PDA

View Full Version : Assassins? Evil?



Pages : [1] 2

Mindleshank
2008-10-26, 12:28 PM
Alright well first off i want to know why the assassin prestige class is evil. I'm DMing a campaign where there is a bounty hunters guild and an assassin is a bounty hunter why does he have to be evil.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-26, 12:33 PM
There are two reasons:
1. One of the fluff requirements is to kill someone just to get to the guild, without question. That's evil.
2. By RAW, using poisons in DND is evil.

Scrap those requirements (they are both quite retarded anyway) and there you go.

FoE
2008-10-26, 12:36 PM
I suppose assassins who are dedicated to bringing down tyrants and saving people by taking one life could be construed as good ... but their methods are still Evil, and so even that would count as "Evil, but for a Good cause."

Draco Dracul
2008-10-26, 12:37 PM
I don't really get why assassins are automatically evil either. I mean an assassin is just someone who kills people for money and well most PC's go around killing people to take their money (which makes them thugs). I don't really see why being an assassin is inheriently more evil than being a thug.

phoenixcire
2008-10-26, 12:38 PM
I need help, I've been trying to find where it says that using poison is evil but I cannot find it.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-26, 12:39 PM
I suppose assassins who are dedicated to bringing down tyrants and saving people by taking one life could be construed as good ... but their methods are still Evil, and so even that would count as "Evil, but for a Good cause."

If Evil actions take out Evil people for a good cause, I would call it nuetral personally.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 12:39 PM
there is that Exalted prestige class Slayer of Domiel. Why them doing assassinations is OK but no-one else is, might be hard to explain, unless you use some interesting justification. Like:

They are dedicated to killing fiends. And some fiends can change shape, infiltrate power system, work their way to the top, corrupt country, easiest way to fix things is- remove the Fiend.

FoE
2008-10-26, 12:43 PM
If Evil actions take out Evil people for a good cause, I would call it nuetral personally.

Where does it stop, though? When do we tell the villain who says "The ends justify the means" to shut his damn mouth, because there's no good reasons for his actions?

"I'm trying to take over the world and willing to step on anyone who gets in my way, including my Evil allies. But I think I would be a good ruler, so I guess that makes me Neutral."

Assassins are Evil. Accept it.

Mindleshank
2008-10-26, 12:44 PM
If Evil actions take out Evil people for a good cause, I would call it nuetral personally.

Yeah i was thinking Chaotic neutral would be perfectly acceptable in this situation

phoenixcire
2008-10-26, 12:47 PM
[quote}"I'm trying to take over the world and willing to step on anyone who gets in my way, including my Evil allies. But I think I would be a benevolent ruler, so I guess that makes me Neutral."[/quote]

That's using Evil to promote more Evil. I think the situation is more like "If you poison the BBEG, is it Evil or Good?"

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 12:48 PM
its the whole murder thing, murder is evil absolutly, and thus most assassins are evil. Through i could see a neutral assassin working through
from
EE

zaei
2008-10-26, 12:51 PM
I need help, I've been trying to find where it says that using poison is evil but I cannot find it.

It's in the Book of Exalted Deeds, which says that poisons that cause ability damage are evil, and then goes on to describe substances that cause ability damage, but are A-OK for good characters to use because THEY ARE DEFINITELY NOT POISONS, and only affect evil things.

It also handwaves away the fact that even though spiders and what-not use poison, they are still neutral.

Yes, the BoED is a very silly book.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-26, 12:54 PM
its the whole murder thing, murder is evil absolutly, and thus most assassins are evil. Through i could see a neutral assassin working through
from
EE

Right I'm thinking that an assassin that only kills the most evil of evil people (not say every criminal everywhere a la Death Notes's Light Yagami, but more like a man who sees it as his mission to take out the Stalins of the world) could count as nuetral.

Mewtarthio
2008-10-26, 12:54 PM
The thing is that assassination is considered immoral because it's a sort of informal agreement between all world leaders: Nobody wants to be assassinated, so people don't use assassins. Unfortunately for DnD, that would make assassination Chaotic, not Evil.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-26, 12:55 PM
Yes, D&D is a very silly game.

Fixed it for ya. :smallwink:

Draco Dracul
2008-10-26, 12:57 PM
Also why are assassins required to be evil, but not ninja's? Ninja's were for all intents and purposes assassins from Japan.

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 12:58 PM
Lets break it down.

Heroes kill bad things. Hereos=good.

Assassins kill things. Assassins=bad.

If Assassin kills bad things, then assassin=hero=good. K?

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 01:01 PM
Right I'm thinking that an assassin that only kills the most evil of evil people (not say every criminal everywhere a la Death Notes's Light Yagami, but more like a man who sees it as his mission to take out the Stalins of the world) could count as nuetral.

it could, but the act of murder is evil, so your treading on very thin ice there. The act of murder is always absolutely evil, no matter what the situation is (short of being mind controlled of course) so you wouldnt be able to pull that off for long. True, you could just kill people the normal way

Remember, even people like Stalin are still human beings, so murder is still murder.
from
EE

Mewtarthio
2008-10-26, 01:01 PM
Lets break it down.

Heroes kill bad things. Hereos=good.

Assassins kill things. Assassins=bad.

If Assassin kills bad things, then assassin=hero=good. K?

No, no, no, you got it all wrong:

Heroes kill bad things. Heroes = good.

Assassins are killed by heroes. Ergo, assassins = bad.

Ganurath
2008-10-26, 01:03 PM
Also why are assassins required to be evil, but not ninja's? Ninja's were for all intents and purposes assassins from Japan.Ninjas kill for a cause greater than themselves: Sometimes an ideal, but usually a lord they serve. If the lord is good, they're killing bad stuff, and are good. If they serve an evil lord, they're just like assassins.

Mewtarthio
2008-10-26, 01:04 PM
it could, but the act of murder is evil, so your treading on very thin ice there. The act of murder is always absolutely evil, no matter what the situation is (short of being mind controlled of course) so you wouldnt be able to pull that off for long. True, you could just kill people the normal way

Oh, I get it now! Breaking into a human's home and killing him because he's evil and is causing untold pain and suffering is murder. Breaking into a dragon's home and killing him because he's evil and has lots of shineys is "the normal way." :smallwink:

Ravens_cry
2008-10-26, 01:04 PM
Lets break it down.

