Assassins? Evil?

[Geddoe]

It's kind of silly.

So, You have an evil tyrant who is going around opressing and murdering. It's good to break down his door, slaughter his guards, cause massive property damage, and then kill him. But It's evil to slip into his room and stab him in his sleep, ending the evil with only one death rather than hundreds, or poison the drink he always has before bed.
No, it isn't evil to slip in and stab him in his sleep(though it is a little dishonorable) if he has shown he is unwilling to change and willing to hurt others in the future. An Assassin is not the only class that can assassinate somebody, a rogue could do that just as well(or better than) as the Assassin class, since the Death Attack DC is going to be a pittance next to the coup de grace save with sneak attack damage. The Assassin PrC is a member of guild of assassins who(try to) assassinate anybody for the right price. They don't care if the target is Lord Darktalon the Blackguard or Lady Grace the Paladin noble.

Also the difference between an adventurer/mercenary/soldier and assassin is that the assassin is paid to kill, while the others are paid to fight. While there is some obvious overlap in the two tasks, there is a difference. That is not to say that some mercenaries/adventurers/soldiers don't just view it as chance to get paid to kill(which makes them evil), but many would be willing to accept an offer of surrender and take prisoners. The assassin would not accept the white flag or offer of surrender.

[Yukitsu]

It is not the act of assassination that makes you evil, it is your ability to perform such an act with no remorse.

Why can't they have remorse about it? Why should they be remorseful, if the individual sufficiently deserves it/is a sufficient threat that it would be better were it to happen, any more than an individual that uses honourable combat?

[hamishspence]

Evil guys can be remorseful. But if remorse doesn't stop them doing evil acts, they've still evil: a Bad Guy With Tormenting Conscience.

EDIT: I tend to go with- alignment is based on actions, but, aside from actions, the motives and attitudes of a character can be as complex as you like.

I like the Chaotic society phrase "They maintain structure through chaos"

[Yukitsu]

Evil guys can be remorseful. But if remorse doesn't stop them doing evil acts, they've still evil: a Bad Guy With Tormenting Conscience.

However, it's only an evil act in this case, because the person being hit doesn't see it coming. That's pretty much the only difference between an assassination knifing an aristocrat in the dark, and a paladin lopping off his head in a severely one sided combat.

[BRC]

Why can't they have remorse about it? Why should they be remorseful, if the individual sufficiently deserves it/is a sufficient threat that it would be better were it to happen, any more than an individual that uses honourable combat?
Well, the way I see it, the defining feature of the Assassin is the Death Attack, a few rounds of carefully studying a foe before attacking. During this study, they must be totally focused, if they feel even the tiniest ping of remorse, the tinest hesitation, the little voice that says "Killing is wrong", you can't do it. Oh, you can still kill them, but you can't do it with the cold calculation that a death attack requires. Its the difference between "Hurting them until they are dead" and "Killing them".

[Yukitsu]

Well, the way I see it, the defining feature of the Assassin is the Death Attack, a few rounds of carefully studying a foe before attacking. During this study, they must be totally focused, if they feel even the tiniest ping of remorse, the tinest hesitation, the little voice that says "Killing is wrong", you can't do it. Oh, you can still kill them, but you can't do it with the cold calculation that a death attack requires. Its the difference between "Hurting them until they are dead" and "Killing them".

Coincidently, dark stalkers are non-evil entities that have death attack, so I doubt that there is any real indication that something like remorse ruining death attacks existant within the rules.

[hamishspence]

This thread is actually very informative and civil. I'm rather enjoying the discussion- hope it stays that way.

"Just Cause" is one of the favorite terms in BoED.

Depending on your view, an non-evil assassin using assassin skill set- like the Slayer, who has a death attack of sorts, might be an executioner who carries out the sentences of those sentenced to death in their absence- evil warlord at head of invading army, traitor who has fled coutry and is now aiding and abetting enemies, etc.

The execution is illegal in the country its being carried out in, but not the country thats handing down the sentences.

[Yukitsu]

EDIT: I tend to go with- alignment is based on actions, but, aside from actions, the motives and attitudes of a character can be as complex as you like.

OK, so if I randomly fire my doomsday machine into the planes, and hit celestia, I'm evil, but if I hit the nine hells, I'm good. It doesn't matter what I intended, what I was trying to do, or anything such as that. All that matters in this case, is that I did something, and that it has an effect. Since it's random, my alignment is randomly determined, according to you. Alternatively, a button could be labelled "Press for fresh cookies" but would actually launch a god slaying nuke into ellysium. According to you, I'd be evil, despite a lack of intent, knowledge, or anything related to that. I don't buy that.

[hamishspence]

Randomly firing the machine at all is pretty dubious. intent is certainly relevant- can make the difference between murder and manslaughter (see Vile Darkness) but its not the only deciding factor.

Its like- shooting into crowd of mixed bad guys and hostages- you hit a hostage. Not murder, butmight be negligence.

EDIT: also, reasonable foreseeability may come into play. Saving child who grows up to become Villain, isn't evil, cos its villain that commits acts, not you, and you couldn't reasonably foresee future events.

[SadisticFishing]

To answer the question "why do you have to be Evil"?

Because the book says so. A lawful bard can't cast bard spells. A lawful barbarian can't rage. A chaotic neutral paladin isn't even a paladin anymore.

Assassin is the same.

"What if NOT all assassin's guilds are evil?"

Then they aren't Assassins, they're assassins. Once again, they defined their terms. You're trying to redefine them, and you are wrong.

Play how you will though, removing the restriction makes sense.

[Deepblue706]

OK, so if I randomly fire my doomsday machine into the planes, and hit celestia, I'm evil, but if I hit the nine hells, I'm good. It doesn't matter what I intended, what I was trying to do, or anything such as that. All that matters in this case, is that I did something, and that it has an effect. Since it's random, my alignment is randomly determined, according to you. Alternatively, a button could be labelled "Press for fresh cookies" but would actually launch a god slaying nuke into ellysium. According to you, I'd be evil, despite a lack of intent, knowledge, or anything related to that. I don't buy that.

If you followed the beliefs of Bentham or Mill, you might.

[Yukitsu]

Randomly firing the machine at all is pretty dubious. intent is certainly relevant- can make the difference between murder and manslaughter (see Vile Darkness) but its not the only deciding factor.

Its like- shooting into crowd of mixed bad guys and hostages- you hit a hostage. Not murder, butmight be negligence.

In the latter case, however, I don't even know that I have a gun, that bod guys or hostages exist, or that the trigger does anything other than give me a warm cookie. How can I be morally (not legally) responsible for pulling the trigger and killing a hostage, when all I wanted was a cookie?

[Yukitsu]

To answer the question "why do you have to be Evil"?

Because the book says so. A lawful bard can't cast bard spells. A lawful barbarian can't rage. A chaotic neutral paladin isn't even a paladin anymore.

Assassin is the same.

"What if NOT all assassin's guilds are evil?"

Then they are Assassins, they're assassins. Once again, they defined their terms. You're trying to redefine them, and you are wrong.

Play how you will though, removing the restriction makes sense.

The entire argument is over the reasoning that that is a rule. Stating that it is the rule because it's in the rules is rather inane, and is also circular reasoning. In general, I'm just going to ignore you when you start using that form of reasoning again, because it is directly and formally invalid.

[hamishspence]

Comes under Not Reasonably Foreseeable. Vile darkness goes into some detail on intent, negligence, information, etc.

It does use dubious examples though, later refuted in BoED- poisoning village cos somebody convinced you everyone in it is Evil- Evil by BoED, since indiscriminate killing is evil.

EDIT:
Understanding Rationale behind WoTC decisions can be tricky.

[The Rose Dragon]

A lawful bard can't cast bard spells.

Oh, gods.

At least if you're going to cite the rules to support your circular reasoning, cite them right.

A lawful bard can cast bard spells. He can use bardic music. He just can't advance anymore in the class.

Which is also silly and baseless.

[Fax Celestis]

A death attack however, requires cold calculation, you cannot mentally escape the full gravity of what you are doing, so you either can't do it, or you don't care.

Eighteen seconds is ample time for the kind of thought you're discussing? I'm surprised.

[SadisticFishing]

The entire argument is over the reasoning that that is a rule. Stating that it is the rule because it's in the rules is rather inane, and is also circular reasoning. In general, I'm just going to ignore you when you start using that form of reasoning again, because it is directly and formally invalid.

No. 3.5 D&D. The rule says so because Assassins are evil. As a concept, accepting money to kill anyone is evil. Assassin is that concept. Hence, Assassins are evil.

Bards have to be non-Lawful. Why, other than the rules? There is no reason. The rules are where these discussions begin and end, and in this particular case, I believe them to be completely logical.

Your reasoning is faulty. They defined Assassin. So their definition is automatically right, as they make the definitions in their game.

Oh, and that gun isn't going to give you a cookie and you know it as well as I. That is a completely meaningless argument.

To sum up:

Killing for money is Evil.
Assassins kill for money.
Ergo, Assassins are Evil.

[hamishspence]

and gets fixed (partially) in Complete Adventurer with feats that allow them to continue advancing (and multiclass as paladin)

EDIT:
the question, why are assassins evil?, can indeed be answered with- becauses WOTC (and TSR before them) chose to make them so. But that raises new question- what made TSR make that decision in the first place?

(they existed in 2nd ed)

[Yukitsu]

Your reasoning is faulty. They defined Assassin. So their definition is automatically right, as they make the definitions in their game.

Keep on this for a bit.


Oh, and that gun isn't going to give you a cookie and you know it as well as I. That is a completely meaningless argument.

The initial example was a button attached to a device. Hamish sent me another example, and I mixed them together.


To sum up:

Killing for money is Evil.
PCs kill for money.
Ergo, PCs are Evil.

Fixed.

[RPGuru1331]

In this case, nothing, they could live their entire life doing nothing evil, however, for such a person it would be because their goals happened to coincide with good.
Lets say there is an assassin named Frank. Frank lives in a nation that is being oppressed by a despotic mage-king named Evilguy. So Frank slips into Evilguys castle and kills him, ending his despotic reign and leading to the ascension of the popular, wise and noble King Niceguy. A few years later, an army led by the evil warlord Bloodskull is leading his horde against Frank's nation. Niceguy's armies don't stand a chance while Bloodskull is leading his horde, so Frank sneaks into Bloodskulls camp and assassinates him, saving the kingdom.

Now, Frank seems nice so far, but he could very well be evil. If, lets say, Niceguy Decides that in order to protect his kingdom, he's going to need some more money, so he raises the taxes a little, better to pay a little more now than have a horde of orcs kill you and take all your stuff in a few years. Frank however, doesn't like this new tax. Now, if Frank has levels in the Assassin class, then he could sneak into Niceguy's castle and kill him. The Assassin's class features like a death attack require Frank to have little or no respect for life, even a sneak attack can happen fast and with little enough thought that you can do it without really comprehending that you are ending a life. A death attack however, requires cold calculation, you cannot mentally escape the full gravity of what you are doing, so you either can't do it, or you don't care. When Frank makes a death attack against Evilguy, Bloodskull, or Niceguy he is thinking "I am going to end a life, and that dosn't bother me at all". It's not that he's willing to sneak into a castle and kill, it's that the killing part doesn't bother him. If Frank was, say, a good aligned Rogue instead of an assassin, he wouldn't have been able to spend eighteen seconds starting at Evilguy, totally focused on figuring out the best way to kill him. It is not the act of assassination that makes you evil, it is your ability to perform such an act with no remorse.

So the only evil thing about the assassin is that killing /doesn't/ bother them? I guess that makes a fair bit of sense.

So.. what about this prevents you from making a Death Attack? A DEath Attack is just a really good Sneak Attack. Whether he assassinates with Sneak or Death Attack (As per my example of the level 1 aristocrat evil tyrant), he's still out to kill. Why does remorse (or a lack thereof) have to be tied to the Death Attack?

And what if our Good Aligned assassin (lower caps, so as to not confuse it with the class) is in fact a Sorceror, who accomplishes the task with.. disguise self and Disintegrate; Is a Fort Save or Die something that inherently requires utter callousness? Certainly, the Sorceror can accomplish this feat more easily then the ASsassin, as there is no study time.

[hamishspence]

BOED said "killing for money is Neutral at best, and only Neutral, in the case of really really evil entities- dragons and the like.

The money adventurers get may, in Exalted campaigns, be secondary. Unanticipated rewards for Good acts.

it also said : When adventurer's first question is- "What can you pay", thats the sign of a Neutral (or worse) adventurer.

EDIT:
Death Touch seems very similar in principle to Death Attack.

I think its the "willing to kill anyone" that marks the true Assassin.

[Yukitsu]

Comes under Not Reasonably Foreseeable. Vile darkness goes into some detail on intent, negligence, information, etc.

Given that, why must all murders be evil? It seems that one with sufficient foresight, intent etc should not be condemned as evil.

[hamishspence]

yes- D&D doesn't really define murder, only what forms of killing aren't murders, including accidents, and self-defense.

While I've seen "Unjustified killing" who's the justifier?

to save time, I tend to take legal definition- If a typical modern jury would convict, its murder.

[Yukitsu]

BOED said "killing for money is Neutral at best, and only Neutral, in the case of really really evil entities- dragons and the like.

