If you do not death attack him all the innocent WILL DIE. Including tons of children.

If you still say assassinating him is evil, I can safely say the conversation is done, because at that point as far as I'm concerned I might as well be trying to convince you that the sun is made of cotton candy. We're not going to get ANYWHERE.

Xiander
2012-09-03, 02:02 AM
I don't suppose you've studied Eastern mythology, and Confucius's "Rectification of Names". Well, to sum it up in a nutshell, "things in actual fact should be made to accord with the implications attached to them by names, the prerequisites for correct living and even efficient government and that all classes of society should accord to what they ought to be". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names)

Long story short, if names do not match the implications attached to them, then reality itself is under scrutiny...

No, I mainly study western Philosophy, not out of lack of interest though.

The problem with quoting Confucius, is that it is an appeal to authority. And without any argument as to why this specific authority is right and any other authority is wrong, this is actually a fallacy.

That said, I do see a point in saying that a prestige class should align itself with its name. Things like "death stalker" and "thrall of the lord of murder" Should damn well be evil. I think the point is that people on this forum apparently do not all think that the name "assassin" is an evil name for an evil class.

Menteith
2012-09-03, 02:09 AM
Assassination is the specific premeditated killing of an individual, and it's always evil, even if it's for a good cause. Assassinating the most evil person in the world is still, at its core, [Evil].

Bringing in the Lawful side of the arguement only muddies the waters; it's perfectly possible (even prevelant) to see a Lawful act that is still 100% evil.

Nope. The only restrictions placed upon violence are....

1) You must have just cause. (usually amounts to the victim merits the violence).

2) The attack must have good intentions (if you're attacking them to mug them, it's still non-Good even if you're mugging an Evil being).

3) Violence cannot be directed against noncombatants.

4) The means of violence must be reasonable. The only specifics called out here are no Torture, no [Evil] spells, nothing that inflicts "undue suffering".

BoED p9-10

What's the problem, again? :smallconfused:

Assassination and Murder actually are different things in 3.5, by the by. Murder is the killing of intelligent beings for the sake of nefarious purpose (calls out stuff like Theft & Perverse Pleasure kills as Murder). "...Killing an Evil creature to stop it from doing harm is not an Evil Act." (Book of Vile Darkness p7).

By RAW, Assassins are Evil because they're required to be. But with the "Murder someone to join" and "Always Evil" features of the class, one should be able to have a RAW Good Assassin.

Xiander
2012-09-03, 02:23 AM
Nope. The only restrictions placed upon violence are....

1) You must have just cause. (usually amounts to the victim merits the violence).

2) The attack must have good intentions (if you're attacking them to mug them, it's still non-Good even if you're mugging an Evil being).

3) Violence cannot be directed against noncombatants.

4) The means of violence must be reasonable. The only specifics called out here are no Torture, no [Evil] spells, nothing that inflicts "undue suffering".

BoED p9-10

What's the problem, again? :smallconfused:

Assassination and Murder actually are different things in 3.5, by the by. Murder is the killing of intelligent beings for the sake of nefarious purpose (calls out stuff like Theft & Perverse Pleasure kills as Murder). "...Killing an Evil creature to stop it from doing harm is not an Evil Act." (Book of Vile Darkness p7).

By RAW, Assassins are Evil because they're required to be. But with the "Murder someone to join" and "Always Evil" features of the class, one should be able to have a RAW Good Assassin.

Surely you mean without?

Also, i believe those a the criterion for doing violence as a good action, am i right?

I think it seems an important distinction, even if I agree with your conclusion.

Morithias
2012-09-03, 02:52 AM
Surely you mean without?

Also, i believe those a the criterion for doing violence as a good action, am i right?

I think it seems an important distinction, even if I agree with your conclusion.

I don't see why killing someone to join is such a big deal.

"This crime lord is oppressing businesses and selling people into slavery. Kill him without getting caught and without your paycheck and you can join."

I can see why it would stop people. It's without pay. It keeps people who are joining just for the money from joining.

Jack of Spades
2012-09-03, 04:29 AM
Always evil.