Heroes kill bad things. Hereos=good.

Assassins kill things. Assassins=bad.

If Assassin kills bad things, then assassin=hero=good. K?
I don't like the Heroes kill Bad Things equation. Heroes kill Things who do Bad Things (no innuendo intended) is a bit better.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-26, 01:07 PM
Oh, I get it now! Breaking into a human's home and killing him because he's evil and is causing untold pain and suffering is murder. Breaking into a dragon's home and killing him because he's evil and has lots of shineys is "the normal way." :smallwink:

In EE's view of morality and ethics: Yes, that is about right.

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 01:08 PM
No, no, no, you got it all wrong:

Heroes kill bad things. Heroes = good.

Assassins are killed by heroes. Ergo, assassins = bad.

Not quite. "Heroes kill Things who do Bad Things", therefore, if assassins kill bad things like heroes, they are good, and do not get killed by heroes, because they do not do bad things.

FMArthur
2008-10-26, 01:14 PM
I'd link to the Avenger... but this thread is making me see that you shouldn't avoid the problem of the stupid alignment rules from WotC. You need to outright houserule the alignment rules to be bull****, cut them out of your books, and then get on with your game.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:14 PM
I remember another theory: aggressive violence is bad- initiating the use of violence is bad. But responding to it, using violence to protect others from those who initiate violence, is Good.

Or "Anger, fear, aggression, the dark side are they" "A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense, never for attack"

Many references in Exalted Deeds stress things like this. village of evil orcs that hasn't attacked anyone- Attack is not OK. Village that routinely attacks others- attack is OK.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 01:15 PM
Oh, I get it now! Breaking into a human's home and killing him because he's evil and is causing untold pain and suffering is murder. Breaking into a dragon's home and killing him because he's evil and has lots of shineys is "the normal way." :smallwink:
Well depends if dragons are always evil. If your in ebberon i wouldn't think so


In EE's view of morality and ethics: Yes, that is about right.
not my view, my morals are irrelevant here, its about WoTCs
from
EE

Starbuck_II
2008-10-26, 01:17 PM
Assassins are evil because as a special requirement: you have to kill someone for no other reason than wanting to join.

Killing some for no good reason is evil.

Really, that is it. It is actually very simple.

If you change the Prereqs (Slayer of Domiel and Avenger show how) it becomes good or Lawful.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:17 PM
I've seen lots of "they're supplements- they don't count" but without them, you can justify pretty much anything, since nothing in PHB defines specific evil acts.

puppyavenger
2008-10-26, 01:18 PM
Assassins are evil because as a special requirement: you have to kill someone for no other reason than wanting to join.

Killing some for no good reason is evil.

Really, that is it. It is actually very simple.

If you change the Prereqs (Slayer of Domiel and Avenger show how) it becomes good or Lawful.

so do do the requirement.


go to Abyss
kill dretch

BING requirement completed.

Toliudar
2008-10-26, 01:18 PM
Let's look at the prestige class, rather than the term, which gets silly very quickly. There are lots of builds that can kill other things that don't involve levels in Assassin. No one requires a horizon walker to walk on the horizon, or a dragon disciple to worship dragons, so let's not use the name interchangeably with the prestige class name, okay?

Assassin is the only prestige class with situational or "fluff" requirements, that is, to kill someone only to gain access to the prestige class. This suggests that, unlike other prestige classes, this one has an organization, with beliefs and priorities, and some kind of screening process.

It seems unlikely that a group is taking applicants who are trained to lie, deceive and kill, and taking their word for it that they killed someone to get in. So, some kind of verification process is involved. Maybe that same process involves verifying that the applicant's morals won't get in the way of whatever assignment they might be given - in game terms, confirming an evil alignment. It's for the convenience of the guild/employer, not the individual character.

There are lots of organization-related prestige classes that seem to self-select for a certain personality type. It doesn't seem all that great a stretch for an organization that pays its members to seek out and kill strangers will self-select for a lack of compunctions about doing so.

You want a small-a assassin who isn't evil? No problem: choose a different class, get a houserule, or claim that you used to be evil, but developed an increased conscience when some darned thing happened to make your character re-evaluate. Where's the problem?

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 01:21 PM
killing a dretch isn't murder actually, murder is unjustified killing, demons are totally evil, so its always justified
from
EE

Breaw
2008-10-26, 01:22 PM
So there are a few reasons that people (I find) have difficulty with things like the Assassin PrC being evil.

1) They want to be an Assassin, as mechanically they get almost everything a rogue/fighter could want out of arcane magic while retaining physical beefiness. To these people I would suggest that they suck it up, and play an evil character, just don't be evil stupid.

We're talking about someone who has no real respect for human life. If killing someone is the easiest solution to their problem (which it almost always is given their skillset), then the discussion ends there. Why diplomacy when you can just killing this SOB and disappear into the night? I'm not saying this is the only way to play an Assassin, this is just my interpretation of why someone who murders for a living is evil.

That said: Yes I know parties of player are constantly committing genocide against a host of intelligent creatures without being evil. This is covered under 'mostly evil creatures are ok to massacre', which I personally hate in games that I play. However, they are generally killing off members of a 'mostly evil' race which DnD is perfectly happy with.

At the end of the day I'd suggest you just suck it up and play an evil character. The ends justify the means. You never kill someone that didn't have it coming. These actions lead to tremendously evil acts, but without a Paladin in the party there is no reason why you must conflict with non evil party members imo.

2) To those that argue with it are purely a theoretical level, feeling that one doesn't 'have' to me evil to habitually murder others... Well first of all I'm not sure I agree with you. Second of all DnD morality is not real world morality. No one would get away with LG and run around killing intelligent creatures, no one. Even goody two shoes heroes who never killed anyone would get into trouble as vigilante justice. This is a game where there is an attempt and black an white morality, with a few types of actions falling in between as neutral. Channeling negative energy is evil! Raising dead is evil! (I don't care if it's to save the world, it's still evil) Murdering is evil! Running around killing things at random is a semi-respected profession. I'm not saying it makes sense, but that is more or less what the game suggests.