The money adventurers get may, in Exalted campaigns, be secondary. Unanticipated rewards for Good acts.

it also said : When adventurer's first question is- "What can you pay", thats the sign of a Neutral (or worse) adventurer.

EDIT:
Death Touch seems very similar in principle to Death Attack.

I think its the "willing to kill anyone" that marks the true Assassin.

Book of exalted deeds has unrealistic expectations of players who wish to be good however. I don't particularly see how wanting to makes ends meat as a large part of ones goal should negate a positive alignment. For instane, if a good aligned fighter sees a billet posted for 5000 GP for the head of an evil necromancer terrorizing the countryside, there is no reason he can't go for the job. If the bill doesn't pay, why would he do it necessarily? He needs to pay upkeep, food costs, he needs to get recompense for potions and scrolls burned while out there and so forth. That would be fairly standard in a decently good campaign, and I wouldn't remove good alignment if the heroes didn't do work for free. Afterall, even adventureres need to make ends meat, unless they are all exalted vow of poverty types. After too many missions, which realistically have expenses, he simply won't be able to go out to beat up more necromancers.

Also, assissins don't need to be willing to kill anyone. There is a single listed organization where it is indicated that they are required to fulfill all contracts, but the PHB implies that there is more than one assassins guild. I don't see any reason they couldn't pick and choose their assignments.

[Ravens_cry]

yes- D&D doesn't really define murder, only what forms of killing aren't murders, including accidents, and self-defense.

While I've seen "Unjustified killing" who's the justifier?

to save time, I tend to take legal definition- If a typical modern jury would convict, its murder.
That would include adventurers.
"Your Honor, I do submit, that my client was brutally in murdered by these. . .ruffians in his own home, with a sword through the chest, then did proceed to abscond with all valuables there in."

[Yukitsu]

yes- D&D doesn't really define murder, only what forms of killing aren't murders, including accidents, and self-defense.

While I've seen "Unjustified killing" who's the justifier?

to save time, I tend to take legal definition- If a typical modern jury would convict, its murder.

That's a legal definition though, making it unlawful, but not necessarily evil.

Basically, it would be justified when lives saved are greater in number than lives lost, though a small amount of leeway when the individual has an attachment to one of the saved individuals seems to be generally accepted.

[hamishspence]

I think thats the intention of putting treasure along the way- loot in war is plunder, and thus, not theft- and monsters are in undeclared war, gnawing at edges of civilization.

The reverse approach is in The Three Amigos (the character the actors play, and eventually at end of movie, the actors themselves)

The Villagers send out mesage, offering reward if heroes help, they Save The Village, are offered reward "Our reward is that justice has been done"

Is rather cheesy.

[hamishspence]

Which is why, to Be Good, adventurers cannot act without Just Cause. they are defenders of civilization, not attackers.

EDIT: I think BoED was wriiten by authors who noticed the basic iffyness of the traditional adventurer, and took steps to fix it. Maybe a little too many steps?

Zogonia parodies this traditional adventuring party pretty well.

[Yukitsu]

I think thats the intention of putting treasure along the way- loot in war is plunder, and thus, not theft- and monsters are in undeclared war, gnawing at edges of civilization.

The reverse approach is in The Three Amigos (the character the actors play, and eventually at end of movie, the actors themselves)

The Villagers send out mesage, offering reward if heroes help, they Save The Village, are offered reward "Our reward is that justice has been done"

Is rather cheesy.

I've seen dungeons where the evil necromancer had an int score, and thus invested in monsters, lackeys and potions. Basically, we got rusty old swords out of that one, and if we hadn't gotten paid, we'd have been in a pretty bad state. All in all, that depends on the type of campaign.

[Yukitsu]

Which is why, to Be Good, adventurers cannot act without Just Cause. they are defenders of civilization, not attackers.

Just isn't the same as legal, however. Murder may be just, if the individual is a distinct threat to say millions of others. Defending civilization as it were. And if the government sanctions the execution of millions of orcs, who are, by and large innocent of any crime, that would be execution, but it would also be evil.

[hamishspence]

Yup, which is pretty much what BoED says- killing (fairly) innocent orcs (who might still be pretty nasty to each other) is evil. Also, it covers unjust law- LG characters are basically required to oppose authority, if it has become corrupt.

[Asema]

Aaaand this is why I'm a hop, skip, and a jump away from removing the Good-Evil axis from my campaign. I mean, I've already removed most alignment restrictions from PrCs that don't really need them (like the assassin or barbarian).

The concept isn't the problem; it's the execution. THIS is good, THAT is evil, and you're evil for doing THAT, even if you're trying to accomplish an end that is far greater than doing THIS.

Anyways, to answer your question, I don't think assassins are evil by nature. However, as written, they are, in fact, all evil. I'd just remove that requirement.

[Ravens_cry]

Though I think it is wise to separate Good and Evil and Lawful and Chaotic, there is a bit of melding of the two. For example, even the most chaotic Chaotic Good character will not steal an apple or kill a man in the streets because he feels like it. He does have some respect for morality as encoded in the Law. Not that the Law is Morality, but in a just society, the former should attempt to emulate the latter.Likewise, the most lawful Evil character will still break the law, either by proxy, (such as with hired goons) or by being extra careful no one finds out about it.

[Yukitsu]

Yup, which is pretty much what BoED says- killing (fairly) innocent orcs (who might still be pretty nasty to each other) is evil. Also, it covers unjust law- LG characters are basically required to oppose authority, if it has become corrupt.

However, that isn't fixing the fact that murder, which is illegal killing requires that the laws and edicts be for the good, and vice versa for executions. Basically, murder and execution are the same thing, though with law and chaos applied. Either should be good or evil depending on the reasons involved.

[hamishspence]

yes, my problem is more- with just the core 3 books, you can make case that Smite Makes Right, but with all the supplements, adventurer who wishes to be Exalted has to be very, very careful.

You can be Good without being Exalted, but again, evil acts have to be few and very small.

However, as an enthusiastic collector of supplements, I prefer to work with alignment system rather than chuck it entirely, and find Smite Makes Right more personally repellant to me than the alternative (BoED)

[Yukitsu]

Why not use a more rational approach using the existing rules as a mere framwork? That's what I do.

[hamishspence]

One of my favorite writers said- main definer was- initiation. Those who initiate violence against others are evil, those who use it in self-defense, Good. And we have legal system because proportionate retaliation, while Good, is only Good when exacted by the law- it cannot be left to the arbitrary decisions of individuals.

Translation- if person is attacking you and you have to kill them to survive, OK.

If person has murdered your friends, and you seek them out and kill them- not OK- retaliation cannot be left to the individual.

EDIT: Note that carrying out a retaliatory decision made above your level is OK, as is making the decision as part of a group given the authority to make such decisions.

[hamishspence]

I like the rules- tend only to depart from RAW when sticking to it would break the game.

[Yukitsu]

I think this conversation nicely demonstrates why sticking to rules based alignment can indeed break the game. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

I find rules bugs more of a problem than alignment- if worst comes to worst, DM can say- Ok, my ruling is as follows- we can discuss it outside game, and no retconning.

EDIT:
Also I tend to go with- when issue rises, new supplements override old ones.

Fiendish Codex 2's definition of Lawful acts is interesting, even if it puts fairly heavy limits on those who want to be Chaotic.

[RPGuru1331]

The whole thing is a rules bug though, is the point, I think.

Edit: Problem is that you're pretty much buying straight into the idea of Merchandise Driven, to use the Trope name. Those of us who don't really care to justify our monetary spendings are pretty much going to keep using the same sort of classic morality discussion =/

[Yukitsu]

Fiendish Codex 2's definition of Lawful acts is interesting, even if it puts fairly heavy limits on those who want to be Chaotic.

The irony of this is staggering.

I prefer to defer to the PHB, as well as philosophy class. I find not many people have all the supplements, so when we're at the table, not much help is had from them.

[hamishspence]

yup- Corruption ratings was an interesting idea- do enough evil and not fix it- go to Nine Hells, even if you haven't changed alignment.

Applying an Obesiance rating was perhaps less wise- by extrapolation, a CE person who helps his superiors to his own detriment, and follows orders, even if his superior is someone he does not respect, gets an interesting surprise when he dies and goes to Nine Hells instead of Abyss.

With pretty much every Generic D&D hardback, Faerun hardback, Faerun softback, and Eberron hardback, it can be tricky choosing what content to use.

EDIT: and, without supplement, we get people who say "If person deserves death, you can kill them, under any and all circumstances, and its not evil" and there is nothing in rules to contradict them.

[Ravens_cry]

The whole thing is a rules bug though, is the point, I think.

Edit: Problem is that you're pretty much buying straight into the idea of Merchandise Driven, to use the Trope name. Those of us who don't really care to justify our monetary spendings are pretty much going to keep using the same sort of classic morality discussion =/
Agreed. All I own is the Player Handbooks.I intend someday to DM at least once,and when I do, I will buy the DM Guides. But for now, PHB is all I got, and it is all I need.

[hamishspence]

so, when Issues arise (what acts are evil?) and PHB is uninformative, what sources do you favour?

EDIT: I figure, when I play in someone else's game, I play by their alignment rules (if they use it) , when I run my own games, I try to stick as close as possible to WoTC definitions.

[Heliomance]

The Assassin's class features like a death attack require Frank to have little or no respect for life, even a sneak attack can happen fast and with little enough thought that you can do it without really comprehending that you are ending a life. A death attack however, requires cold calculation, you cannot mentally escape the full gravity of what you are doing, so you either can't do it, or you don't care. When Frank makes a death attack against Evilguy, Bloodskull, or Niceguy he is thinking "I am going to end a life, and that dosn't bother me at all". It's not that he's willing to sneak into a castle and kill, it's that the killing part doesn't bother him. If Frank was, say, a good aligned Rogue instead of an assassin, he wouldn't have been able to spend eighteen seconds starting at Evilguy, totally focused on figuring out the best way to kill him. It is not the act of assassination that makes you evil, it is your ability to perform such an act with no remorse.

There's no reason you shouldn't be able to feel remorse with a death attack. Those 18 seconds could represent not only looking for the best opening, but also steeling yourself from the deed. I can see an assassin with the self sacrificing, rather-me-than-them, it's a job that needs doing and I'd rather the stain was on my soul than on someone else's attitude. An assassin that kills with cold calculation so that no-one else has to. He knows that what he does is wrong, and he wants to bear that on his shoulders so that some innocent farmhand doesn't reach breaking point and have to deal with the fact that they killed someone, or what have you.

[hamishspence]

you can really have any personality you want with an Evil character. Even brave, heroic, altruistic, self-sacrificing- as long as they commit major evil acts, and don't fix them.

because, if evil is acts rather than personality, you can do what you want, with personality.

[RPGuru1331]

so, when Issues arise (what acts are evil?) and PHB is uninformative, what sources do you favour?
Phil 1100+. They provide a much better thought out way of looking at morality then what WotC puts on its books.

[hamishspence]

yes- though sometimes D&D ones do make me think- Exalted deeds is like fusion of altruism and objectivism:

Doing normally Good deeds for purely selfish reasons is Neutral, But:

No amount of good ends- altruistic or otherwise, can justify evil deeds, like murdering people.

[Yukitsu]

EDIT: and, without supplement, we get people who say "If person deserves death, you can kill them, under any and all circumstances, and its not evil" and there is nothing in rules to contradict them.

I agree, because if they deserve death then they deserve death, and if they don't, then they don't. No reason a merry band of adventurers can't be the ones to do it.

As for my alignment system, it's objectivist, but takes into account many, many more factors than what other people are willing to do. It also has shades of grey. For instance, murder for the sake of murder, petty revenge, etc. is evil, doing so to prevent a greater amount of death is good, doing so under duress is grey. I don't think any individual act, in isolation can be considered good or evil without looking at the context within which it was performed, but taking that context into account, whether it is moral or not is absolute.

[Jayabalard]

If Evil actions take out Evil people for a good cause, I would call it nuetral personally.and others would continue to call it evil.


Given that, why must all murders be evil? it's that whole "malice aforethought" part.


That would include adventurers.
"Your Honor, I do submit, that my client was brutally in murdered by these. . .ruffians in his own home, with a sword through the chest, then did proceed to abscond with all valuables there in."It sounds like your particular players are pretty evil, but don't ascribe that sort of behavior to everyone who plays D&D.


The irony of this is staggering.I'm not sure what you mean; what irony?

[hamishspence]

"Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those that initiate its use"

"The use of physical force, even its retaliatory use, cannot be left at he discretion of individual citizens"

"The use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another"

"The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob"

the main arguments against having adventurers try and punish villains themselves.

[RPGuru1331]

I'm not sure what you mean; what irony?
Chaos has more limits then Law. It's hilarious, really.

[Yukitsu]

it's that whole "malice aforethought" part.

Murder doesn't need to be done maliciously. Merely premeditated, and without consent of law.


I'm not sure what you mean; what irony?

His quoted phrase indicates that chaotic aligned characters are heavily restricted in what they are allowed to do.

[hamishspence]

well, you can still be CE and do such acts, you'll just go to a LE afterlife.

[Ravens_cry]

so, when Issues arise (what acts are evil?) and PHB is uninformative, what sources do you favour?