You are in a dungeon, deep within it, you are the last of your party. Everyone but you is dead, and you can't leave the dungeon because it's more than a day to the closest town.

And a high level mage is in the process of casting "Apocalypse from the sky" at caster level 20.

For those of you who don't know, that spell does 10d6 damage to everything in a 10 mile radius per caster level. Hundreds of thousands will die if this spell goes off.

You found a magic dagger that despite you not having any assassin levels will 1/day allow you to use death attack as if you were a level 10 assassin. You have the dark template and there is no sunlight in this dungeon. It looks like your only hope to stop the magic is to sneak into the main room, and Death attack him. He has too many soldiers to take head on.

Is Assassinating him evil? It will save Hundreds of Thousands of people, and this guy is not just evil, he is casting a CORRUPT SPELL. He is VILE TO THE CORE. If you do not death attack him all the innocent WILL DIE. Including tons of children.

If you still say assassinating him is evil, I can safely say the conversation is done, because at that point as far as I'm concerned I might as well be trying to convince you that the sun is made of cotton candy. We're not going to get ANYWHERE.
Welcome to the internet, friend. This conversation hasn't gone anywhere yet, and won't be moving much further. Deontological ethics (the model on which DnD runs, as has been said) holds that murder is murder is murder. No context. No consequences. You choose to kill the guy? Go ahead. But know that it wasn't a Good action to do so. Deontological does not hold anyone responsible for what they didn't do, only what they have done. It doesn't care who is being acted upon, only who is acting. Is that harsh? Yeah. Unnecessarily so? Not for me to say, I suck at discussing ethics. What I am good at is defining things. So there you go. Deontological ethics are weird, but they're also RAW. Figure out for yourself the importance of RAW in your games.

Noteworthy: Assassin's death attack can also incapacitate. Which would also solve the above problem, non-lethally.

I don't see why killing someone to join is such a big deal.

"This crime lord is oppressing businesses and selling people into slavery. Kill him without getting caught and without your paycheck and you can join."

I can see why it would stop people. It's without pay. It keeps people who are joining just for the money from joining.

Except, the Good assassin is killing the guy because he's an oppressive, slaving crime lord. The requirement is definitely referring more to "Find and kill John Baker, son of Samuel, in the town of Mardenhorn. You will be given no further help or information by any of our order." If he happens to be a crime lord, that's dandy. But you need to kill him if he's a nine-year-old prophet of Pelor, too.

Morithias
2012-09-03, 04:41 AM
Except, the Good assassin is killing the guy because he's an oppressive, slaving crime lord. The requirement is definitely referring more to "Find and kill John Baker, son of Samuel, in the town of Mardenhorn. You will be given no further help or information by any of our order." If he happens to be a crime lord, that's dandy. But you need to kill him if he's a nine-year-old prophet of Pelor, too.

One could easily counter that that the evil assassin gets the pleasure of killing him out of the deal which counters the "no other reason" clause RAW.

I think I'm out of this convo. I'm tired of arguing this. I might pop back in if someone says something I consider really stupid, but unless that happens I'm gone for now. (Famous last words)

Forum Explorer
2012-09-03, 05:10 AM
Except, the Good assassin is killing the guy because he's an oppressive, slaving crime lord. The requirement is definitely referring more to "Find and kill John Baker, son of Samuel, in the town of Mardenhorn. You will be given no further help or information by any of our order." If he happens to be a crime lord, that's dandy. But you need to kill him if he's a nine-year-old prophet of Pelor, too.

Sure. You can handle this though in taking the mission on faith. You are told to kill this individual no questions asked to get in. As a test of how much you trust the organization. You assume they've done wrong for why else would your superiors who you know to be good order their death?

Menteith
2012-09-03, 12:00 PM
Deontological ethics (the model on which DnD runs, as has been said) holds that murder is murder is murder. No context. No consequences. You choose to kill the guy? Go ahead. But know that it wasn't a Good action to do so.