At the end of the day I look at it this way. Assassins are going to train you to be one of them, they need to know you are dedicated to the cause. That means that they get to pick whose throat you slit in order to get in. They aren't going to make it easy on you by making it some mean SOB who beats his wife. The goody-two-shoes Assassins are the most likely to go AWOL, and nobody wants that. They aren't going to train you unless you are a cold blooded killer, which to me hints of evil.

snoopy13a
2008-10-26, 01:23 PM
Murder is evil. Assassins murder for money. Thus, assassins are evil.

Bounty Hunters serve a law enforcement role and their targets are considered criminals who have forfeited their rights. Thus, they aren't considered murderers just as a headsman isn't considered a murderer.

Soldiers are not murderers because their actions occur during war.

Heroes are not usually murderers because they are usually combating outlaws, such as bandits, or monsters.

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 01:25 PM
killing a dretch isn't murder actually, murder is unjustified killing, demons are totally evil, so its always justified
from
EE

.....

It all makes sense now.


"Killing those innocent village of orcs? Their listed alignment is evil. They are evil. It wasn't murder, it was justified."
"But you ruthlessly snapped the arm of one of them and used it to beat a small orc child to death!"
"Evil alignment; it was justified."
"Oh, Okay."

From,
That one other guy standing behind the guy next to you.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:25 PM
sounds about right. and a lot of what adventurers do is defending, in a sense: Orc raiders strike villages repeatedly, adventurers stop the raiding.

That is, if you favour a Good-heavy campaign. Books like Champions of Valor suggest that local government comes down hard on adventurers that step too far into vigilatism.

and, if you object to mistreatment of Only Mostly Evil races, there are books which say slaughtering them willy-nilly is not OK.

snoopy13a
2008-10-26, 01:29 PM
I suppose that goblins, orcs, etc can be considered to be in perpetual war with humans, elves, halflings, etc. If the tribes or camps get too powerful then they will raid the nearest player character race village. PCs raiding "usually evil" races can be rationalized as a preemptive attack :smalltongue:

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 01:30 PM
sounds about right. and a lot of what adventurers do is defending, in a sense: Orc raiders strike villages repeatedly, adventurers stop the raiding.

That is, if you favour a Good-heavy campaign. Books like Champions of Valor suggest that local government comes down hard on adventurers that step too far into vigilatism.

and, if you object to mistreatment of Only Mostly Evil races, there are books which say slaughtering them willy-nilly is not OK.

Not da point. Say, someone stabs a thug in the face, in broad daylight, and is arrested. Is it murder? Yes. Even though the thug was evil, it is still murder if you stab them in the face.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:32 PM
Again- Exalted Deeds- appropiate uses of violence- in self-defense, defense of others, to prevent the committing of evil acts, from someone who's Immediate Threat. And still obliged to take prisoner if possible.

Had thug just stabbed somebody else, and was advancing on others with knife, Exalted would say "Violence in defense of others is OK."

ocato
2008-10-26, 01:33 PM
I think of it as like Guy from the Serenity movie. He kills the crap out of people, and acknowledges that even though he's doing it to try to make the 'verse a better place, he himself is not part of that better place/goodness. Once he's killed the last opponent of the perfect world, he probably expects that he himself must die and probably is okay with that.

He is the fire that fights fire. He is the embodiment of the Nietzsche quote of the man who fights monsters until he is one. He stared into the abyss and now it is part of him. He's evil, wrong, bad, and all those scary words, but he's doing it for good (in his mind, at least).

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:34 PM
Nothing wrong with playing an Evil Hero, as long as you remain aware that your Hero is Evil, an Anti-Villain, maybe.

snoopy13a
2008-10-26, 01:34 PM
.....

It all makes sense now.


"Killing those innocent village of orcs? Their listed alignment is evil. They are evil. It wasn't murder, it was justified."
"But you ruthlessly snapped the arm of one of them and used it to beat a small orc child to death!"
"Evil alignment; it was justified."
"Oh, Okay."

From,
That one other guy standing behind the guy next to you.

If the village of orcs was innocent then they wouldn't have an evil alignment.

Anyway, the DM shouldn't have the players wander around and happen on some orc village. Instead, the players should wander into a human (or elf, gnome, etc) village and the villagers should ask for help against the evil orcs who are raiding them.

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 01:35 PM
Again- Exalted Deeds- appropiate uses of violence- in self-defense, defense of others, to prevent the committing of evil acts, from someone who's Immediate Threat. And still obliged to take prisoner if possible.

Had thug just stabbed somebody else, and was advancing on others with knife, Exalted would say "Violence in defense of others is OK."

Say thug had stolen/mugged harmlessly a bystander. Thug is evil, yes, but that does not merit stabbing. I'm calling you out, EE.

[quote=Yeah, Him]If the village of orcs was innocent then they wouldn't have an evil alignment.

Anyway, the DM shouldn't have the players wander around and happen on some orc village. Instead, the players should wander into a human (or elf, gnome, etc) village and the villagers should ask for help against the evil orcs who are raiding them.[/quote.]

First off, no. I said listed alignment. LISTED. Orcs are evil by definition of being orcs. It comes back to the thug problem. Evil, yes, but it does not come down to killing them all in a brutal act of violence. And it is the DM's choice on how they play the game.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:36 PM
"Evil but not necessarily deserving of death" Orc village where Males bully females, females tyrannize of children, children are vicious to each other, surviving by forage. Savage Frontier, beyond where civilized nations have colonized.

same principle applies to thugs- obligation to take the prisoner for trial, wherever possible.

Effectively, the only D&D source which demands reasonable treatment, even of the Evil, is Exalted Deeds. Some people keep insisting "This Is Bad Thing" Not anyone in this thread yet.

puppyavenger
2008-10-26, 01:38 PM
If the village of orcs was innocent then they wouldn't have an evil alignment.

Anyway, the DM shouldn't have the players wander around and happen on some orc village. Instead, the players should wander into a human (or elf, gnome, etc) village and the villagers should ask for help against the evil orcs who are raiding them.

or alternatively, walk into n orc village and have the villagers ask for help against the elf/gnome/human settlers who are driving all the animals that orcs use for food away or capturing them, and taking up large amounts of land for farming(orcs are carnivores, carnivorous civilized soiciety needs a lot of land until factory farming.

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 01:42 PM
"Evil but not necessarily deserving of death" Orc village where Males bully females, females tyrannize of children, children are vicious to each other, surviving by forage. Savage Frontier, beyond where civilized nations have colonized.

same principle applies to thugs- obligation to take the prisoner for trial, wherever possible.