EDIT: I figure, when I play in someone else's game, I play by their alignment rules (if they use it) , when I run my own games, I try to stick as close as possible to WoTC definitions.
My own personal views on morality. Which are based in many ways on respect for Just Laws, and the concept that removing an Evil by the methods Evil uses, are not good thing, especially when other options are available. For example, in a city, there may be some form of City Watch, and some form of Justice System to allow for a trial. If so, this means killing the Bad Guy is not your only option. If so, then you should at least try to go for the less violent approach if you can.

This whole thing about assassins not/or being evil is really based on mystique. Assassins are considered cool, as parodied in Discworld. People want that cool, but they are uncomfortable with the idea of playing a 'hired thug in nice clothes'. Because that is what an assassin is. If you play it for a more real flavor, they even ditch the nice clothes part. A more modern example would be a Mafia Hitman, and all the movies that follow that particular mystique.

Assassins kill people on other peoples orders, they are the weapon in other peoples hands. However, unlike a mundane sword or bow, they are a thinking weapon, they a have a choice whether to kill or not. And they have decided to not care.

[Yukitsu]

"Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those that initiate its use"

Certain degrees of potential uses of force or violence cannot be pre-empted with force by the good guy then? So until he hits the doomsday button, the evil guy is diplomatically immune?


"The use of physical force, even its retaliatory use, cannot be left at he discretion of individual citizens"

Matter of law, not necessarily what is good. An individual citizen may actually have the best action for the good.


"The use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another"

Agreed, only due to the word "arbitrary"


"The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob"

Relates to law, not to good. The same result and ethical methodology can be reached without following or having any protocal.

[hamishspence]

these all came out of objectivist texts-

my guess is that Threatening to initiate physical force is not that different from actually doing it- pre-emptive self-defence can still be self-defense (but threat must be clear) and that includes doomsday buttons. Threatening other people you value is as bad as threatening you.

EDIT: Exalted deeds places a higher value on altruism than I favour, but its insistance that altruism is not a justification for Evil acts is what sold me.

[Yukitsu]

That's the problem with objective texts. They make broad ultimatums about a drastic number of situations that the creator couldn't possibly have concieved of, and as such, will always follow the problem of exceptional situations. Morals don't work in tidy little paragraphs summing to "always" or "never" but rather, must rely on the situation.

Exalted is a higher standard than good. I don't really object too much to the exalted framework, so long as you realize that it does encourage good-stupid, and it isn't related to good in and of itself.

[hamishspence]

They all came out of The Virtue Of Selfishness, which says rational self-interest is vital.

it does mention exceptional situations, but suggests basic morality souldnt be designed around "lifeboat situations"

I figure Threatening to initate physical force, is not that different from actually doing it, so someone who is Menacing you is an immediate threat.

[hamishspence]

same here- I like it, but would probably run Good characters as trying, where possible, to live up to it, but recognizing that sometimes an element of pragmatism may be necessary, the occasional, rare, evil act, with fixing as much as possible of the damage afterward, enlivening a mostly Good career.

[Yukitsu]

They all came out of The Virtue Of Selfishness, which says rational self-interest is vital.

it does mention exceptional situations, but suggests basic morality souldnt be designed around "lifeboat situations"

I figure Threatening to initate physical force, is not that different from actually doing it, so someone who is Menacing you is an immediate threat.

The problem is, D&D is designed around exceptional lifeboat style situations. The matter of the end of the world as caused by a specific individual can't operate in a framework that chooses to disgard them.

Also, I'd argue that if the threat were covert, and someone found out about it who wasn't being directly menaced managed to end the threat through means normally considered unethical, that that person wouldn't be evil, assuming other options weren't feasible. Similar situation, but it shows that one doesn't have to be directly threatened, or have ones they know threatened to ethically use force.

[hamishspence]

As, in, breaking the threat long before anyone become aware of it? Might depend on how unethical or immoral.

Example= Widely beloved character= hero is suspricious, breaks in, finds "evil plot" written (or mind reads villain secretly and knows they have an Evil Plan- what next?

I'd say Kidnap The Villain, while nasty, might be less reprehensible than killing them, when they have don't nothing illegal, but have Plan to do Very Wrong Things several years later.

[hamishspence]

Also, remeber, even with strict system, an evil act doesn't necessarily make for an evil character- by FC2, LG character can get away with 1 murder without going to Nine Hells, if it is only Corrupt act they never atone for, but 2 guarantees trip Down.

Also note- if they died genuinely repentant, trying to fix the damage, they get a Second Chance as Hellbred.

[Yukitsu]

As, in, breaking the threat long before anyone become aware of it? Might depend on how unethical or immoral.

Example= Widely beloved character= hero is suspricious, breaks in, finds "evil plot" written (or mind reads villain secretly and knows they have an Evil Plan- what next?

I'd say Kidnap The Villain, while nasty, might be less reprehensible than killing them, when they have don't nothing illegal, but have Plan to do Very Wrong Things several years later.

I mean it will happen in a slightly more immediate sense. More like, next Tuesday, world ends, do something about it. Those come up more often in game, as opposed to the alternative.

As for kidnapping, assume equal CR for both the baddy and yourself. In general, the one who isn't holding back will win the fight. So pick. Try to kidnap, but be more likely to let the world end (he kills you, ends the world) or fight your best, and have a better chance that the world doesn't end (You kill him, foil the plot.) This is overly simplistic, but in general, I'd condemn the first man as evil over the second man any day.

[Yukitsu]

Also, remeber, even with strict system, an evil act doesn't necessarily make for an evil character- by FC2, LG character can get away with 1 murder without going to Nine Hells, if it is only Corrupt act they never atone for, but 2 guarantees trip Down.

Also note- if they died genuinely repentant, trying to fix the damage, they get a Second Chance as Hellbred.

I still don't like that, because they categorize things as evil acts that I wouldn't, because the act was done in a specific context. A person who murders the man outlined in my last example in his sleep, thus saving many more people should not be considered evil when compared to the man who tries to kidnap, fails, and lets the world end due to his hubris.

[hamishspence]

thats what sneaky tricks like knockout drops are for. Hard part would be getting villain out.

Or, the Jacen Solo way- Feeblemind instead of killing them (might require a lot of work to make it hard to fix)

EDIT: Or, the Machiavelli way- Call it a Necessary evil, (but still evil) but not shy back from it.

[Yukitsu]

I don't really think that sleep drops work on any one of note. Most evil aristocrats, and even aristocrats in general have food tasters, or magic to detect poisons. Feeblemind would potentially work, but that implies a wizard of level 9 or higher, whereupon threats of doomsday devices not made by other casters are essentially not a problem to you.

Edit: I don't believe it is Machiavellian. Why is it evil to save lives at the expense of getting rid of one individual who is likely to get rid of many others? The action is only considered evil, to me, when it is applied to the innocent and non-threatening.

[hamishspence]

I figure, if campign is a little lower on the sliding Scale of Idealism vs Cynicism, thats fine, as long as players are aware.

Heroes can be "morally flexible Neutrals" and still be heroes, or even shadowy Good, but Murder and Never Commiting an Evil Act don't mix well.

Because, Machiavelli said "to protect the state (or for the more altruistic, the people) there are times when it is necessary to do wrong." he believe that killing people who posed a threat to state but hadn't commited Crimes, was Evil But Necessary. At least, that was the editor's interpretation.

[BRC]

Rather off-topic, but I just checked, and The Spell poison is not evil. It's necromancy, but it doesn't have the evil descriptor.

[Yukitsu]

I figure, if campign is a little lower on the sliding Scale of Idealism vs Cynicism, thats fine, as long as players are aware.

Heroes can be "morally flexible Neutrals" and still be heroes, or even shadowy Good, but Murder and Never Commiting an Evil Act don't mix well.

Because, Machiavelli said "to protect the state (or for the more altruistic, the people) there are times when it is necessary to do wrong." he believe that killing people who posed a threat to state but hadn't commited Crimes, was Evil But Necessary. At least, that was the editor's interpretation.

The problem is, if I want to play a paladin, I must adhere to high ideals. If I were a god of good, I'd rather see the paladin kill the guy, rather than stoking his petty honour and lose, thus getting everyone killed. It's not flexibility in my case. In an absolute sense, doing that which will get everyone killed is an evil act, while the one that saves lives is good.

My interpretation of the meaning Machiavelli put forth is for the protection of the state regardless of the wants or security of the people. In other words, save the government, even if the act kills. It may not save any lives.

[hamishspence]

Yes, that was one complaint, back near start, in essay on poison in D&D.

Edit: which is why paladins aren't suited for more ruthless campaigns.

I've really enjoyed conversation, will be back in about 14 hours.

[Ravens_cry]

It sounds like your particular players are pretty evil, but don't ascribe that sort of behavior to everyone who plays D&D.

Not really, I just described your typical dungeon crawl.
Now, a thing I want to make clear is that I am NOT ascribing this to the players, but rather to the player CHARACTERS.
My Next character I want to play is some kind of Chaotic Neutral wizard/alchemist, who combines the mundane with the magical for some wicked weaponry, with little regard for the consequences,
Right now, I am playing a Half Orc Neutral Good cleric of a Neutral god of Healing and Death. My character believes in helping people as much has possible, and protecting others, focusing more on buffs then hits, and thinks that, with the souls permission, it is alright to Animate Dead if it will protect people.
Both are rather opposite, and yet I the player would enjoy playing them both.

[Doomsy]

One of these again.


Okay. Insane and probably pointed out soon as unlikely to really occur hypothetical on the way!


A level 2 goblin (CE) is armed and opposing a 17+ level paladin and rogue pair.

If the paladin kills that level 2 goblin head-on, it is not murder and it was a fair combat and good.

If the rogue assassinates him from behind with a poisoned dagger, it is murder and evil.

The paladin has let the goblin feel the raw horror of knowing it is utterly, completely screwed. It is completely helpless. Even armed with the Shiv of The Gods, it is fairly DOOMED. The right thing to do would have been to tell it to throw down its arms or flat out disarm it and take it captive, since killing it is murder at that point - even armed, it is just false hope. How many PCs do you know would even think of that option?

The rogue at least made sure it died quickly and never had time to soil its poor excuse for pants.

I would have to say the paladin while D&D 'Good' was morally wrong and the rogue at least somewhat right despite D&D 'Evil'.

Of course, the best option would have been careful negotiation, a slow coming to appreciate each others views, and a long diplomatic session to allow for peaceful rehabilitation and integration. But this is D&D and it's easier just to bash 'em in the face and take their XP - and completely encouraged by the system.
Seriously, 'Goblin Welfare Case Worker' is not even a class here.

And you could substitute a few dozen goblins for 'one' there, it still doesn't matter. They'd get torn apart like wet tissue paper.

In conclusion: We're talking about a system that encourages killing a lot of people to become tougher and that has a laughable alignment system in which killing them in some ways is more good than killing them in others.

I'd just go with the flow or yank out the alignment system entirely rather than destroy my brain trying to create workable ethics from it.

[Ravens_cry]

Die quickly, or die slow, there is no coming back. OK, in D&D there IS a coming back, but what Goblin clan is going to have the coinage or the opportunity to have someone cast a raise dead spell?

[Doomsy]

Die quickly, or die slow, there is no coming back. OK, in D&D there IS a coming back, but what Goblin clan is going to have the coinage or the opportunity to have someone cast a raise dead spell?

You know, technically. The whole raise dead thing is pretty evil on the gods part.

"We can bring you back from the dead. FOR COLD HARD CASH."

I think this counts as extortion, seriously. You have someone in dire need and you are completely ripping them off. Deities don't even need the diamonds or the money, so this is clearly some kind of sick sadistic 'only ring us if you need us to' power trip to just tease the poor and less fortunate with things they can never have.

But if the gods are evil oh god the whole system is just falling apart.

[Rei_Jin]

Hmmm... we've gotten to 11 pages because many people are arguing semantics, where the answer to the OP comes down to a few simple facts.

1. D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game. In a fantasy roleplaying game, things are defined differently to how they are in real life.
2. In D&D, alignment is objective, not subjective. Some things are evil because they were made from evil. Other things are evil because they do evil.
3. In D&D things don't often make sense. We tend to hand wave anything that doesn't make sense and then attribute it to "Magic".
4. D&D has a lot of baggage from older editions of the game. Alignment restrictions on some classes and prestige classes can often find their root here.

When you come to something that doesn't sit right with you in 3.5 D&D, check to see if it can be explained by one of these four points. 90% or more of the time, it will be.

In regards to the Assassin, part of it comes from his use of poison, part of it comes from the entry requirement, and part of it comes from the older versions of the game.

Now, when WotC moved away from the Core material and introduced the Ninja, the Slayer of Domiel, Ravages and Afflictions, and so on, they screwed with their own rules. This just shows a lack of internal consistency, not that they wrote the Assassin down wrong.

The change in their methodology came about because of a desire to appeal to a wider audience (ie. Make more money). People wanted ways to use poison without harming themselves. They wanted a way to be good and still assassinate people. In short, they wanted to be good, using the tools of evil. And WotC gave them what they wanted, in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

And in regards to being good, it IS harder than being evil. Being evil is easy, you just need to do what comes naturally. It's much harder to be continually, consistently good. Hence why angels fall more often than demon and devils rise.