Incorrect. Murder is clearly defined in Book of Vile Darkness, page 7. Murder is defined as "The killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, and the like." It continues, and differentiates between premeditated killing and murder, and outright states that they're not the same thing; "In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing harm is not an evil act. Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil (though it's not a good act) because it stops the creature's predations on the innocent."

You can premeditate killing someone and have it be a good act, because it's not murder (as defined within the game).


Deontological does not hold anyone responsible for what they didn't do, only what they have done. It doesn't care who is being acted upon, only who is acting. Is that harsh? Yeah. Unnecessarily so? Not for me to say, I suck at discussing ethics. What I am good at is defining things. So there you go. Deontological ethics are weird, but they're also RAW. Figure out for yourself the importance of RAW in your games.

Also incorrect, as a cursory examination of BoED and BoVD shows. I can provide additional quotes if you'd like, but the books clearly show that an action's alignment is based on both the actor and victim.


Except, the Good assassin is killing the guy because he's an oppressive, slaving crime lord. The requirement is definitely referring more to "Find and kill John Baker, son of Samuel, in the town of Mardenhorn. You will be given no further help or information by any of our order." If he happens to be a crime lord, that's dandy. But you need to kill him if he's a nine-year-old prophet of Pelor, too.

Do you have a source for this, or is this purely speculation? The only requirement is that "The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." The nature of the killing could be specified in any way that would be appropriate for that specific organization of assassins. It could require them to run out and kill the first thing that they see, or it could require them to kill an evil warlord to protect the innocent before they can join. Both fall under the umbrella of the requirement.

hamishspence
2012-09-03, 01:01 PM
Incorrect. Murder is clearly defined in Book of Vile Darkness, page 7. Murder is defined as "The killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, and the like." It continues, and differentiates between premeditated killing and murder, and outright states that they're not the same thing; "In a fantasy world based on an objective definition of evil, killing an evil creature to stop it from doing harm is not an evil act. Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil (though it's not a good act) because it stops the creature's predations on the innocent."

It must be stated that the book goes on to say "Such a justification is only valid for creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil (such as chromatic dragons.)"

Conversely, in the real world- murder is not automatically premeditated. There is second degree murder- which does not require premeditation.

The only requirement is that "The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins." The nature of the killing could be specified in any way that would be appropriate for that specific organization of assassins.

The "for no other reason" implies that the character is unaware of any other factors that would make the killing "justifiable"- otherwise those factors would qualify as a "reason".

Menteith
2012-09-03, 01:41 PM
It must be stated that the book goes on to say "Such a justification is only valid for creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil (such as chromatic dragons.)"

I believe that the clause you've quoted refers only to the second portion of my quote (killing a creature purely for personal gain is non-Evil only if the creature is irredeemably evil). My primary point is that Murder is clearly defined, and that all killing is not murder, and that killing is not an inherently evil act in the objective morality system D&D uses.


The "for no other reason" implies that the character is unaware of any other factors that would make the killing "justifiable"- otherwise those factors would qualify as a "reason".

That's an interpretation of the requirement. It's also possible that the statement refers to an order of assassins who give a specific "target" to an initiate to test their worth, or that the statement simply requires the person to have killed a being in the line of duty (such as the 007 status in James Bond). I see the statement as having multiple interpretations, which makes it possible (I'm not saying that it has to be, only that the possibility exists) that even that requirement could be a good act.

Knaight
2012-09-03, 02:05 PM
Assassination is the specific premeditated killing of an individual, and it's always evil, even if it's for a good cause. Assassinating the most evil person in the world is still, at its core, [Evil].
This would be one of the areas where D&D morality gets stupid. Take an aggressive, militaristic dictator who routinely massacres their own people and who can't be displaced prior to their death without massive foreign invasion. The sort of person who will orchestrate a war in which millions of people die in battle and from disease. How is assassination wrong in this case? How is open warfare, which will inevitably kill millions somehow better.

hamishspence
2012-09-03, 02:17 PM
My primary point is that Murder is clearly defined, and that all killing is not murder, and that killing is not an inherently evil act in the objective morality system D&D uses.