Effectively, the only D&D source which demands reasonable treatment, even of the Evil, is Exalted Deeds. Some people keep insisting "This Is Bad Thing" Not anyone in this thread yet.

But are the heroes evil for killing semi-innocent orcs, and justifies the orc's next over settlement hunting them down? No. Murdering evil people is still murder.


killing a dretch isn't murder actually, murder is unjustified killing, demons are totally evil, so its always justified
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:43 PM
Now thats an interesting plot hook.

Orcs aren't even Usually Chaotic Evil, they're Often Chaotic Evil. While I have seen people insist that simply means rest of them are LE or NE, I don't tend to buy that.

and even Always Evil species like Dragons have very,very rare exceptions.

EDIT: Yup. Revenge is evil. Defined in Vile Darkness (unless really in proportion) and later Champions of Ruin (revenge always evil)

Mr.Bookworm
2008-10-26, 01:45 PM
Ninjas kill for a cause greater than themselves: Sometimes an ideal, but usually a lord they serve. If the lord is good, they're killing bad stuff, and are good. If they serve an evil lord, they're just like assassins.

You just described the Avenger (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a) to a T.

Which is just the Assassin with fluff and entry requirements changed.

Though I kinda like the Avenger, actually.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-10-26, 01:46 PM
.....

It all makes sense now.


"Killing those innocent village of orcs? Their listed alignment is evil. They are evil. It wasn't murder, it was justified."
"But you ruthlessly snapped the arm of one of them and used it to beat a small orc child to death!"
"Evil alignment; it was justified."
"Oh, Okay."

From,
That one other guy standing behind the guy next to you.

Not that EE can't clarify his own point, but you're clearly misunderstanding what he meant. Demons and Devils are not flesh-and-blood humanoids with a family of hungry mouths to feed and parents who love them. They are, to quote Time Bandits: "pure, concentrated evil." Depending on your cosmology, they either arose from the metaphysical concept of evil like grapes off a poison vine, or they were Celestials who fell so far and so long ago that they have long since ceased to be anything but pure malifescence to the core. It is always a good action to destroy a fiend, or most undead for that matter. Inasmuch as Evil is a solid, active force in D&D, those creatures represent it utterly.

Orcs, on the other hand, may be savage and violent in your setting (I usually just integrate them into the common races in mine), but are still sapient beings with free will, and thus (according to our modern way of thinking) deserving of certain rights. The right not to be slaughtered because your father, or brother committed a crime, for example.

To OP, on the Assassin thing: if you want the class, and want to not be evil, then go ahead and change it. Seriously, I guarantee there are no fluff police who will beat down your door and arrest you. It's a game played for fun, as long as something is fun without breaking the game or setting, go ahead and do it I say. It's not as though the Assassin class were so powerful it would only be appropriate for NPCs.

Alternatively, if you're willing to try an evil PC, you might find it surprisingly rewarding, as long as you don't play him "Evil Stupid." I once played a Chaotic Evil assassin in a good-to-neutral party, and it worked very well. He'd occassionally suggest some horrible action, like murdering the mayor, selling hostages into slavery or whatever, but the threat of a party combined against him mostly kept him in line. Of course, he could have just walked away from the party, but the thing was, he'd given his word of honor to join them on their mission--and despite being Chaotic Evil, he was too proud a man to ever willingly break his word.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:48 PM
not that atypical. Realms has a CE ex-paladin in Waterdeep who never, ever tells a lie (misleads a lot though)

EDIT: Fiends: True for all except redeemed ones. When Wizards introduces Demon Paladin, you know strange things are afoot.

BRC
2008-10-26, 01:51 PM
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.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 01:54 PM
Arilyn Moonblade seemed to be the type for: "sneak into fortress, wake villain, give him sword, say "I'm going to kill you. Defend yourself."


EDIT: And usually refers to herself as an "honorable assassin" since she only kills in fair fights, and is hired, usually by Harpers, for various missions. At least in book 1: Elfshadow

snoopy13a
2008-10-26, 01:55 PM
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.

Stabbing him in his sleep, yes that is evil.

Slipping into his room, locking his door, waking him up, and giving him a fair chance to defend himself, not evil.

Assassination is always evil. However, some people believe that it is worth committing the lesser evil for the greater good.

However, killing the evil tyrant might not solve the problem. The second in command might rise up and become the new evil tyrant so you're back to square one.

FoE
2008-10-26, 01:57 PM
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.

How often does that happen, though? How many assassins take down exclusively evil targets? If that's what you're in it for, why not be a paladin?

I mean, if we're applying real-world morality to assassins, why don't we apply real-world facts as well? Most assassins are not discriminating about who they take down, unless there's a great deal of danger involved. It's enough that there's a target, and they're getting paid for it.

BRC
2008-10-26, 01:58 PM
Stabbing him in his sleep, yes that is evil.

Slipping into his room, locking his door, waking him up, and giving him a fair chance to defend himself, not evil.

Assassination is always evil. However, some people believe that it is worth committing the lesser evil for the greater good.
Wait, so it's evil unless you risk yourself to do it? What if said tyrant is a powerful sorcerer who could kill you with a thought, your obliged to let him defend himself? I thought the point was to remove the evil, not to make sure the evil is tough enough to win in a straight-on fight. Giving him a chance to defend himself would be the honorable thing to do, but honorable is not always practical.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:01 PM
Maybe past editions have good advice on subject?:

2nd ed DMG "Hiring an assassin is not a good act" and stressing if a villain is that important and that evil, players should be dealing with the villain themselves.

Note that "not a good act" in 2nd ed was virtually synonymous with Evil act.

snoopy13a
2008-10-26, 02:01 PM
Wait, so it's evil unless you risk yourself to do it? What if said tyrant is a powerful sorcerer who could kill you with a thought, your obliged to let him defend himself? I thought the point was to remove the evil, not to make sure the evil is tough enough to win in a straight-on fight. Giving him a chance to defend himself would be the honorable thing to do, but honorable is not always practical.

Nor is good always practical. However, killing a helpless opponent is evil. There is no getting around that.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-10-26, 02:01 PM
Stabbing him in his sleep, yes that is evil.

Slipping into his room, locking his door, waking him up, and giving him a fair chance to defend himself, not evil.