[Yukitsu]

I'm pretty sure that BoED came out for 3.0, so at the very least, Slayer of Domiel came out before the 3.5 assassin.

[Ravens_cry]

You know, technically. The whole raise dead thing is pretty evil on the gods part.

"We can bring you back from the dead. FOR COLD HARD CASH."

I think this counts as extortion, seriously. You have someone in dire need and you are completely ripping them off. Deities don't even need the diamonds or the money, so this is clearly some kind of sick sadistic 'only ring us if you need us to' power trip to just tease the poor and less fortunate with things they can never have.

But if the gods are evil oh god the whole system is just falling apart.
We could metagame, and say it is for balance purposes. Or it could actually be conspiracy on the part of the clerics, rather then the Gods themselves. Or, since you actually do not technically need cash, but rather a diamond worth 10,000 gold pieces, it is possible it is merely a property of the diamond itself, its purity and strength allowing it to act as a conduit for the powerful divine energies required to raise, the, dead.

[Rei_Jin]

I'm pretty sure that BoED came out for 3.0, so at the very least, Slayer of Domiel came out before the 3.5 assassin.

Book of Vile Darkness (BoVD) was released in October 2002

The Players Handbook version 3.5 (PHB) was released in July 2003

Book of Exalted Deeds (BoED) was released in October 2003

[pjackson]

Book of exalted deeds has unrealistic expectations of players who wish to be good however.


No it doesn't.



I don't particularly see how wanting to makes ends meat as a large part of ones goal should negate a positive alignment. For instane, if a good aligned fighter sees a billet posted for 5000 GP for the head of an evil necromancer terrorizing the countryside, there is no reason he can't go for the job.


Sure.



If the bill doesn't pay, why would he do it necessarily?


Because it needs to be done and he is in a position to do it.



He needs to pay upkeep, food costs, he needs to get recompense for potions and scrolls burned while out there and so forth. That would be fairly standard in a decently good campaign, and I wouldn't remove good alignment if the heroes didn't do work for free. Afterall, even adventureres need to make ends meat, unless they are all exalted vow of poverty types. After too many missions, which realistically have expenses, he simply won't be able to go out to beat up more necromancers.


If he isn't able to beat up the necromancer that is a good reason not to do it, and a good reason to go earn the money so that he is able to do it.



Also, assissins don't need to be willing to kill anyone. There is a single listed organization where it is indicated that they are required to fulfill all contracts, but the PHB implies that there is more than one assassins guild. I don't see any reason they couldn't pick and choose their assignments.

The Assassin PrC requires that you be evil to take it and rewards you with magical power for doing so. That is the way it is designed, and it does make sense.
You don't have to take that prestige class to act as an assassin - killing for money. But you can't kill for money and be Good. You can kill for other reasons and take the offered reward, but the reward must not be why you kill.
Not taking the assignments offered by an assassins guild which will want its cut would tend to get your membership terminated, permanently.
There may well be non-evil organisations that employ people to kill secretly, but they must have some other motivation than money.

[Aenghus]

The default D&D genre assumes a straightforward Good vs Evil setting where the good-or-neutral PCs are heroes fighting their mostly evil enemies for crimes they almost certainly did commit. Its white hats vs black hats, with goblins, orcs etc in the role of the faceless minions that action heroes in films and books guiltlessly mow down in droves while "Saving The World TM". Evil means really Eeeevilll, Good really means Good.

In this setup, the PCs are more or less sympathetic heroes, and there is plenty of in-setting justification for violently opposing the bad guys.

Any character/npc who can kill in some way can be a small "a" assassin. The assassin PrC requires the evil alignment in the default setting, for to me obvious reasons.

This works well for the average game, where the players and GM want an action game and don't want to agonise about morality all the time.

The further away from the default setup the campaign setting is moved, and particularly the morally greyer the setting is made, the less alignment restrictions make sense.

The Eberron setting moves some of the way in this direction, making things morally much greyer, and muddying alignments so that evil characters can be just greedy, while good characters can be massively mistaken in their actions.

Eberron still assumes simplistic action hero morality, but with more room for dark heroes, but with a tacit assumption that any evil PCs will be small "e" eberron-type evil rather than Eeevilll.

Going greyer than Eberron, alignments can basically be dumped as inappropriate, as they lose any usefulness as descriptors.

So in answer to the OP, decide what sort of setting you want to run, and how much you want to consider alignment/morality in the setting - absolute, relative, not at all, or somewhere in between. This is the sort of thing you do need to check with the players as some have strong preferences in this area, and wildly different, or rigid preferences between players and the referee or between individual players can cause problems.

IMO if alignment is being used in a D&D game working assassins will tend to be evil, except in very specific circumstances. Non-evil assassins would need to have some sort of restriction on them, either/both of self imposed or organisationally-imposed, and wouldn't just kill anyone for payment alone.

[hamishspence]

Funny thing is, BOED, and other philosophies, both come to same conclusion- No evil act is justified, but from opposite directions. BoED says "any act of evil is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable, and The Virtue of Selfishness argues there can be no compromise with evil- to do evil acts, even if the reason is- to help others, is a surrender to evil.

Machiavelli's argument went- "It is a sound maxim that, when an action is reprehensible, the result may excuse it, and when the result is good, always excuses it" and the editor summaries it as "a good end justifies what is morally wrong"

But what he does not say is: no action in pursuit of a good end is morally wrong. which is what the basic claim that a normally evil act, done to save lives of many others, is no longer evil, says.

[hamishspence]

I would probably say D&D is Idealistic- the No Justification for Evil bit. Such idealism may be out of place within the real world, but it fits D&D.

However, the idea that Evil people are sometimes just really greedy or cruel to others, isn't unique to Eberrron; Faerun, especially in Champions of Ruin, has it, as well as defining Well intentioned Extremists who commit lots of Evil acts in pursuit of a Good end, as evil, as well.

Exalted stresses that converting Evil to the side of good, where possible, is better than killing it outright. This might be favoured tactic to use on the extremist who genuinely doesn't believe what they are doing is evil- to Open Their Eyes.

[mangosta71]

A succubus isn't a true demon
from
EE


wait, i'm not saying a succubus isn't a true demon
from
EE

I trust that I'm not the only person here who sees the flaw in this argument.

Back on the topic of the Assassin PrC - one of the requirements is "you must murder someone for no other reason than to join." The word join there implies that it's an organization, like the Red Wizards, Knights of Whatever Order, etc. So yes, it is a universal guild. Also, the target's alignment is moot, because the only reason you're killing him is to join. He could be an evil tyrant who's oppressing millions. Maybe his death would benefit everyone under his rule. That doesn't matter.

[hamishspence]

Yes, I figure thats about right. Batman Begins makes me think of that: Ras Al'Gul, (can't remember spelling) giving Batman very similar test.

[Yukitsu]

No it doesn't.

Sure it does. In many instances, you are expected to attempt redemption when possible. Due to the nature of the game, redemption is pretty much always possible, even if unlikely. As a game, that just bogs things down and makes it a drag. If you want your standards to be that high in a game, don't roll up a hero. Roll a diplomancer and watch as your DM converts to evil alignment as he poisons you in your sleep.


Because it needs to be done and he is in a position to do it.

Let an exalted do it. There are other problems that are equally tenuous in most villages, and those ones do at least pay enough to compensate expenses. Of course, doing one for free on occassion when no other problems present themselves, sure.


If he isn't able to beat up the necromancer that is a good reason not to do it, and a good reason to go earn the money so that he is able to do it.

So your stance is that a party must do things for free (because after the first few times, no one will offer money when presenting a problem) until they run out of cash, when they can suddenly start working solely for money, often taking jobs that involve killing. So in other words, killing for money. Hmmm. I say they take jobs that involve killing for money because really, what other means do adventurers have to make enough money for a wand of cure light wounds? 750 GP takes literaly forever to earn using profession or craft.


The Assassin PrC requires that you be evil to take it and rewards you with magical power for doing so. That is the way it is designed, and it does make sense.

Arcane magic doesn't work that way. The flow of magic doesn't care about your alignment. It cares that you follow the formulas.


You don't have to take that prestige class to act as an assassin - killing for money. But you can't kill for money and be Good. You can kill for other reasons and take the offered reward, but the reward must not be why you kill.
Not taking the assignments offered by an assassins guild which will want its cut would tend to get your membership terminated, permanently.
There may well be non-evil organisations that employ people to kill secretly, but they must have some other motivation than money.

This is a very simplistic view that assumes you can't do something for 2 reasons, and it assumes that the money can't be a desired goal for an altruistic end. You know, like, "Assassins fundraiser for Alzhiemers research. Help us reach our 50 kill mark to help save alzhiemers victims!"

Also, there is no text that indicates that all assassins guilds require that you take all contracts. (Most PC assassins barely take any at all.) There is one where they state that they will, but they don't state that they are the only guild.

[hamishspence]

"writs of Outlawry" (DMG) effectively grant adventurers right to keep a villains stuff, without this, you may find the people robbed by the villain asking for their stuff back.

Adventurer can be the type to Do Heroic deeds and, as a result of them, the people he's aided giving him money, without him asking for it. In which case, nothing in BoED says he can't take money offered. But asking for it, upfront, is more Neutral than Good.

Which is not an entirely bad thing- you don't have to be Good to be a Hero.

[Dairun Cates]

Don't know if it's been said, but...

Lord Vetinari. Discworld. Terry Pratchett.

[hamishspence]

Ex-Assassin. He skates along LN-LE borderline. And can be a little arbitrary- nailing someone's ear to a stake because you don't like their art does not exactly scream LN.

[Yukitsu]

"writs of Outlawry" (DMG) effectively grant adventurers right to keep a villains stuff, without this, you may find the people robbed by the villain asking for their stuff back.

Yes, however evil villains that I face sometimes burn the loot in the conflict, rather than letting the party get it. It makes sense really. Why have gold lying around when one could have say, a dozen potions, which were drunk right before the match? Other villains I have met had loot that we couldn't keep, like liches phylacteries. Expensive as heck, but the party can't exactly keep it. Others still are evils without valuables, such as random demons or devils, or what have you.


Adventurer can be the type to Do Heroic deeds and, as a result of them, the people he's aided giving him money, without him asking for it. In which case, nothing in BoED says he can't take money offered. But asking for it, upfront, is more Neutral than Good.

Many times, the person posting the adventure hook will give some indication as to rewards. Generally, those that don't, don't intend to pay. I'd also say, if you need the money for a good cause, then asking for it would actually not be neutral in many cases. And either way, neutral is not evil. Asking up front for payment for the death of others, is considered evil to the assassin haters.

[Fax Celestis]

Don't know if it's been said, but...

Lord Vetinari. Discworld. Terry Pratchett.

Extremist lawful evil.

Also, always good to see a fellow Anansite around here. :smalltongue:

[BRC]

Ex-Assassin. He skates along LN-LE borderline. And can be a little arbitrary- nailing someone's ear to a stake because you don't like their art does not exactly scream LN.
Well, but you must remember the difference between Assasin (The Class) and assasin (The person). You can be an assasin without being an Assasin.

[hamishspence]

in the sense that he doesn't actually do any assassinating any more. In fact, some of his early jobs involved being hired to keep someone alive (Vimes, masquerading as John Keel.

Discworld assassins have a long and complicated Code Of Honor that its somewhat lacking in D&D ones. and stil tend to be portrayed unsympathetically. Pteppic, in Pyramids, is the closest thing to an assassin hero.

also, in Pyramids, almost exactly like D&D ones, assassin has to kill somebody to graduate. Except, unknown to them, its not actually a somebody, its a dummy. Pteppic figured "fail with style" and aimed at wall. Ricocheted in all directions and hit dummy. Passed, and instructor said "I do not approve of these flashy modern methods"

[Yukitsu]

in the sense that he doesn't actually do any assassinating any more. In fact, some of his early jobs involved being hired to keep someone alive (Vimes, masquerading as John Keel.

Discworld assassins have a long and complicated Code Of Honor that its somewhat lacking in D&D ones. and stil tend to be portrayed unsympathetically. Pteppic, in Pyramids, is the closest thing to an assassin hero.

also, in Pyramids, almost exactly like D&D ones, assassin has to kill somebody to graduate. Except, unknown to them, its not actually a somebody, its a dummy. Pteppic figured "fail with style" and aimed at wall. Ricocheted in all directions and hit dummy. Passed, and instructor said "I do not approve of these flashy modern methods"

To be fair, the only people in the entire series who are arguably good are Sergeant Carrot, and possibly Vimes. Everyone else seems to be fairly neutral at best. Not many people in any walk of life seems very good on the disk.

Oh, and maybe Twoflower.

[hamishspence]

the witches are devoted to altruism, in a sense, but they can be somewhat ruthless. Weatherwax and Tiffany Aching books stress that a witch serves.

[Duke of URL]

While I'm late to the discussion, let me just point out to the OP what i always say in such circumstances: marrying the "crunch" of the game to "fluff" arbitrarily is a poor design decision.

It's okay to say, "in the default setting, Assassins are always evil". It is not okay to say "Assassins are always evil, regardless of the setting". The former illustrates how the class is intended to be played in a "default" sense while the latter stifles the ability to devise settings at variance with the default.