Not that clearly. "Nefarious motive" is pretty open ended. A mind flayer kills humans in order to stay alive (since it dies if it doesn't devour the living brains of intelligent creatures regularly)- does "survival" qualify?

And "to stop it from doing further harm" is a bit grey as well. How much harm justifies killing? If all you know is that the being is evil-aligned- can you kill it based on the "it will do harm in future- because it's Evil" justification- or does it take more than that?

A paladin walks into a room full of people- casts Detect Evil- some of them ping- he promptly attacks them. Is he a murderer for killing them solely for "being evil" without any evidence of specific wrongdoing?

Eberron Campaign Setting is the most emphatic about "just because someone's Evil-aligned doesn't mean they deserve to be attacked by adventurers" but Heroes of Horror also makes the point that being evil-aligned is not, in itself, a crime- and that paladins and the like who attack people solely for being evil can expect to see the wrong side of a jail door pretty quickly.

Menteith
2012-09-03, 03:05 PM
Not that clearly. "Nefarious motive" is pretty open ended. A mind flayer kills humans in order to stay alive (since it dies if it doesn't devour the living brains of intelligent creatures regularly)- does "survival" qualify?

Survival qualifies. I believe that Mind Flayers are typically evil for reasons other than their diet (which can be resolved with something as simple as a Ring of Sustenance), the same way that Vampires are evil for reasons other than their diet. Both can be non-evil creatures even with their restricted food sources.


And "to stop it from doing further harm" is a bit grey as well. How much harm justifies killing? If all you know is that the being is evil-aligned- can you kill it based on the "it will do harm in future- because it's Evil" justification- or does it take more than that?

It's not a quantitative statement. If one believes that the only way to stop further harm to innocents is to kill a creature, then one is acting with good intentions (one of the criteria for good violence). The other criteria must also be met, but sincere belief is enough to meet the "good intent" criteria. Evil alignment is specifically called out in Book of Exalted Deeds as being insufficient justification for violence, though Book of Vile Darkness calls out specific creatures (Chromatic Dragons and Fiends if I remember correctly) as viable targets for violence by default.


A paladin walks into a room full of people- casts Detect Evil- some of them ping- he promptly attacks them. Is he a murderer for killing them solely for "being evil" without any evidence of specific wrongdoing?

Yes, that would be murder. By RAW, unless one falls under the specific creatures called out in Book of Vile Darkness, one needs to have appropriate justification for violence. Being evil itself it not sufficient justification (specified by Book of Exalted Deeds). Disproportionate retribution is also non-Good violence.

I'm not sure how this relates toward a non-Evil Assassin. I'll summarize my point here;

Provided the "Evil" requirement on the Assassin Prestige Class is waived, it is possible to create a non-Evil Assassin. The requirement to kill an individual to join the assassins may be a non-Evil act; for example, requiring an applicant to show their dedication by killing a mass murderer. I believe this is a reasonable interpretation of the requirement. There are class features which are explicitly Evil, but so long as one does not use those class features (primarily casting Evil spells and using Poisons) one can use the class without any Evil acts by RAW.

As I personally don't run straight RAW with regard to alignment, I feel that a non-Evil assassin is reasonable. Poison is no more or less evil than putting a dagger through someone's throat, and I believe that casting an Evil spell for a Good purpose is a Good act, rather than a neutral or evil one.

Kyberwulf
2012-09-03, 03:48 PM
Might I add something into this debate?
Why does one action make you Evil? Yes the act of killing something in order to join is not a good thing. However, it is only One action in a Lifetime. The Assassin could do other things to mitigate the damage to his alignment. He could take contracts on the side of his life as an adventurer. He could roam the countryside with his fellow band of merry men. Killing dragons, saving damsels, toppling mad scientist...er.. evil wizards.

Every now and then he could take some contracts on the side. He has discretion on which ones to take. How often he wants to take them.

Now does the few actions of evil weigh him down to evil for the rest of his life, when measured against all the good he does as well? He could routinely do good, genuinely from the bottom of his heart, do good.

On a side note, it kind bothers me that people say that an Assassin's skill set is only good for murder. It is also good for Stealth, Infiltration, and Scouting.