Assassination is always evil. However, some people believe that it is worth committing the lesser evil for the greater good.

Uhh, what if the tyrant is just a level 5 Aristocrat or something? That's hardly fair at all, you may as well just put him out of his misery before he wakes up since if you're a high-level PC it's just a foregone conclusion.

I'd agree that assassination is always an evil action, but I'd go further and say it's evil whether you give him a chance to defend himself or not. Even if it's a reasonably even fight, killing is like assassination--sometimes an acceptable evil in the name of a greater good, but never a good action.

And yes, I know what the BoED says. That particular chapter was extremely ill-thought out, and I've never used any of its suggestions as a DM. Killing something being a good action so long as it's evil is just, well, it's warped. It's well too far away from my own moral views in mindset to even be comfortable with.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:03 PM
the fact is the BoED was far, far less extremist than previous editions which seemed to be "Its evil= You Kill it" BoED at least requires discrimination, just cause, etc.

EDIT: and it goes into great detail about taking things prisoner, and redeeming Evil. it does define executions as non-evil, but doesn't grant player characters Right To Perform Executions.

Temp.
2008-10-26, 02:04 PM
or alternatively, walk into n orc village and have the villagers ask for help against the elf/gnome/human settlers who are driving all the animals that orcs use for food away or capturing them, and taking up large amounts of land for farming(orcs are carnivores, carnivorous civilized soiciety needs a lot of land until factory farming. I tried this once. My players searched for any excuse they could get to kill the Goblins. I went to absurd extremes to make the Goblins both sympathetic and justified (a refugee camp of women and children driven from their villages by tribes of bloodthirsty human invaders). In the end, the players slaughtered the Goblins regardless.

I ended up sending the Goblin armies to retaliate the Human barbarian tribes in what was apparently the sort of game the players wanted. I was a bit disappointed.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:07 PM
.....

It all makes sense now.


"Killing those innocent village of orcs? Their listed alignment is evil. They are evil. It wasn't murder, it was justified."
"But you ruthlessly snapped the arm of one of them and used it to beat a small orc child to death!"
"Evil alignment; it was justified."
"Oh, Okay."

From,
That one other guy standing behind the guy next to you.

oks aren't always evil, they are often evil. Always evil means your are literally creatures of evil, hence why i used the term demons are always evil. There are no innocent demons. Your not calling me out, your blatently mis reading what i'm saying. He used the example Dretch, a demon, creatures who are made out of chaos and evil. Your using simply evil creatures, totally different scale. So make sure you know what your reading before you go on your rant
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:07 PM
and if you are looking for anything More mercy-friendly than BoED by WOTC you will be sorely disappointed.

Ironically, most arguments seem to go other way- BoED is far too idealistic, players should kill evil prisoners. I personally don't agree, but I've seen lots of arguments For it.

Oslecamo
2008-10-26, 02:07 PM
I tried this once. My players searched for any excuse they could get to kill the Goblins. I went to absurd extremes to make the Goblins both sympathetic and justified (a refugee camp of women and children driven from their villages by tribes of bloodthirsty human invaders). In the end, the players slaughtered the Goblins regardless.

I ended up sending the Goblin armies to retaliate the Human barbarian tribes in what was apparently the sort of game the players wanted. I was a bit disappointed.

What, you tought humans are willing to slaughter each other for everything and anything, so they won't be willing to slaughter other sentient species just for the fun of it?

Check out any history book. Check the jornals. Humans have little problem taking lifes.

its_all_ogre
2008-10-26, 02:08 PM
the whole evil alignment thing is easy and people always get mixed up by it somehow.
murder is evil
assassins practice murder for mere money
money itself is neutral, so the means by which you obtain it is defining.

if you defend a village against orcs or anything else for that matter and find money in the creatures pockets then it is not evil obtained.

as for the dretch, this is a bad decision to use this monster: dretches are demons who committed horrifically evil acts in their life. being a dretch is their punishment for being evil, and not evil enough because had they been more evil and successful they'd be a higher level demon/devil.

so i'd have to back EE on this one there is no way killing a dretch could be considered evil.
dretches are the personification of evil.

all this trying to make it more complex is silly. dnd alignment is silly but straight forward, might as well argue about 2+2=4.
and assassins are evil, poison use is evil, because the rules say so.
if you don't like it change the rules or play something else

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:10 PM
Unfortunately, I've seen numerous arguments that Murder is Unjustified killing, any killing that can be justified isn't murder. Neither BoED nor Vile Darkness actually say this.

Zeful
2008-10-26, 02:13 PM
I need help, I've been trying to find where it says that using poison is evil but I cannot find it.

It's not anywhere in the core but look under the paladin's class listing. It specifically mentions that paladin's can't use poisons. Coupled with the assassin class of being evil and having the Poison Use class feature the assumption is made. Poison use is at best unlawful as paladin can't use it because it violates their code of honor (having a code of any kind is Lawful).

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:16 PM
pretty much, orcs are just people who are commonly evil, attacking them for no reason is still murder. Dretches however are beings who's very existence is evil, totally different

Personally i think BoED is just mercy enough considering the nature of the game
from
EE

its_all_ogre
2008-10-26, 02:16 PM
Unfortunately, I've seen numerous arguments that Murder is Unjustified killing, any killing that can be justified isn't murder. Neither BoED nor Vile Darkness actually say this.

and any character trying to argue killing is acceptable is evil.
killing is evil.
defending yourself is a sometime necessary but always to be avoided


hey of being good was easy everyone would be good, right?

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:17 PM
the point of good is that it has a higher standard than evil, because evil doens't really have standards
from
EE

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 02:20 PM
oks orcs aren't always evil, they are often evil. Always evil means your are literally creatures of evil, hence why i used the term demons are always evil. There are no innocent demons. Your not calling me out, your blatently mis-reading what i'm I'm saying. HeI used the example Dretch, a demon, creatures who are made out of chaos and evil. YourYou are using simply evil creatures, totally different scale. So make sure you know what your reading before you go on your rant
from
EE

Not that EE can't clarify his own point, but you're clearly misunderstanding what he meant. Demons and Devils are not flesh-and-blood humanoids with a family of hungry mouths to feed and parents who love them. They are, to quote Time Bandits: "pure, concentrated evil." Depending on your cosmology, they either arose from the metaphysical concept of evil like grapes off a poison vine, or they were Celestials who fell so far and so long ago that they have long since ceased to be anything but pure malifescence to the core. It is always a good action to destroy a fiend, or most undead for that matter. Inasmuch as Evil is a solid, active force in D&D, those creatures represent it utterly.