Unfortunately, WotC has a nasty habit of doing the latter.

Yes, "Rule 0" always applies anyway, but that doesn't excuse stupidity in the first place.

[Krrth]

While I'm late to the discussion, let me just point out to the OP what i always say in such circumstances: marrying the "crunch" of the game to "fluff" arbitrarily is a poor design decision.

It's okay to say, "in the default setting, Assassins are always evil". It is not okay to say "Assassins are always evil, regardless of the setting". The former illustrates how the class is intended to be played in a "default" sense while the latter stifles the ability to devise settings at variance with the default.

Unfortunately, WotC has a nasty habit of doing the latter.

Yes, "Rule 0" always applies anyway, but that doesn't excuse stupidity in the first place.
To be fair, they said Assassins are always evil, not assassins. Only people who take the PrC have to be evil.

[hamishspence]

yes, it seems a lot like Blackguard, but without the fiends, in some ways.

[hamishspence]

Maybe should have called it Thugs, organization devoted to murder, who also take contracts, and made it less generic?

in Forgotten realms, in late 1st ed, virtually all assassins worshipped Bhaal, the Lord of Murder.

[Yukitsu]

yes, it seems a lot like Blackguard, but without the fiends, in some ways.

Black guard is pretty distinct. His abilities are tagged with the evil descriptor, and he has moves that kill good aligned creatures specifically. Death attack to compare, works on any one that the assassin wants it to, so assassins can target evil, black guard, not so much.

[hamishspence]

yes- its more the prerequisite. Are any Assassin spells Evil?

[Yukitsu]

yes- its more the prerequisite. Are any Assassin spells Evil?

Good arcanists have evil spells, so that's not really an indicator. Incidently, only one, and it's a protection spell.

[Duke of URL]

To be fair, they said Assassins are always evil, not assassins. Only people who take the PrC have to be evil.

Still doesn't excuse design stupidity. Why is there the explicit assumption that in all possible settings that this must be true?

What if I have a setting where there are Assassins who have identical skills, abilities, etc., but who are pledged to only use them against named enemies of the common good (some form of LN group) -- is it inherently "evil" to assassinate an evil target, especially when charted to do so by the due process of justice?

No, it isn't, even in D&D's morality scheme.

But this type of decision making is endemic throughout 3rd edition. Just from the SRD prestige classes, arbitrary setting information is encoded into the rules for:


Arcane Archer: Must be an elf
Arcane Trickster: Nonlawful
Assassin: Evil, must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins
Dwarven Defender: Must be a dwarf (admittedly, they'd have to change the name...)


Yes, you could make a good argument that each of those restrictions makes some sort of sense, but only within the context of the default setting. Once you change the assumptions of that setting, you all of a sudden have mechanics that are "broken" because they rely on those generally non-mechanical assumptions.

[Fax Celestis]

yes- its more the prerequisite. Are any Assassin spells Evil?

Inside core, and excluding magic circle against good, no. Outside of core, not off the top of my head, but that's without research.

[hamishspence]

Mostly Vile Darkness. Even Heart-Ripper in Spell Compendium isn't evil.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, but you must remember the difference between Assasin (The Class) and assasin (The person). You can be an assasin without being an Assasin.

But could you be an Assassin without being an assassin?

For example, a hypothetical rogue who's part of a standard adventuring party. He fulfills the PrC requirements, including murdering someone, and becomes an Assassin.

Now he remains with his party in traditional dungeoncrawling or adventures or whatever, with a Ring of Invisibility that's always on outside of combat. His modus operandi in major combats is to watch the battle for three rounds, then deliver a ranged Death Attack to the most threatening enemy present, hopefully the leader of the opposing side for the aim of disrupting or demoralizing the opposition.

He is a Rogue 5/Assassin X, but is he an assassin in the classical sense?

[hamishspence]

in a sense, given that his first kill wasn't for either money or idealism, but "to join" such an Assassin might have never committed any assassinations.

[Krrth]

But could you be an Assassin without being an assassin?

For example, a hypothetical rogue who's part of a standard adventuring party. He fulfills the PrC requirements, including murdering someone, and becomes an Assassin.

Now he remains with his party in traditional dungeoncrawling or adventures or whatever, with a Ring of Invisibility that's always on outside of combat. His modus operandi in major combats is to watch the battle for three rounds, then deliver a ranged Death Attack to the most threatening enemy present, hopefully the leader of the opposing side for the aim of disrupting or demoralizing the opposition.

He is a Rogue 5/Assassin X, but is he an assassin in the classical sense?
Yes. Once he assassinated someone (in this case to join the guild),he became one.

[hamishspence]

Ah, but that person might not be a public figure. and not killed for money.

A common trope in fictional conspiracies is for the heroes inflitrating it to be forces to kill someone- a traitor to the group, an innocent, etc, to prove their loyalty to the group.

[Krrth]

Ah, but that person might not be a public figure. and not killed for money.

A common trope in fictional conspiracies is for the heroes inflitrating it to be forces to kill someone- a traitor to the group, an innocent, etc, to prove their loyalty to the group.

Doesn't matter.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Assassin

[Weiser_Cain]

I like Chiun's explanation of assassination as public service, eliminating disruptive elements from society.

Remo: Robin Hood?
Chiun: A bandit!

[hamishspence]

it stresses politically prominant persons, killed for monetary or fanatical reasons. Though, it also says any murderer who kills by surprise attack. However that definition is perhaps a bit too wide.

[hamishspence]

I liked the pirate who declares war on the Concept of Robin Hood, saying it had been corrupted from original guy who steals from robbers and returns money to the robbed. Those robbers being the men who impose unjust taxes.

[Yukitsu]

it stresses politically prominant persons, killed for monetary or fanatical reasons. Though, it also says any murderer who kills by surprise attack. However that definition is perhaps a bit too wide.

Politically prominant persons is fairly vague in terms of leeway. Basically, anyone worth wacking must be politically prominant in some manner, even if only tangently. Most evil people have some political impact, be it demand for more police officers, or general social reform, even if it's only brought about by their actions.

On tangent, I'm surprised this has remained as civil as it has.

[hamishspence]

I like civil discussions. It has followed traditional trend of alignment discussions- starting with rules, moving on to philosophy and ethics, then moving back on topic, but stayed civil, for which I am very grateful.

If "kill to get in" has person in guild, a commoner put in front of him, and candidate told "Kill him and you can join the assassins" thats not a very public figure.

However its not only way- Unearthed Arcana 3.5 has Trials for several candidates for prestige classes, instead of checking skill ranks.

[Egiam]

Ok I did not read the whole thread but I have something to say.
The prestige classes in the DMG are sample ones. fuctional ones, but sample. these are to get the DM thinking and are infinitly customizable. I think that the main thing that makes assasins evil is the initiate part. heck, you could make an adventure about getting in, rather than just killing 1 person. Also remember that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

[Yukitsu]

If "kill to get in" has person in guild, a commoner put in front of him, and candidate told "Kill him and you can join the assassins" thats not a very public figure.

However its not only way- Unearthed Arcana 3.5 has Trials for several candidates for prestige classes, instead of checking skill ranks.

That's true, but in general, I think the assassin hopeful gets some say in it. It doesn't seem like it has to be a specific person chosen by the guild from my readin into it.

[Tormsskull]

Yes, you could make a good argument that each of those restrictions makes some sort of sense, but only within the context of the default setting. Once you change the assumptions of that setting, you all of a sudden have mechanics that are "broken" because they rely on those generally non-mechanical assumptions.

No offense, but "uh, duh." You could say the same about virtually everything. Dwarves in my setting are weak and frail, they shouldn't have a +2 Con. This is so stupid that the PHB designers are saying ALL dwarves are healthy.

Monks attack with their fists and move quickly? That's so stupid! In my setting monks are pacifistic priests, not unarmed combatants.

etc, etc.

The books are designed around a default setting. And in that default setting, it completely makes sense that the Assassin PrC is Evil only. If you want to change that requirement, you can as the DM. Just as if you think ANY mechanic is stupid or doesn't fit into your setting you can change it.

[hamishspence]

The Test of Corvu u Khalai- "Eliminate, then replace." Contacted by an anonymous letter, the applicant is given the name of a well-known functionary in the noble court, often the chamberlain, troubadour or court wizard. The applicant must sneak into the castle on the night of the full moon, kill the target, and then impersonate him. The test is a success if the applicant walks out of the castle when the gates open in the morning, carrying the target's head in a satchel.

this is the UA test. The general assumption seems to be- they choose.

[mangosta71]

The "kill to get in" which leads me to believe that it's an organization also leads me to believe that it's not "just go kill anyone"; rather, it's "we want this person dead. Do it, and you're in." The mark is probably a low-level guy - someone that's an annoyance to the organization, but not a big enough threat/important enough to send a full-fledged member after him, such as a local judge or magistrate, or a noble that's low on the social ladder. Maybe a particular guard that can't be bribed but is low enough in the ranks that he's easy to get to. Ideally, it's someone that your character has never heard of before, so you have no other reason for killing him.

[Duke of URL]

No offense, but "uh, duh." You could say the same about virtually everything. Dwarves in my setting are weak and frail, they shouldn't have a +2 Con. This is so stupid that the PHB designers are saying ALL dwarves are healthy.

Monks attack with their fists and move quickly? That's so stupid! In my setting monks are pacifistic priests, not unarmed combatants.

etc, etc.

The books are designed around a default setting. And in that default setting, it completely makes sense that the Assassin PrC is Evil only. If you want to change that requirement, you can as the DM. Just as if you think ANY mechanic is stupid or doesn't fit into your setting you can change it.

You're missing my point.

Some mechanical decisions are just that, mechanical. "Dwarves" are a race with a set of traits, and frankly, many campaigns introduce subraces to redefine those traits. (Oh, and by the way, you can still have a dwarf with a miserable CON -- they're not all healthy, they just tend to be healthier on average...)

Your Monk example is a mechanical change -- you are merely using the same name to define a completely different set of Mechanics. However, this is akin to saying that setting X has no Monks, despite the overloaded use of the name.

The problem comes when the mechanic is arbitrarily and unnecessarily tied to the mechanic. Why does an Arcane Archer have to be an elf (or half-elf)? There is no mechanical reason for it, only a setting-specific flavor reason. I need make no mechanical changes to the class to say that in setting Y, it's open to anyone, or in setting Z only halflings are allowed to use it.

On the other hand, you have the Blackguard -- it's requirement of an evil alignment, unlike the Assassin's, is intrinsic to the mechanical design of the class. The class features are dependent on the Blackguard being evil and doing evil things. The Assassin, on the other hand, has an arbitrary requirement to be evil because that "just the way it is" in the default setting.

Are you seeing the distinction here?

[Weiser_Cain]

The thing is, you'd have to had to kill a lot of people to even qualify for the class in the first place. Adventurer=Assassin=Adventurer

[Ravens_cry]

The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.
And that to me is an evil act. Your not doing it because they are disrupting society and should be removed for the public good, your not doing it because they are enforcing tyranny and injustice, your not doing it because they are Evil, and you are Good, your not even doing because they are Good, and you are Evil.
You are doing it, so you can join the Assassins Guild. Their life has no meaning to you, other that you are trying to kill them. In fact you are killing them to receive a personal benefit above and beyond self preservation.
That is cold, selfish, and to my mind, evil.

I don't like genocidal 'heroes' either by the way.

[Yukitsu]

The Test of Corvu u Khalai- "Eliminate, then replace." Contacted by an anonymous letter, the applicant is given the name of a well-known functionary in the noble court, often the chamberlain, troubadour or court wizard. The applicant must sneak into the castle on the night of the full moon, kill the target, and then impersonate him. The test is a success if the applicant walks out of the castle when the gates open in the morning, carrying the target's head in a satchel.

this is the UA test. The general assumption seems to be- they choose.

Those ones are definitely tagged as examples, not the standard necessarily. Plus, that test makes assassin unreasonably hard to get into in the first place. In any event, that test takes the place of the normal entry requirements, so while this may be an evil act in and of itself, a single evil act doesn't always push all people to evil.

If I wanted to do this test and remain good, I'd pay for the resurrection after passing the test.

[Starbuck_II]

And that to me is an evil act. Your not doing it because they are disrupting society and should be removed for the public good, your not doing it because they are enforcing tyranny and injustice, your not doing it because they are Evil, and you are Good, your not even doing because they are Good, and you are Evil.
You are doing it, so you can join the Assassins Guild. Their life has no meaning to you, other that you are trying to kill them. In fact you are killing them to receive a personal benefit above and beyond self preservation.
That is cold, selfish, and to my mind, evil.

I don't like genocidal 'heroes' either by the way.

Come on, Collatoral Damage Man is the greatest superhero ever!

[Tormsskull]

The problem comes when the mechanic is arbitrarily and unnecessarily tied to the mechanic. Why does an Arcane Archer have to be an elf (or half-elf)?


Because in the default setting only the elves know the secrets of the PrC. Half-elves might be listed as being able to enter it because they could have grown up in an elven communty and learned those secrets.

Or perhaps there is something special in elven blood that is required to understand the techniques/abilities used by the class?



There is no mechanical reason for it, only a setting-specific flavor reason. I need make no mechanical changes to the class to say that in setting Y, it's open to anyone, or in setting Z only halflings are allowed to use it.