Water_Bear
2012-09-03, 04:19 PM
Might I add something into this debate?
Why does one action make you Evil? Yes the act of killing something in order to join is not a good thing. However, it is only One action in a Lifetime.

Alignment is about a pattern of behavior, and choosing to receive training in methods which can only result in Evil actions (Death Attack, Poison Use) and ones which are merely difficult to use in a non-Evil manner (casting from a spell list with a focus of [Evil] spells) is strongly indicative of an Evil alignment.

Though, after hearing some points people have made, I'm leaning towards Assassin should be a non-Good as opposed to Evil-only Prestige Class. It is very similar to the Dread Necromancer or a Cleric of an Evil god; their abilities are overwhelmingly Evil but can be used for neutral effect with effort. If a Dread Necromancer or Cleric of Hextor can be Neutral, I don't see why an Assassin couldn't.


On a side note, it kind bothers me that people say that an Assassin's skill set is only good for murder. It is also good for Stealth, Infiltration, and Scouting.

Some people here have said that the Assassin is only good at killing people, which as you point out isn't true, but the point people are making is that the class is geared towards actions which are explicitly called out as Evil in multiple alignment-related books (most notably BoED/BoVD).

VanBuren
2012-09-03, 04:44 PM
This would be one of the areas where D&D morality gets stupid. Take an aggressive, militaristic dictator who routinely massacres their own people and who can't be displaced prior to their death without massive foreign invasion. The sort of person who will orchestrate a war in which millions of people die in battle and from disease. How is assassination wrong in this case? How is open warfare, which will inevitably kill millions somehow better.

Because these aren't consequentialist ethics? An act that is good can have bad consequences and an evil act can have good consequences. But regardless of the consequences or whether or not an act is necessary, a given act can still be a bad one.

That's one of the assumptions of the tragic moral choice: a situation in which any act is a bad one.

Kyberwulf
2012-09-03, 06:38 PM
I contend that Death Attack(Despite its name) and poisons, don't have to be inherently evil. You could use Death attacks to Paralize your victim...did I say victim, I meant target.
Also you could use sleeping posions and other non-lethal poisons to incapacitate your ..er..targets.
You don't have to use your abilities for their intended RAW purpose.

Albeit not your Assassination Target, that is probably going to have to be lethal.

I am of the school of thought, that Assassins may never really be good. As they do indeed take money for killing people.(As per the discription of the class, not the defined discription of the dictionary.) They however don't have to be Inherently evil.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-09-03, 10:08 PM
Except, the Good assassin is killing the guy because he's an oppressive, slaving crime lord. The requirement is definitely referring more to "Find and kill John Baker, son of Samuel, in the town of Mardenhorn. You will be given no further help or information by any of our order." If he happens to be a crime lord, that's dandy. But you need to kill him if he's a nine-year-old prophet of Pelor, too.

While this is true at face value, following orders without question is a hallmark of law, not evil.

A would be assassin that doesn't do the legwork of finding out who his target is; following his daily routines, learning who his associates are, learning what he can about the target's personality, finding ways to get close to him then choosing the best one; is likely going to be a rather poor assassin once he's in the class.

Given the above, after determining that John Baker is in fact a pelorite prophet, he has several options. Either A) quit the job and find a different assassins' guild to apply to, B) Approach John Baker with the information that he's been targetted for assassination and help him fake his death and move to a different area, C) complete the job and atone for it later, perhaps by arranging John's revivication at a later date.

Any of these three options, and probably more that I haven't thought of, would allow a would be assassin of a morally neutral alignment to either avoid taking an evil action or mitigate the evil he's done to join the guild without becoming an evil character.

TuggyNE
2012-09-03, 10:45 PM
Though, after hearing some points people have made, I'm leaning towards Assassin should be a non-Good as opposed to Evil-only Prestige Class. It is very similar to the Dread Necromancer or a Cleric of an Evil god; their abilities are overwhelmingly Evil but can be used for neutral effect with effort. If a Dread Necromancer or Cleric of Hextor can be Neutral, I don't see why an Assassin couldn't.