Orcs, on the other hand, may be savage and violent in your setting (I usually just integrate them into the common races in mine), but are still sapient beings with free will, and thus (according to our modern way of thinking) deserving of certain rights. The right not to be slaughtered because your father, or brother committed a crime, for example.
Demons have free will. And They are Sapient. They have an over-whelming urge to do murder and pillage. They are Evil because they act on the over-whelming urge to murder and pillage. Killing an orc who murders and pillages is akin to slaying a demon, then. Alright.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:22 PM
In D&D- killing a human who murders and pillages is OK- after they've been arrested, tried, sentenced.

Or, when he is about to do so, in front of you, and only way to stop him is to kill him.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:23 PM
Demons have free will. And They are Sapient. They have an over-whelming urge to do murder and pillage. They are Evil because they act on the over-whelming urge to murder and pillage. Killing an orc who murders and pillages is akin to slaying a demon, then. Alright.

No, demons don't have free will. They are literally creatures of Chaos and Evil (at least by the standard D&D definition). They are literally beings of Chaos and Evil, because their are made up of the raw evil energy of the abyss. Orcs are very often evil because of their culture/society/background/religion/ideals, but they are perfectly abel to be good. An evil orc is still an intelligent living being in their own right, so murdering one for no reason is still a crime in its self. A demon (or a devil) on the other hand is evil by its very existence, not by choice. They feed off evil, they need to be evil to live. They exist for no purpose other than serving the goals of evil and as of such there is no faul in destroying them.
from
EE

quillbreaker
2008-10-26, 02:25 PM
killing a dretch isn't murder actually, murder is unjustified killing, demons are totally evil, so its always justified


Yeah, the NPC order of paladins in my friend's game uses "detect evil" as a target detector. When it goes off, they kill the target. I don't buy it there and I don't buy it here. If you make a habit of cheating people in every business transaction, you're evil, but you don't deserve brutal stabbing. If a demon comes to the prime material and expresses his evil that way, he's still evil, and probably should be banished, but doesn't deserve death.

This gives me an idea for a game, actually.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:28 PM
Yeah, the NPC order of paladins in my friend's game uses "detect evil" as a target detector. When it goes off, they kill the target. I don't buy it there and I don't buy it here. If you make a habit of cheating people in every business transaction, you're evil, but you don't deserve brutal stabbing. If a demon comes to the prime material and expresses his evil that way, he's still evil, and probably should be banished, but doesn't deserve death.

This gives me an idea for a game, actually.

True. being evil is not a crime, it just shows taht you are a selfish person. The punishment will come when you die, but the paladin's duty is to protect the innocent, not to randomly murder people who simply have an evil alignment.

Grey Guard can do it, but they really shouldn't be good, as they are essentially non good paladins
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-26, 02:28 PM
Wait, so it's evil unless you risk yourself to do it? What if said tyrant is a powerful sorcerer who could kill you with a thought, your obliged to let him defend himself? I thought the point was to remove the evil, not to make sure the evil is tough enough to win in a straight-on fight. Giving him a chance to defend himself would be the honorable thing to do, but honorable is not always practical.

I've always seen Honor as mostly Law vs. Chaos with some Good vs. Evil rather mostly Good vs. Evil.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:29 PM
Tricky issue is on planes where demons and devils are accepted as long as they behave. Sigil, or Union, or The City of Brass, or Kelemvors City of Judgement (devils)

Killing them unprovoked may be murder in these cases. Planescape novel I read had paladin very reluctantly tolerating prescence of cleric of evil god.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:30 PM
a cleric of an evil god is ok to tolerate as long as he doesn't do anything evil. and while a paladin can kill demons for being demons, he doesn't have to when he could get himself killed for doing so
from
EE

ocato
2008-10-26, 02:30 PM
It's not anywhere in the core but look under the paladin's class listing. It specifically mentions that paladin's can't use poisons. Coupled with the assassin class of being evil and having the Poison Use class feature the assumption is made. Poison use is at best unlawful as paladin can't use it because it violates their code of honor (having a code of any kind is Lawful).

Also, Blackguards, who are "evil paladins" gain the use of poison as a class skill. That kind of suggests that it is considerably evil. Paladins can't use it and Blackguards love the stuff. Not necessarily proof of the evilness of poisons but it doesn't hurt the argument.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:33 PM
in Tymora's Luck novel, paladin (of Lathlander) is actually obliged to work alongside demons and yugoloths, toward a common goal.

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 02:34 PM
No, demons don't have free will. They are literally creatures of Chaos and Evil (at least by the standard D&D definition). They are literally beings of Chaos and Evil, because their They Are are made up of the raw evil energy of the abyss. Orcs are very often evil because of their culture/society/background/religion/ideals, but they are perfectly abel able to be good. An evil orc is still an intelligent living being in their own right, so murdering one for no reason is still a crime in its self. A demon (or a devil) on the other hand is evil by its very existence, not by choice. They feed off evil, they need to be evil to live. They exist for no purpose other than serving the goals of evil and as of such there is no faul Fault in destroying them.
from
EE

So, by definition, they don't have free will. Therefore, they have no personality, because they don't have the freee will to choose who they are. So Demons should all be the same, because they have no personalities. Yet, demons are different from one another. Why?

From
I'm-to-cool-to-use-the-actual-designated-signature-space-man.

BRC
2008-10-26, 02:35 PM
True. being evil is not a crime.

Agreed, a greedy merchant who rips people off and intentionally undercuts and spreads rumors about other merchants in order to gain a monopoly, then jacks up prices is evil, he is benefiting at the expense of others. However, just because he is a mean nasty person dosn't mean he deserves death.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-10-26, 02:37 PM
Demons have free will. And They are Sapient. They have an over-whelming urge to do murder and pillage. They are Evil because they act on the over-whelming urge to murder and pillage. Killing an orc who murders and pillages is akin to slaying a demon, then. Alright.