I would say it is quite obvious that the designers aren't as mechanics-first as you are. They were trying to make a roleplaying game, not just a number crunch.

Define what a 'mechanical change' is for me. Wouldn't "Alignment Required: Evil" be considered a 'mechanic'?



The Assassin, on the other hand, has an arbitrary requirement to be evil because that "just the way it is" in the default setting.


Which helps bring the setting to life. The books could have just been filled with countless races, classes, feats, skills and the designers could have said "Now make your own worlds" but I bet a lot of people wouldn't like that.



Are you seeing the distinction here?

Yeah. You don't believe that a campaign world should have any affect on the 'mechanics' of a class.

[RPGuru1331]

Back on the topic of the Assassin PrC - one of the requirements is "you must murder someone for no other reason than to join." The word join there implies that it's an organization, like the Red Wizards, Knights of Whatever Order, etc. So yes, it is a universal guild. Also, the target's alignment is moot, because the only reason you're killing him is to join. He could be an evil tyrant who's oppressing millions. Maybe his death would benefit everyone under his rule. That doesn't matter.

That's like saying "Because you get money/loot from adventuring, the only reason you adventure is money". Again, if we're talking about an Assassin's guild that /isn't/ immediately obvious from the book fluff, such as an ideological one, you probably *are* joining because the ideology matches. They probably would send you at a normal target; Which, for a beneficent or good one, means someone evil, in all probability, or someone perpetrating evils.

[Ravens_cry]

Come on, Collatoral Damage Man is the greatest superhero ever!
He doesn't hold a candle though to Captain Mutually Assured Destruction.
As for the alignment requirements well, a barbarian has to be chaotic, a monk has to be lawful. So what is the big deal about Assassins having to be evil?

[The Rose Dragon]

Well, I'm also against monks being lawful. And barbarians have to be non-lawful, not chaotic. Which at least makes sense.

[RPGuru1331]

He doesn't hold a candle though to Captain Mutually Assured Destruction.
As for the alignment requirements well, a barbarian has to be chaotic, a monk has to be lawful. So what is the big deal about Assassins having to be evil?

Barbarians have to be non-Lawful because the discipline of Law tames the wild rage. Monks have to be Lawful because they need to be extraordinarily disciplined to learn their (ineffective) fighting style and how to control their Ki. And frankly, I'd waive either if the player had a neat reason to do so, because that's just limitting concepts (Of course, I'd also work to make an evil paladin class if a player wanted..)

Assassins have to be evil because they have to be evil. Oh, and they kill people for money, and nothing else.

Protip: The word originates from the name of a group of doped up idealogues. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashashin) There's a reason why I'm so damn sure that you can kill for your beliefs; Even if you do it from the shadows.

[The Rose Dragon]

Of course, the fedaayen never actually snuck around as much as D&D assassins. They often preferred to make a point by killing openly.

Also, it is disputed whether they used hashish or not.

[hamishspence]

Note that the Black Flame Zealot in Unapproachable East, reprinted in Complete Divine, is a fair fit for Holy Assassin- common in various fiction books. Must Be Non-good.

Might have been preferable if DMG assassin had had that as prerequisite.

[chiasaur11]

He doesn't hold a candle though to Captain Mutually Assured Destruction.


I'm a fan of Captain Maximum and the Red Basher, myself.

Man, I really need to get Scott Mccloud's DESTROY!

[Yukitsu]

Note that the Black Flame Zealot in Unapproachable East, reprinted in Complete Divine, is a fair fit for Holy Assassin- common in various fiction books. Must Be Non-good.

Might have been preferable if DMG assassin had had that as prerequisite.

I'd probably go for that interpretation myself. In general, it would have to be a fairly odd character concept to be both good and an assassin, but being neutral and an assassin shouldn't actually be so difficult to consider.

[Starbuck_II]

He doesn't hold a candle though to Captain Mutually Assured Destruction.
As for the alignment requirements well, a barbarian has to be chaotic, a monk has to be lawful. So what is the big deal about Assassins having to be evil?

Yeah, but Captain Mutual Assured Destruction is MAD (Multiple ability dependency) so he is like a monk.
I will admit both are better than a CW Samurai.

And as an aside for those in Organic Chemistry: backside attack!

[hamishspence]

Robin Hobb's Farseer series has a pretty interesting fantasy Assassin- FitzChivalry Farseer, who seems fairly close to the LE/LN border. Which side might depend on your views.

[Ravens_cry]

Barbarians have to be non-Lawful because the discipline of Law tames the wild rage. Monks have to be Lawful because they need to be extraordinarily disciplined to learn their (ineffective) fighting style and how to control their Ki. And frankly, I'd waive either if the player had a neat reason to do so, because that's just limitting concepts (Of course, I'd also work to make an evil paladin class if a player wanted..)

Assassins have to be evil because they have to be evil. Oh, and they kill people for money, and nothing else.

Protip: The word originates from the name of a group of doped up idealogues. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashashin) There's a reason why I'm so damn sure that you can kill for your beliefs; Even if you do it from the shadows.
No, Assassins have to be evil because they kill people for no reason. First in the initiation, and later in their duties as Guild. No it isn't the most defined Guild class, but there is plenty of other PrC's that are.
Rule Zero means you can change this if you desire. If it isn't fun for you to have Assassins have to be evil , then remove that, no one is stopping you.
You can make it so that saps do d100 fire damage,and Magic Missile makes butterflies fly out of your characters butt, it is this versatility that is a large part of the beauty of the Pen and Paper Role Playing Experience.
But as for me and my house, an Assassin is hands down evil.
Just my two cp.

[Yukitsu]

No, Assassins have to be evil because they kill people for no reason. First in the initiation, and later in their duties as Guild. No it isn't the most defined Guild class, but there is plenty of other PrC's that are.

Doing it for the guild isn't for no reason, nor is it necessary to take on duties that clash with alignment. The initiation is a bad reason, but singular actions don't define alignment, and frankly, resurrection is a spell that exists.

[Weiser_Cain]

No assassins kill for money.

[Yukitsu]

No assassins kill for money.

If your grammar is as you present it (This is one of those "pandas eat, shoots and leaves" moments.) then I'd disagree. I'm pretty sure most people who become assassins take the job for money.

[Weiser_Cain]

If your grammar is as you present it (This is one of those "pandas eat, shoots and leaves" moments.) then I'd disagree. I'm pretty sure most people who become assassins take the job for money.

insert a , thingy in there

[Ravens_cry]

Doing it for the guild isn't for no reason, nor is it necessary to take on duties that clash with alignment. The initiation is a bad reason, but singular actions don't define alignment, and frankly, resurrection is a spell that exists.
So what, you become an Assassin so you can work in the Assassin Guild accounting department?
As for resurrection, does that mean it would be a good act for me to go into a fish mongers house and kill him? After all resurrection exists, and if they can't afford a 10,000 gold piece gem, that is their problem.
Is that how morality works for you?

[Duke of URL]

Because in the default setting only the elves know the secrets of the PrC. Half-elves might be listed as being able to enter it because they could have grown up in an elven communty and learned those secrets.

Or perhaps there is something special in elven blood that is required to understand the techniques/abilities used by the class?

Right. Setting-specific. You're making my point.


I would say it is quite obvious that the designers aren't as mechanics-first as you are. They were trying to make a roleplaying game, not just a number crunch.

So am I. I'm trying to make a game that will work for ALL of the players, not just the default setting designers.


Define what a 'mechanical change' is for me. Wouldn't "Alignment Required: Evil" be considered a 'mechanic'?

No, it's not a mechanic, because it has no bearing on the class' abilities. It only "matters" because they say it matters, but if that arbitrary requirement was removed, it makes no discernible difference to the class.


Which helps bring the setting to life. The books could have just been filled with countless races, classes, feats, skills and the designers could have said "Now make your own worlds" but I bet a lot of people wouldn't like that.

Go back to my first post. I have no problem with providing a "default setting" context for any of the mechanics. What I do have a problem with is when the mechanics are designed so that they only work within the assumptions of the default setting.


Yeah. You don't believe that a campaign world should have any affect on the 'mechanics' of a class.

On the contrary, I am arguing that a campaign world should have everything to do with the mechanics of a class. I am arguing against artificially limiting classes to work only within a default setting and making it impossible to adapt the mechanics to a new setting without having to re-do the mechanics.

[snoopy13a]

So what, you become an Assassin so you can work in the Assassin Guild accounting department?


Hey, someone has to work in the A.G. accounting department :smallbiggrin:

And trust me, that is not an employer you want to embezzle from...

[Yukitsu]

So what, you become an Assassin so you can work in the Assassin Guild accounting department?
As for resurrection, does that mean it would be a good act for me to go into a fish mongers house and kill him? After all resurrection exists, and if they can't afford a 10,000 gold piece gem, that is their problem.
Is that how morality works for you?

As a player character, how often are you forced by the DM to fulfill contracts when you would otherwise be with the party adventuring? If a contract to wack an evil guy comes up, I see no reason not to snag it, and if it's for a good guy, delegate. All in all, there is no reason you can't assassinate as many people as the other PC assassin, because in general terms, neither individual is going to be defined by wacking people.

And by resurrection, I mean I can afford a 10 000 GP gem, and I can get the sot resurrected. In general, he'll still hate my guts, but that's fine by me.

[Ravens_cry]

As a player character, how often are you forced by the DM to fulfill contracts when you would otherwise be with the party adventuring? If a contract to wack an evil guy comes up, I see no reason not to snag it, and if it's for a good guy, delegate. All in all, there is no reason you can't assassinate as many people as the other PC assassin, because in general terms, neither individual is going to be defined by wacking people.

And by resurrection, I mean I can afford a 10 000 GP gem, and I can get the sot resurrected. In general, he'll still hate my guts, but that's fine by me.
Right now we are adventuring in a city, with a contract with the City Guard. But unlike an assassin, if we can, we don't 'wack' the guy.On most occasions we try and and convince the other party to give up, and it has succeeded on several occasions.
An Assassin on the other hand has no choice on whether he kills the guy or not.
Not if he wants to keep the job anyway, and/or his life.

[Tormsskull]

No, it's not a mechanic, because it has no bearing on the class' abilities. It only "matters" because they say it matters, but if that arbitrary requirement was removed, it makes no discernible difference to the class.


In your opinion. If the Evil requirement was removed it would make a world of difference to me, as it change my expectations for other classes/alignment issues.

I'd really like you to give a couple of examples of what you consider a mechanic and what you don't. Specific examples.

IMO the BAB, Saves, Skills, and Special Abilities of a class are a direct game-realization of its description. If you read the text description of the Assassin PrC, an 'Evil only' alignment requirement makes sense.

You seem to be saying 'But I can change the text description if I want and its no big deal', which is true, but you can also change the BAB, Saves, Skills, or Special Abilities of a class if you want, and its no big deal.



Go back to my first post. I have no problem with providing a "default setting" context for any of the mechanics. What I do have a problem with is when the mechanics are designed so that they only work within the assumptions of the default setting.


How is that the Assassin PrC is made in such a way that it only works in the default setting? You change to a different setting, you erase the Alignment Evil requirement, change their descriptive text up a bit, possibly make some other changes, bam, all set.

Just in the same way that if Dwarves are different in my setting than they are in the default setting I might change their Con modifier, remove their darkvision, whatever. But I don't hear you complaining that Dwarves only work within the assumptions of the default setting.



I am arguing against artificially limiting classes to work only within a default setting and making it impossible to adapt the mechanics to a new setting without having to re-do the mechanics.

But in an earlier quote from you, you said that Alignment: Evil is not a mechanic. So what mechanic are you having to change for the Assassin PrC?

I'm not sure you are really understanding how you are using the word 'mechanic'. If you really do and it is I that am misunderstanding you, perhaps you could clear it up for me and give specific examples of mechanics versus non-mechanics as it relates to a PrC.

[Duke of URL]

In your opinion. If the Evil requirement was removed it would make a world of difference to me, as it change my expectations for other classes/alignment issues.

I'd really like you to give a couple of examples of what you consider a mechanic and what you don't. Specific examples.

IMO the BAB, Saves, Skills, and Special Abilities of a class are a direct game-realization of its description. If you read the text description of the Assassin PrC, an 'Evil only' alignment requirement makes sense.

You seem to be saying 'But I can change the text description if I want and its no big deal', which is true, but you can also change the BAB, Saves, Skills, or Special Abilities of a class if you want, and its no big deal.

No, changing the abilities, BAB, saves, etc., of the class changes the class itself, no matter how it is played. Changing a "fluff" requirement like "must be evil" does not.

Let me posit that there's a requirement for some PrC that states "must spend 23 days dancing naked in the rain". Sure you can try to make the argument that it makes sense from the text description of the class (which, incidentally, goes right back to the default setting assumptions argument, but I digress), however, it is entirely a non-mechanical requirement added to make the class fit the flavor of the default setting.

But it has no real effect on the class' abilities at all.


How is that the Assassin PrC is made in such a way that it only works in the default setting? You change to a different setting, you erase the Alignment Evil requirement, change their descriptive text up a bit, possibly make some other changes, bam, all set.

Just because something can be fixed by houseruling doesn't make it right. The existence of Rule 0 is not an excuse for poor design. (This isn't to say that houseruling itself is an inherently bad thing, see below.)