Yeah, I think this would probably be a suitable compromise.

Menteith
2012-09-03, 11:12 PM
To be honest, I feel like almost every class (with Alignment Restrictions removed) could theoretically be any alignment. I've run a Soul Eater who ended up Neutral Good at the end of the campaign. I generally run pretty light with regard to alignment restrictions, and I do not believe that classes are in game constructs (i.e., I don't think that the Assassin PrC is inherently any more "Assassin-y" than a Factotum with well chosen feats/skills). It might clarify my position if you know where I'm coming from.

The Assassin class only has two things that come close to requiring evil acts by RAW; Poison Use and spells. Both of them can easily be used in non-evil ways (using knockout/nonlethal Poisons and not selecting any [Evil] spell). The mechanics of the class are about as relevant to alignment as a Ranger's mechanics (or other "Sneaky" class that can use underhanded tactics) - not aligned either way.

The biggest sticking point is the unique requirement on the class, and how it's handled is pretty important to the discussion. I can envision situations that would lead to the unique requirement being a good action (the justified & intentional killing of an irredeemably evil creature). While there certainly are other interpretations of this requirement, I do not feel that my interpretation (or any other non-evil/good interpretation) is unreasonable.

I do not believe that the mechanics of the class are inherently evil (stuff like Death Attack/Sneak Attack isn't inherently evil by RAW, and the spells/Poison Use are abilities that can be used in neutral/good ways). I do not believe that the requirement to kill someone to become an Assassin has to be evil (though it certainly could be). Thus, I do not believe that Assassins are inherently tied to or barred from any alignment due solely to their mechanics.

BootStrapTommy
2012-09-04, 12:26 AM
To be honest, I feel like almost every class (with Alignment Restrictions removed) could theoretically be any alignment. I've run a Soul Eater who ended up Neutral Good at the end of the campaign. I generally run pretty light with regard to alignment restrictions, and I do not believe that classes are in game constructs (i.e., I don't think that the Assassin PrC is inherently any more "Assassin-y" than a Factotum with well chosen feats/skills). It might clarify my position if you know where I'm coming from.

The Assassin class only has two things that come close to requiring evil acts by RAW; Poison Use and spells. Both of them can easily be used in non-evil ways (using knockout/nonlethal Poisons and not selecting any [Evil] spell). The mechanics of the class are about as relevant to alignment as a Ranger's mechanics (or other "Sneaky" class that can use underhanded tactics) - not aligned either way.

The biggest sticking point is the unique requirement on the class, and how it's handled is pretty important to the discussion. I can envision situations that would lead to the unique requirement being a good action (the justified & intentional killing of an irredeemably evil creature). While there certainly are other interpretations of this requirement, I do not feel that my interpretation (or any other non-evil/good interpretation) is unreasonable.

I do not believe that the mechanics of the class are inherently evil (stuff like Death Attack/Sneak Attack isn't inherently evil by RAW, and the spells/Poison Use are abilities that can be used in neutral/good ways). I do not believe that the requirement to kill someone to become an Assassin has to be evil (though it certainly could be). Thus, I do not believe that Assassins are inherently tied to or barred from any alignment due solely to their mechanics.

This is beautiful. You put it better than I could ever hope to. Nothing in the way an Assassin plays is inherently evil, and those that might are not different than that of a cleric. A good cleric chooses not to use those spells which are evil, just as an Assassin can not use its [Evil] spells and not use Poison or only use Poisons which do not kill. Likewise an Assassin can use the Paralysis effect possible on Death attack to temporarily disable non-target opponents in order to not kill any one but the target. Then, assuming they are killing an Evil person with a Good motivation, they are no more restricted in their alignment than a Rogue or a Ranger who uses stealth.