Ahahaha, what? No they don't. That's the definition of something marked with an "Always" in the Alignment descriptor. They're a living embodiment of evil itself, and in most settings a great cause of corruption on the mortal plane. Equivalating (D&D) orcs to fiends is ridiculous... Orcs are "Often Chaotic Evil," even if you run a game purely by RAW you're going to get some Neutral and a few Good Orcs; you will virtually NEVER see a Good Demon or Devil, in all probablity.

I've explained it as thoroughly as I can. I strongly suspect you're being deliberately obtuse just to troll, otherwise I suggest you search through the forum archives, maybe talk to your local pastor/theologian/witch doctor about what a "demon" is.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:37 PM
So, by definition, they don't have free will. Therefore, they have no personality, because they don't have the freee will to choose who they are. So Demons should all be the same, because they have no personalities. Yet, demons are different from one another. Why?

Frim
I'm-to-cool-to-use-the-actual-designated-signature-space-man.

Their personalities are limited to Chaos and Evil. their unique personality traits exist only as far as Chaos and Evil can go. That isn't free will, that is limited will. A Demon is made up of Chaos and Evil, they can't be anything else. Thus, killing them isn't murder. Orcs however, are still people dispite being evil (if they are evil) so murder is still murder
from
EE

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 02:37 PM
True. Being evil is not a crime, ...



But being Absurdly Evil is?



... You lost me.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-26, 02:38 PM
Their personalities are limited to Chaos and Evil. their unique personality traits exist only as far as Chaos and Evil can go. That isn't free will, that is limited will. A Demon is made up of Chaos and Evil, they can't be anything else. Thus, killing them isn't murder. Orcs however, are still people dispite being evil (if they are evil) so murder is still murder
from
EE

Yet there are, you know, LG demons. At least, a LG demon. Who is also a Paladin.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:40 PM
WoTC started doing Fiends- extraplanar, outsider, Evil subtype, which weren't evil: a succubus paladin, the Cambion, etc.

Not a great idea, but maybe "its always OK to kill demons" should be amended to "its always OK to kill Evil demons" since combination of evil alignment, and Evil subtype, is what makes them so bad.

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 02:41 PM
Ahahaha, what? No they don't. That's the definition of something marked with an "Always" in the Alignment descriptor. They're a living embodiment of evil itself, and in most settings a great cause of corruption on the mortal plane. Equivalating (D&D) orcs to fiends is ridiculous... Orcs are "Often Chaotic Evil," even if you run a game purely by RAW you're going to get some Neutral and a few Good Orcs; you will virtually NEVER see a Good Demon or Devil, in all probablity.

I've explained it as thoroughly as I can. I strongly suspect you're being deliberately obtuse just to troll, otherwise I suggest you search through the forum archives, maybe talk to your local pastor/theologian/witch doctor about what a "demon" is.

So, Red Dragons are the living embodiment of Chaotic Evil, And Red Dragons are always always always Evil down to their very souls and live to hurt, maim, kill and destroy, because their alignment descriptor is "Always Evil".


Lost me again.





Their personalities are limited to Chaos and Evil. their unique personality traits exist only as far as Chaos and Evil can go. That isn't free will, that is limited will. A Demon is made up of Chaos and Evil, they can't be anything else. Thus, killing them isn't murder. Orcs however, are still people dispite being evil (if they are evil) so murder is still murder
from
EE

Riiight, Limited will. If being Evil isn't a crime, But being made of only Evil is, how evil is too evil? At what point do you say off with his head? Compare A mostly chaotic kinda evil demon and a murderous child molesting orc. Who deserves to die?

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:41 PM
Agreed, a greedy merchant who rips people off and intentionally undercuts and spreads rumors about other merchants in order to gain a monopoly, then jacks up prices is evil, he is benefiting at the expense of others. However, just because he is a mean nasty person dosn't mean he deserves death.

Oh for that matter, most rulers. I mean, to be a good king, your are going to often be doing morally questionable things

Frigs, being evil by choice in itself isn't a crime, you just happen to be an evil person. now a paladin might want to keep you from doing evil things, but can't kill you for that

Being evil by existence, IE being a creatures who's purpose in life is to be evil, well that certainly makes your destruction needed for the cause of good.

Rose, that is sited as a freak accident, not something that will happen often enough to break the standard.
from
EE

BRC
2008-10-26, 02:41 PM
But being Absurdly Evil is?



... You lost me.

Being evil is not a crime, but doing sufficiently evil acts is. How evil depends on whoever is judging the acts.

On the subject of Demons, A good way to think of them would be like a disease. A Disease has no choice but to harm, thats what it does. However, that dosn't mean that if you have a disease you shouldn't take medicine for it, you shouldn't try to prevent it's spread. You can't say "It's not the microbes fault that they were born as the bubonic plauge" and let it run amok.

Edit: and before you start listing the ways in which demons are not like diseaases, It's not a perfect metaphore, it's an effective one for the situation.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:42 PM
So, Red Dragons are the living embodiment of Chaotic Evil, And Red Dragons are always always always Evil down to their very souls and live to hurt, maim, kill and destroy, because their alignment descriptor is "Always Evil".


Lost me again.

personally, i think Dragons being "always evil" is a very silly rule, and almost every setting (Ebberon, FR, Dragon Lance) ignores it, but if we go by the original rules, yeah i suppose, they are beings who are made up of greed and evil
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:43 PM
Being evil is not a crime, but doing sufficiently evil acts is. How evil depends on whoever is judging the acts.

On the subject of Demons, A good way to think of them would be like a disease. A Disease has no choice but to harm, thats what it does. However, that dosn't mean that if you have a disease you shouldn't take medicine for it, you shouldn't try to prevent it's spread. You can't say "It's not the microbes fault that they were born as the bubonic plauge" and let it run amok.

Hey, i vote Equal rights for the Bubonic plague. :smallwink:
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-26, 02:44 PM
a cleric of an evil god is ok to tolerate as long as he doesn't do anything evil. and while a paladin can kill demons for being demons, he doesn't have to when he could get himself killed for doing so
from
EE

What if the demon hasn't actually done anything evil? What if said demon was just hanging around being a shelfish jerk, would a paladin be any more justified killing them than he would be killing the selifish businessmen? The legions of the Abbys are infinite, but the number of evil deeds ever commited is finite so the vast majority if demon (an infinite number in fact) have never actually done anything wrong.