The Assassin PrC assumes the default setting view that its activities are evil, even though the class features and special abilities are no more inherently "evil" than that of a Rogue, which can be any alignment. Contrast with Blackguard, whose class features are predicated on the character being evil -- in that case, the alignment requirement is not arbitrary, but rather reflective of the mechanics of the class.

Are you getting my point? Requirements of a class that are arbitrarily added to a class to fit the assumptions of a default setting = bad. Requirements of a class that reflect the class' abilities regardless of the setting = good.


Just in the same way that if Dwarves are different in my setting than they are in the default setting I might change their Con modifier, remove their darkvision, whatever. But I don't hear you complaining that Dwarves only work within the assumptions of the default setting.

In this case, you are essentially homebrewing a new race for your setting, just calling it "Dwarf". Extending the base rules is different than the base rules not applying.

Okay, you might say, but isn't removing the "Evil" requirement from Assassin the same thing as extending the rules by adding a new race or subrace? No, it isn't. In the case of the Assassin, I want to make no changes the the abilities, skills, BAB, spells, etc., I just want to remove the arbitrary requirement that should have been there in the first place.


But in an earlier quote from you, you said that Alignment: Evil is not a mechanic. So what mechanic are you having to change for the Assassin PrC?

I'm not sure you are really understanding how you are using the word 'mechanic'. If you really do and it is I that am misunderstanding you, perhaps you could clear it up for me and give specific examples of mechanics versus non-mechanics as it relates to a PrC.

Mechanic = Something that affects how the class is actually played
Non-mechanic = Everything else

To figure out which is which, as the question: "if I have two characters using the same basic rules, if I remove rule X from character A, does it make character A function differently from character B?" A "yes" answer means it's mechanical, whereas as "no" answer means it's non-mechanical.

Assassin as a specific example: If I have two characters built with the Assassin PrC, but I waive the "Evil" alignment restriction for one of them, do the characters get different effects/benefits from the Assassin PrC? the answer is "no", so the alignment restriction is non-mechanical. (On the other hand, a Blackguard is evil simply by the normal use of his abilities to smite good and the like.)

If I change the BAB of Assassin to full vs. 3/4, clearly one character gets a benefit the other does not. If I change the skill requirements so that Hide/Move Silently only require 4 ranks each, then it provides a mechanical difference in that the PrC can be entered earlier.

[Hawriel]

No you dont become an assassin because you like the mony. My reason will tie into the assassin prc. Its because they injoy killing. INJOY, they like it. That is the one common thing with assassins, hitmen, black ops, what ever. Even in the smallest part of the persons mind the person injoys the kill. The other part of why its evil. Because its done coldly with out afterthought or conscience. That is the D&D assasssin. There are legal, extralegal, and illegal assassins.

Legal assassins.
An assassin that is in the employ of a government as apart of its military, secerity forces, or inteligents organizations.

Extralegal.
An assassin that may or may not be in a governmental body but is in an organization that a goverment or other powerful organization would go to. However it would still be an illegal act. A mercinary.

Illegal.
An assassin that works on their own for their own intrests. The Lee Harvy Oswalds, thugs for higher, or mob hitman.

Oh the point of what is evil and why. You dont need a damn rule book to tell you what is and is not an evil act. Some cases maybe, like some kinds of magic. Just to keep the power gamers in check. Honestly I dont think gamers 15 years ago needed telling that rasing undead and using horendosly vile spells like implosion or wilting horror is an evil act. Evil is evil you know it. Just like porn you know it when you see it. D&D games take place in some kind of a society they have laws, ethics and morality in some way shape or form. If it is (or could be) evil in the real world chances are its evil in D&D.

Ninja should have the evil requierment. At least the non Oriental Adventure ones. Because Ninja are a guild/clan that specialize in killing. They are extra legal. They are not ninja because they "believe in a cause". That is crap. They kill because some one payed their master alot of mony to kill some one. Which brings us to a third reason why the D&D assassin is evil. The price of the assassination is amoral because it puts a monitory value on sentient life. Thats the basic reason highering some one to kill another is treated as the same as if you killed the person yourself in the real world. To avoid the big argument about that let me say this. That crime is one of the very few times in real life whare the priceless value of life is actualy adhered to.

Assissins are also not a true group of peaple. An assassin is some one who kills for a political motive or kills a political target. It is not a profesion you can sign on for. Technicly speaking. Basicly any one can be an assassin. All you have to do is kill, or try to kill, a political person. Like a King, mayor, senator, community leader, and so on. Thats the big issue that makes ninja different. A ninja is a, for lack of a better word, job. They are organized into a guild or clan that takes contractes for jobs. They may also kill for their own reasons.

To review.
An assassin is evil because they; 1) Injoy killing. 2) Feal no remorce for killing, or the collateral effects from the killing. 3) They get payed to kill. 4) The motivation for killing is strickly that they where payed for it. Or their 'boss' told them to do it.

[Tormsskull]

No, changing the abilities, BAB, saves, etc., of the class changes the class itself, no matter how it is played. Changing a "fluff" requirement like "must be evil" does not.


Of course removing an evil requirement changes how a class will be played. You're trying to say there is no difference between an Evil Fighter and a Good Fighter?

Just off the top of my head, the evil fighter would be more likely to use any means necessary, utilize underhanded tactics, perhaps employ poison, deception, manipulation. Whereas a good fighter would try to protect his friends and the innocent, defeat oppressors, bring criminals to justice, etc.



Let me posit that there's a requirement for some PrC that states "must spend 23 days dancing naked in the rain".


You are not seriously comparing this to the Evil alignment, are you?



Just because something can be fixed by houseruling doesn't make it right. The existence of Rule 0 is not an excuse for poor design. (This isn't to say that houseruling itself is an inherently bad thing, see below.)


It doesn't need to be fixed any more than dwarves need to be fixed if my vision of dwarves doesn't match the designers vision of dwarves. Just because you don't think that the Assassin PrC should have an alignment restriction doesn't make it wrong. It means that in your world/setting, the Assassin PrC operates differently than the Assassin PrC operates in a standard/default world.



The Assassin PrC assumes the default setting view that its activities are evil, even though the class features and special abilities are no more inherently "evil" than that of a Rogue, which can be any alignment.


Once again, in your opinion. Several people have made the argument (in this thread and in the past) that studing specifically to be able to kill people with a single blow is Evil. The designers seemed to think so. You my disagree, and that's fine.



Are you getting my point? Requirements of a class that are arbitrarily added to a class to fit the assumptions of a default setting = bad. Requirements of a class that reflect the class' abilities regardless of the setting = good.


I understand your point, I disagree with it. I'd much rather the designers made the classes as they make sense in a default world, and then let me make the changes that I want to make so that they fit my world.



Okay, you might say, but isn't removing the "Evil" requirement from Assassin the same thing as extending the rules by adding a new race or subrace? No, it isn't. In the case of the Assassin, I want to make no changes the the abilities, skills, BAB, spells, etc., I just want to remove the arbitrary requirement that should have been there in the first place.


Once again, that's because you are ignoring the descriptive text of the class. When you design a class, you don't create all of the mechanics and then go back and think about how the class will be. You think about how the class will be first, and then create the mechanics that represent that.

If I change that fact that Dwarves live underground and make it where they all live in sky castles, it would strain belief that they have Darkvision, bonus to fighting against certain humanoids that they would normally encounter in their default environment, ability to detect shifting walls, etc.

Even though I have made no mechanical change, the race is now incredibly silly and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The same goes for the Assassin PrC. Read the descriptive text, understand what role, genre, theme the designer was going for when he designed the PrC, then read the mechanics under the lens of that role, genre, theme, and it makes sense.

If you do as I suspect you are doing, reading only the mechanics and disregarding the descriptive text, then I could definitely see how you are coming to your conclusion.



If I change the skill requirements so that Hide/Move Silently only require 4 ranks each, then it provides a mechanical difference in that the PrC can be entered earlier.

And if you change the requirement for Alignment: Evil to Alignment: Any you've opened the class up to far more characters. You've made it where paladins can enter the class without losing their paladin abilities. You've made it where its acceptable for a Good character to use abilities like Death Attack.

That's a mechanical change. A non-mechanical change would be changing something in the class' descriptive text or changing the name Assassin to Bounty Hunter, or the like.

[hamishspence]

numerous non-assassin prestige classes, and some classes, exist that are very, very, like it.

Imaskari vengeance takers (Underdark), like assassins, have sneak attack progression, and a Death Attack. They are Any Lawful, specialize in taking vengeance on the "Unjust" and those who attack others to whom they have extended their protection. This may include paladins who kill evil creatures they have declared protection on.

Members of the ninja class (Complete Adventurer)are "highly skilled spies and assassins" and can be of any alignment.

The Justice of weald and woe (Champions of Ruin)
can be of any alignment and has a death attack. Members of an evil elven organization dedicated to destroying all human encroachment on elven lands. However, not all memebers of this evil organization, are evil themselves.

I've already mentioned the Any Non-good Black Flame Zealot.

[mangosta71]

I can see a logical argument to remove the evil alignment req for Assassin, as long as it's noted that becoming one is a very evil act. However:

Poisons. BoED (at the very least) states explicitly that using poison is an evil act. Using poisons is an Assassin's bread and butter. Sure, you could play an assassin that doesn't use them, but you'd be gimping yourself (in what's probably an underpowered PrC to begin with).

[hamishspence]

Same applies to ninjas which specifically get ability to poison weapons at no risk to themselves.

If you choose to not houserule it out, or are playing in game that require RAW for anything but rules bugs (Living Greyhawk?), then Drow poison, oil of taggit, and ravages are best bets. Positoxins are also "Not exactly poisons" and only work on undead.

[Starbuck_II]

I can see a logical argument to remove the evil alignment req for Assassin, as long as it's noted that becoming one is a very evil act. However:

Poisons. BoED (at the very least) states explicitly that using poison is an evil act. Using poisons is an Assassin's bread and butter. Sure, you could play an assassin that doesn't use them, but you'd be gimping yourself (in what's probably an underpowered PrC to begin with).

Please, WotC has said (Sage did) that poison isn't evil. That is why Ninjas get it and they can be any alignment.

BoED is not to be trusted as they contradict with Ravages.

[hamishspence]

Sage isn't WOTC. At least according to some posters.

Also, its only ability damage inflicted by Poisons that counts as evil, not monster special abilities, or spells, or positoxins, or the much-hated ravages.

[Yukitsu]

Right now we are adventuring in a city, with a contract with the City Guard. But unlike an assassin, if we can, we don't 'wack' the guy.On most occasions we try and and convince the other party to give up, and it has succeeded on several occasions.

How often as a PC assassin (not party of PCs) do you get a contract that you must fulfill rather than adventuring.


An Assassin on the other hand has no choice on whether he kills the guy or not.
Not if he wants to keep the job anyway, and/or his life.

Would you please stop making things up.

[hamishspence]

Yes, strictly, once you've qualified, its up to DM what restrictions are put on you by membership of the organization.

Whether you retain powers when changing alignment is a tricky question.

[Capfalcon]

Also, its only ability damage inflicted by Poisons that counts as evil, not monster special abilities, or spells, or positoxins, or the much-hated ravages.

That's odd. I thought animals had a neutral alignment. I even remember Coutals being good. Oh well, I guess Coutals are Good Outsiders who are Evil.

Seriously though, the book says that poisons are evil because the inflict suffering, and then turns around and hands out ravages that cause suffering, BUT ONLY TO EVIL PEOPLE SO IT'S OK, SEE? BECAUSE IT'S GOOD TO DO EVIL TO EVIL BECAUSE THEY'RE EVIL, K?

I still would disagree with them, but I could respect the idea if they hadn't thrown that it...

[Krrth]

That's odd. I thought animals had a neutral alignment. I even remember Coutals being good. Oh well, I guess Coutals are Good Outsiders who are Evil.

Seriously though, the book says that poisons are evil because the inflict suffering, and then turns around and hands out ravages that cause suffering, BUT ONLY TO EVIL PEOPLE SO IT'S OK, SEE? BECAUSE IT'S GOOD TO DO EVIL TO EVIL BECAUSE THEY'RE EVIL, K?

I still would disagree with them, but I could respect the idea if they hadn't thrown that it...
I think the idea behind poison being evil has to do with the effect. Since ability damage only heals (normally) at one per day, the average (non adventurer) will have days or weeks of pain and suffering as the body heals the damage done to it. This is different from hit points, which do not represent direct bodily harm.
Poison used for hunting would not have this effect, as it is pointless to poison an animal,have it run away only to die later. The poison used in this case would be something fast acting, which in D&D terms would be hitpoint damage or save/die.
What are these "ravages" you speak of? I know nothing of them. Nothing, do you hear! Nothing! They do not exist.

[RPGuru1331]

I think the idea behind poison being evil has to do with the effect. Since ability damage only heals (normally) at one per day, the average (non adventurer) will have days or weeks of pain and suffering as the body heals the damage done to it. This is different from hit points, which do not represent direct bodily harm.
Poison used for hunting would not have this effect, as it is pointless to poison an animal,have it run away only to die later. The poison used in this case would be something fast acting, which in D&D terms would be hitpoint damage or save/die.
What are these "ravages" you speak of? I know nothing of them. Nothing, do you hear! Nothing! They do not exist.