The Random NPC
2012-09-04, 05:30 AM
This is beautiful. You put it better than I could ever hope to. Nothing in the way an Assassin plays is inherently evil, and those that might are not different than that of a cleric. A good cleric chooses not to use those spells which are evil, just as an Assassin can not use its [Evil] spells and not use Poison or only use Poisons which do not kill. Likewise an Assassin can use the Paralysis effect possible on Death attack to temporarily disable non-target opponents in order to not kill any one but the target. Then, assuming they are killing an Evil person with a Good motivation, they are no more restricted in their alignment than a Rogue or a Ranger who uses stealth.

IIRC, a cleric can't use spells opposed to his alignment, but yes, Assassins aren't necessarily evil.

Templarkommando
2012-09-06, 11:53 PM
Maybe this has been said in the pages that I haven't gotten around to reading yet, but it occurs to me that this has a lot to do with the division of a character archetype and a class.

For example a character could be a warrior closely aligned with a deity and fight for truth, justice and the American way and not be a Paladin. One of my stock characters has precisely that outlook, but is a Fighter.

In a similar way, it occurs to me that the assassin prestige class refers to a particular type of assassin (one of the evil persuasion) whereas there exist certain assassins that haven't taken the DMG prestige class and actually fight for a particular good-related cause.

For me the big problem with the assassin class has less to do with the class and more to do with the class's abilities. Poison use doesn't strike me as being particularly evil. At least not any more evil than any of the other methods of death used in D&D. Incidentally when I DM, poison his house-ruled as being available to all alignments.

TuggyNE
2012-09-07, 01:32 AM
For example a character could be a warrior closely aligned with a deity and fight for truth, justice and the American way and not be a Paladin. One of my stock characters has precisely that outlook, but is a Fighter.

In a similar way, it occurs to me that the assassin prestige class refers to a particular type of assassin (one of the evil persuasion) whereas there exist certain assassins that haven't taken the DMG prestige class and actually fight for a particular good-related cause.

I think it's been said, but it certainly bears repeating.


Poison use doesn't strike me as being particularly evil. At least not any more evil than any of the other methods of death used in D&D. Incidentally when I DM, poison his house-ruled as being available to all alignments.

I'd say you're right; there's no real sense in poison use being evil, only Neutral.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-09-07, 01:48 AM
:sigh:

"Poison use is evil," is a blanket statement that is a derivative of the actual rules and isn't always true.

The actual rule put foward by RAW is (paraphrased) "Using poison that causes ability damage is evil if it's not a natural ability of the character using it."

If you have a poison bite, poisoning your enemies with your bite isn't evil. If you put knockout poison on your blade it isn't evil. If you use that poison that lowers spell resistance on your crossbow bolts it's not evil.

Btw, here's something to consider about the excessive suffering caused by poison that doesn't apply to hp damage.

The problem lies in the assumption that the enemy will be killed by the poison, only a handful of all the available poisons cause con damage, or immediately after being poisoned.

Suppose you poison an enemy, that either goes on to kill you anyway, escapes, or survives because reinforcements drive you away. If he failed the initial fort save, he's already been partially crippled, and will take several days to recover his full ability. He also has to make another fort save in the near future if he hasn't already and may be further crippled, paralyzed, or even rendered comatose. He won't be back to his normal self for days, perhaps even as long as a week or more, barring magical healing which may or may not be available.

All this is assuming that if he was rendered helpless for an entire day, he wasn't left so in the wilderness where he'd be exposed to the elements, and any scavengers that might think he looks tastey, which could amount to a slow aggonizing death from exposure to extremes of weather, or being eaten alive by a scavenger that thought he was dead.

HP damage doesn't do any of that. A character rendered unconcious by HP loss will almost certainly die within a minute, unless he recieves immediate attention or has uncanny luck.

In the case of him simply having uncannily bad luck he could end up starving in the wilderness, being eaten alive, or being exposed to extreme weather, but that's because of sheer dumb luck (made the stablization check, then failed the fort saves to avoid exposure, starvation, or even simply the check to regain conciousness) not because you intentionally and knowingly doomed him to days of being crippled or perhaps a lingering death.

If he survived through the battle without be dropped below zero HP, the HP damage won't impede his ability to do anything except survive further attacks.


Before anybody tires to counter with, "what about ravages," consider that they are A)magical in nature, which means they're already playing by a different section of the rules, B) affect creatures normally immune to poison, which differentiates them further still, and C) work only on evil characters, when BoED and BoVD both give leeway to pre-emptive strikes.

Mind, that's pre-emptive strike, not provocation. You're supposed to have a legitimate reason to harm the creature before you use any kind of attack agaisnt it, ravage, poison, sword, spell or other.

The same logic follows for disease and afflictions. Disease is damning a character to perhaps months of ongoing ability damage and/or a very lingering death, while you need a spell and a valid target, that you're supposed to have already properly vetted, to even use afflictions.

As long as you told the villian what the affliction was when you hit him, or he killed you before you had the chance, he's responsible for anyone he spreads it to, and he can cure himself by changeing his alignment and ceasing to be a valid target for the affliction.

Wightsbane
2012-09-07, 07:45 AM
In a similar way, it occurs to me that the assassin prestige class refers to a particular type of assassin (one of the evil persuasion) whereas there exist certain assassins that haven't taken the DMG prestige class and actually fight for a particular good-related cause.

Yeah, like maybe Uppercase-A-Assassins are the evil ones who took the Prestige Class, lowercase-a-assassins are just sneaky killers whose Class is probably something like Rogue or Ranger?

hewhosaysfish
2012-09-07, 09:09 AM
Yeah, like maybe Uppercase-A-Assassins are the evil ones who took the Prestige Class, lowercase-a-assassins are just sneaky killers whose Class is probably something like Rogue or Ranger?

I can't help but think that if the Assassin class in the DMG was called the "OminousName Guild Assassin" instead and had a bit of fluff with it about the what the OminousName Guild is and how it operates then this argument would never happen (as opposed to repeatedly popping up every month or two).

But no, it got the generic name "Assassin" so anyone who you want to describe as an "assassin" must apparently have levels in this PrC (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html). And anyone who has this PrC needs to be Evil and "kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins". Just who the heck are "the assassins"? How do they maintain a monopoly on assassination across the entire world? Or are there multiple separate organisations of assassins which nevertheless all have the same entry requirements?

Kelb_Panthera
2012-09-07, 09:21 AM
What heyhosaysfish said sums this up nicely. If the class were tied to a specific assassins guild, noone would have a problem with the evil-only requirement, but it wasn't.

Since it was left generic, it should be generic.

Not allowing it for non-evil characters robs fully a third of the people that would like to be able to make a save-or-die attack, simply on principle, of that opportunity.

I do believe there was another class or two that got death attack printed somewhere else, but they had a fair amount of fluff tied to them and alignment restrictions of their own.

Where is generic death-attack granting class? Why should evil generic assassins have such a noteable advantage over non-evil ones?

The Random NPC
2012-09-07, 10:00 AM
I can't help but think that if the Assassin class in the DMG was called the "OminousName Guild Assassin" instead and had a bit of fluff with it about the what the OminousName Guild is and how it operates then this argument would never happen (as opposed to repeatedly popping up every month or two).

But no, it got the generic name "Assassin" so anyone who you want to describe as an "assassin" must apparently have levels in this PrC (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html). And anyone who has this PrC needs to be Evil and "kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins". Just who the heck are "the assassins"? How do they maintain a monopoly on assassination across the entire world? Or are there multiple separate organisations of assassins which nevertheless all have the same entry requirements?

These arguments would still pop up, (admittedly much less frequently) but they would be saying something like if I got rid of the Guild requirements, would the class still be Evil?

hamishspence
2012-09-07, 11:18 AM
Yeah, like maybe Uppercase-A-Assassins are the evil ones who took the Prestige Class, lowercase-a-assassins are just sneaky killers whose Class is probably something like Rogue or Ranger?

That was something like how it was in the 1st/2nd ed Forgotten Realms changover- Assassins were worshippers of Bhaal, god of murder (and got killed off during the Time of Troubles)- the lowercase-a assassin Artemis Entreri survived this because, in the words of R. A. Salvatore "he's not an Assassin- he's a fighter/rogue that kills for money".