So what if I sword a guy down to -1? He's still going to need a week or os to recover, without magical aid.

[Krrth]

So what if I sword a guy down to -1? He's still going to need a week or os to recover, without magical aid.

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, Hit points do not represent direct damage. Once he's above zero, he is perfectly fine. So, he would be just fine after one full day of rest.

[RPGuru1331]

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, Hit points do not represent direct damage. Once he's above zero, he is perfectly fine. So, he would be just fine after one full day of rest.

Ah the great lie simulationist DnD players tell themselves to sleep at night.

These are the same hit points that let you dogpaddle in lava and survive 100 foot falls, aren't they? Hell, it's in the name; Hit Points. The number of Hits you can take. Not that I don't respect the idea of a near miss or whatever other justification is taken, but really?

[Krrth]

Ah the great lie simulationist DnD players tell themselves to sleep at night.

These are the same hit points that let you dogpaddle in lava and survive 100 foot falls, aren't they?
Lie? I'm not sure what you are getting at. It has been part of the rules since AD&D that hit points are not direct representations of damage. If you have an issue with the game mechanics of hitpoints, that's an entirely different conversation than poison.

[Capfalcon]

I think the idea behind poison being evil has to do with the effect. Since ability damage only heals (normally) at one per day, the average (non adventurer) will have days or weeks of pain and suffering as the body heals the damage done to it. This is different from hit points, which do not represent direct bodily harm.

That's an... interesting... line of reasoning... I find it strange that stabbing or immolating someone is somehow better and less painful than slipping them something that would make them go loopy for a few days.

So, I guess I just disagree.


Poison used for hunting would not have this effect, as it is pointless to poison an animal,have it run away only to die later. The poison used in this case would be something fast acting, which in D&D terms would be hitpoint damage or save/die.

The Monstrous Spider in the SRD would like a word with you. As would the Couatl.

As would the Poison spell, which poisons someone/thing, but lacks an [Evil] tag.


What are these "ravages" you speak of? I know nothing of them. Nothing, do you hear! Nothing! They do not exist.

Indeed. I mean, no one would say "Poisons are BadWrong, but these OnlyEvilHurting Poisons are A OK!" Right?

[RPGuru1331]

Lie? I'm not sure what you are getting at. It has been part of the rules since AD&D that hit points are not direct representations of damage. If you have an issue with the game mechanics of hitpoints, that's an entirely different conversation than poison.

I actually haven't had an issue with it. I just think this is a ludicrous argument, when most poisons' ability damage will wear off faster then grievous hit point damage, without the aid of magic. If Hit Points aren't direct damage, then you wouldn't need to rest so long to recover them. I have no issue with describing hits as near misses, near hits, and whatever other terminology but given how slowly they recover, they seem more like a direct damage corrolary.

Contrast: Vitality Points.
Contrast: 4e HP Recovery
Compare: Wound Points
Both systems have your 'luck/not direct damage' points come back fast. Vitality Point systems have your WP come back about as fast as DnD HP come back.

Here's another question; Even if they're not direct damage as such, DnD characters know they're missing them. If Poison sets them out of action for less time, why is it less evil?

[Krrth]

That's an... interesting... line of reasoning... I find it strange that stabbing or immolating someone is somehow better and less painful than slipping them something that would make them go loopy for a few days.

So, I guess I just disagree.



The Monstrous Spider in the SRD would like a word with you. As would the Couatl.

As would the Poison spell, which poisons someone/thing, but lacks an [Evil] tag.



Indeed. I mean, no one would say "Poisons are BadWrong, but these OnlyEvilHurting Poisons are A OK!" Right?
Heh. I'm not saying that poison was inplemented correctly, but what I thought the base reasoning was. IMO, the animals that use poison as a hunting tool should probably deal HP damage instead. Although, if an animal wants to "store" the prey for later, ability damage can model that.
As for Ravages...yeah, that was just someone being stupid. I can see a case for the positoxins, or even some a "ravage" that doesn't do ability damage, but as written they made me go "wtf?"

[Yukitsu]

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, Hit points do not represent direct damage. Once he's above zero, he is perfectly fine. So, he would be just fine after one full day of rest.

"Dude, you're swimming in acid. Your skin is melting off."
"No no, it's nearly touching me. Hit points are an abstraction. Once I get down to 0 my skin will start melting."
"What, because the acid suddenly stops nearly hitting you at some arbitrary point in time?"
"Exactly"
"If that's the case, how are you touching it to swim?"
"Because I'm swimming in it. Duh."
"Well you can't rightly be swimming in it without touching it, now can you."
"Damn, I guess you're right. Hey, now that you mention it, swimming in acid DOES hurt. Huh."

[hamishspence]

there are spells that damage evil creatures more than neutral creatures, and these spells do not damage good creatures. I see Ravages as just a step beyond.

I also see the "Violence Must Have Just Cause, And Good Intentions, And Be Discriminating" bit as more important than "ravages do not hurt non-evil creatures"

Since it doesn't state in ravage description, that use of them is always ok.

Its like Holy word- it may have the Good descriptor, but if you commit murder with it, you're doing Evil, and are in deep trouble.

Remember that Evil acts outweigh Good ones for afterlife purposes, and, up to a point, for alignment purposes- in Fiendish Codex 2. This is not 2nd ed when Evil Acts + Good Acts = Neutral. There is a Corruption rating, but there is no concrete Virtue rating.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

there are spells that damage evil creatures more than neutral creatures, and these spells do not damage good creatures. I see Ravages as just a step beyond.

I also see the "Violence Must Have Just Cause, And Good Intentions, And Be Discriminating" bit as more important than "ravages do not hurt non-evil creatures"

Since it doesn't state in ravage description, that use of them is always ok.

Its like Holy word- it may have the Good descriptor, but if you commit murder with it, you're doing Evil, and are in deep trouble.

Remember that Evil acts outweigh Good ones for afterlife purposes, and, up to a point, for alignment purposes- in Fiendish Codex 2. This is not 2nd ed when Evil Acts + Good Acts = Neutral. There is a Corruption rating, but there is no concrete Virtue rating.The issue is that poisons are Evil automatically, but Ravages, which do the same thing but can't hurt good people, are not. Any explanation for why poisons are Evil would make Ravages Evil, too, making these discussions incredibly confusing.

[hamishspence]

since some ideas and concepts from BoED have made it into other books, whereas the Poison=Evil bit has not (Champions of Ruin evil act list doesn't mention poison, Fiendish Codex 2's Corrupt act list doesn't either), I figure that one was the writers overdoing it.

It may be necessary to discuss real world origin of BoED concepts- please bear with me.

BoED effectively defines many things from international law along good-evil axis. Poison and disease- chemical and biological. Right to trial. Good treatment of prisoners. Offering and Acceptance of surrender. No indiscriminate use of weapons against mixed combatants and non-combatants.

Thats main reason I like it- even if it is heavily limiting.

[Capfalcon]

since some ideas and concepts from BoED have made it into other books, whereas the Poison=Evil bit has not (Champions of Ruin evil act list doesn't mention poison, Fiendish Codex 2's Corrupt act list doesn't either), I figure that one was the writers overdoing it.

It may be necessary to discuss real world origin of BoED concepts- please bear with me.

BoED effectively defines many things from international law along good-evil axis. Poison and disease- chemical and biological. Right to trial. Good treatment of prisoners. Offering and Acceptance of surrender. No indiscriminate use of weapons against mixed combatants and non-combatants.

Thats main reason I like it- even if it is heavily limiting.

But here's the thing. The BoED isn't always wrong. But, it does place things under Good that belong under Law.

Offering (and Accepting) Surrender is Good.
Not having the concept "Acceptable" Collateral Damage is Good.

Right to Trial is Lawful, not Good.
Not using Chemical and Biological Weapons is Lawful, not Good.

So, just because the BoED says something, doesn't make it right, even in DnDLand.


there are spells that damage evil creatures more than neutral creatures, and these spells do not damage good creatures. I see Ravages as just a step beyond.

I also see the "Violence Must Have Just Cause, And Good Intentions, And Be Discriminating" bit as more important than "ravages do not hurt non-evil creatures"

Since it doesn't state in ravage description, that use of them is always ok.

Its like Holy word- it may have the Good descriptor, but if you commit murder with it, you're doing Evil, and are in deep trouble.

The problem with Ravages is that right after they get done saying that Good People don't use poision because it causes suffering, they say how it's OK to use Ravages, which cause suffering, but only to evil people. So it's OK.

To reiterate, it's wrong to use a poison on an evil person because it causes suffering, but it's A OK to use ravages, which cause suffering, on an evil person.

If you don't see the flaw in the logic here, then I really don't know what else to say.

[hamishspence]

"transforms their moral corruption into physical corruption"

Pretty brutal, but not out of line with fictional curses made by good characters against "evil" ones in fairy tales.

[RPGuru1331]

"transforms their moral corruption into physical corruption"

Pretty brutal, but not out of line with fictional curses made by good characters against "evil" ones in fairy tales.

In Fairy Tales, it was to prove a point and enlighten them. Time for reflection is allowed. And I still wouldn't call it good, just far less hypocritical

In DnDLand, it's to cause ability damage.

[Capfalcon]

"transforms their moral corruption into physical corruption"

Right. Causes Suffering.

Which is what poisons do.

And poisons are evil becaue they cause suffering.

But Ravages arn't evil because they only cause suffering evil people.

But causing suffering is what poisons do.

And Poisions are evil.

But... I think you see where this is going.

The same line of reasoning applies to ravages as it does to poisons.

[hamishspence]

The phrase was "undue suffering" No damaging attack in D&D can not cause a certain amount of suffering.

Even non-lethal weapons can- whip, anyone?

[RPGuru1331]

The phrase was "undue suffering" No damaging attack in D&D can not cause a certain amount of suffering.

Even non-lethal weapons can- whip, anyone?

So why not just use Poison on evil people? It's still not going to cause undue suffering. A Ravage is just a way to make sure you don't hurt anything that isn't evil, but it doesn't account for the fact that a Neutral may still be doing something evil.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The phrase was "undue suffering" No damaging attack in D&D can not cause a certain amount of suffering.

Even non-lethal weapons can- whip, anyone?The effects of Ravages and Poisons are identical. If one of them causes undue suffering the other one almost certainly does, too.

[hamishspence]

So do various Ability Damaging spells, even ignoring the Poison spell.

DM who wishes to rationalize it might say "there is ability damage and ability damage, some forms cause more suffering than others"

Personally I favour dumping Poison Is Evil altogether and keep Paladin's lack of use of it as matter of being honorable, rather than matter of being Good, the way it was in 2nd ed. Doesn't mean one should chuck ravages altogether, but fixing poisons makes ravages merely a useful weapon agaisnt creatures immune to poison, rather than a massive "What The Boop" moment.

"All Ability Damage Is Equal, But some damage is more equal than others"

[Capfalcon]

Personally I favour dumping Poison Is Evil altogether and keep Paladin's lack of use of it as matter of being honorable, rather than matter of being Good, the way it was in 2nd ed. Doesn't mean one should chuck ravages altogether, but fixing poisons makes ravages merely a useful weapon agaisnt creatures immune to poison, rather than a massive "What The Boop" moment.

Wait, what?

That's what I've been saying the whole time!

I don't think ravages are a bad idea. They don't really strike me as brilliant, but certainly serviceable.

I just think that saying poisons are evil while saying that ravages are good is, as you put it, "What the Boop?"

So, unless I'm mistaken, we agree?

[hamishspence]

Pretty much, though if stuck in an RAW campaign that uses BOED, i'd use the "some ability damage causes more suffering than others" rationale to myself.

[Capfalcon]

Pretty much, though if stuck in an RAW campaign that uses BOED, i'd use the "some ability damage causes more suffering than others" rationale to myself.

But let's not forget that BoED says that Mind Rape is good.

So a RAW campain by BoED gets... strange...

[hamishspence]

Their version, not Vile Darkness version. It doesn't have ability to rewrite memories the way the Vile spell does. and the caster pays, in money and in level.

[Capfalcon]

Their version, not Vile Darkness version. It doesn't have ability to rewrite memories the way the Vile spell does. and the caster pays, in money and in level.

A rose by any other name...

It still forcefully alters someone's ethics and morals.

[hamishspence]

which isn't defined much in D&D. However, the Mind Seed Power, which turns victims personality into a carbon copy of yours, has Evil descriptor. Maybe its a matter of degree.

[Weiser_Cain]

.........I usually remove the fluff on assassin anyway.

[hamishspence]

BoED goes heavily into redemption themes- how about this possibility?

Evil in mortals is a mental disease caused by bad chemistry, bad nurture, or exposure to the magical Force that is evil. Evil people are deserving of compassion and treatment, not hatred and destruction, and only when attempting to treat it would cause unacceptable risk to Good people, or in self-defence, is it ok not to try.

The Mercy-forgiveness-redemption themes at beginning of BoED would seem to fit this.

So, Sanctify removes the damage caused by this problem- its like a year-long physical and mental therapy session.

EDIT: And the reason for matching alignment? The bias of the therapist. Remember it costs you a level- you are putting something of yourself into the spell.