Note: Mostly playing devils avocate.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:46 PM
What if the demon hasn't actually done anything evil? What if said demon was just hanging around being a shelfish jerk, would a paladin be any more justified killing them than he would be killing the selifish businessmen? The legions of the Abbys are infinite, but the number of evil deeds ever commited is finite so the vast majority if demon (an infinite number in fact) have never actually done anything wrong.

Note: Mostly playing devils avocate.

well the demon's very existence is evil. Now a paladin isn't required to kill a demon, and can work with on in a non evil manner if he has to (example sigil) But he if he kills one for no reason other than being a demon, he isn't going to fall because being a demon is an evil act, as Demons are evil souls mixed with the evil/chaos of the abysses. Now if an orc is killed for being an orc, now we are talking about murder
and the devils advocate is fine, if used intelligently
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:47 PM
To get into Abyss, you have to have been a very very nasty mortal in life. I'm not sure how much of their memories tan'nari retain.

Obyriths are more the Incomprehensible Great Old One sort of Evil.

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 02:47 PM
Being evil is not a crime, but doing sufficiently evil acts is. How evil depends on whoever is judging the acts.

On the subject of Demons, A good way to think of them would be like a disease. A Disease has no choice but to harm, thats what it does. However, that dosn't mean that if you have a disease you shouldn't take medicine for it, you shouldn't try to prevent it's spread. You can't say "It's not the microbes fault that they were born as the bubonic plauge" and let it run amok.

Edit: and before you start listing the ways in which demons are not like diseaases, It's not a perfect metaphore, it's an effective one for the situation.

EE, see my latest Edit if you haven't already.

Effective but flawed for Situation. Bubonic plagues aren't made purely out of malice for all things living. They just want to survive. We want to kill them, because they hurt us. We want to kill demons because they hurt us. But we demons hurt because they want to, dieses hurt to live.

Draco Dracul
2008-10-26, 02:49 PM
well the demon's very existence is evil. Now a paladin isn't required to kill a demon, and can work with on in a non evil manner if he has to (example sigil) But he if he kills one for no reason other than being a demon, he isn't going to fall because being a demon is an evil act, as Demons are evil souls mixed with the evil/chaos of the abysses. Now if an orc is killed for being an orc, now we are talking about murder
and the devils advocate is fine, if used intelligently
from
EE

Even if the demon in question is that succumbus paladin?

BRC
2008-10-26, 02:49 PM
EE, see my latest Edit if you haven't already.

Effective but flawed for Situation. Bubonic plagues aren't made purely out of malice for all things living. They just want to survive. We want to kill them, because they hurt us. We want to kill demons because they hurt us. But we demons hurt because they want to, dieses hurt to live.
This is what I meant, I don't mean that Demons motivations and a Diseases motivations are the same, I mean that for the purpose of how we should react, they are the same. To Paraphrase Discworld
"That's not the way it works at all
No, But it's a damn good lie!"

CountD
2008-10-26, 02:50 PM
CountD Says...

An assassin is almost always evil, but not for the act of murder in itself.

For example, your average Lawful "Good" adventurer goes out to kill a dragon in its lair to protect the people and whatnot. Oh, and also to plunder the dragon's sizable treasure horde, too, by the way. Now, dragons are intelligent creatures, more so than many of your average adventurers, so by logic don't they have a right to live as they will too? I've seen quite a few campaigns where the fluffy background of the adventure is a preemptive strike against a young dragon that's taken up residence nearby, yet has done nothing to harm the villagers or goblins or whatever they are. Killing the dragon doesn't make the adventurers evil, even if the dragon's alignment itself is evil.

Now, kill an evil aligned human or elf, and suddenly you're the bad guy. To me, that doesn't line up.

I say the assassin is usually evil because his methods make him evil, as opposed to the actual result.

Case in point is Altair of Assassin's Creed. Altair was the protagonist and essentially the "good guy" of the adventure, and his goals and exploits were, in the end, for the greater good. However, I would think he qualifies as Lawful Evil, based on the fact that he brutally guts an innocent man after interrogating him. Thus, while Altair's ultimate motives and the end result of his exploits don't make him evil, the way he achieves these goals makes the difference.

This Altair Scenario can be reapplied to the majority of assassins, who (should, anyway) take advantage of stealth, poisons and deception to kill their "dragon."

If you're not playing it that way, the assassin class doesn't apply to you in the first place and you ought to choose something else.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:52 PM
Riiight, Limited will. If being Evil isn't a crime, But being made of only Evil is, how evil is too evil? At what point do you say off with his head? Compare A mostly chaotic kinda evil demon and a murderous child molesting orc. Who deserves to die?
You can't have a mostly chaotic evil demon, you have a demon. All demons are chaotic evil. Some might be more sarcastic, some might be funnier, and some might be more intelligent, but they are all chaotic evil. A child molester orc is evil, but you can't kill him for simply being there, lock him up. If he fights or no other course of action is around, kill him. But he is still a person, just sick. Demons aren't people, they are evil souls made out of sheer chaos and evil

The thing about demons is, they exist for the sole purpose of causing chaos and evil, along with eventually destroying creation (fiendish codex I)
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-26, 02:53 PM
You can't have a mostly chaotic evil demon, you have a demon. All demons are chaotic evil. Some might be more sarcastic, some might be funnier, and some might be more intelligent, but they are all chaotic evil. A child molester orc is evil, but you can't kill him for simply being there, lock him up. If he fights or no other course of action is around, kill him. But he is still a person, just sick. Demons aren't people, they are evil souls made out of sheer chaos and evil

The thing about demons is, they exist for the sole purpose of causing chaos and evil, along with eventually destroying creation (fiendish codex I)
from
EE

Except that one LG sucummbus paladin.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:53 PM
Even if the demon in question is that succumbus paladin?

i've seen here, she is described as a freak accident, when the world doesn't work properly. Those are basically not part of the system, so we ignore it


Altair would be NE or LE i think
from
EE

Copacetic
2008-10-26, 02:55 PM
This is what I meant, I don't mean that Demons motivations and a Diseases motivations are the same, I mean that for the purpose of how we should react, they are the same. To Paraphrase Discworld
"That's not the way it works at all
No, But it's a damn good lie!"

No, we shouldn't react the same, but we do. If we could find a way to help the bubonic plague survive without killing people, should we? Yes, because it is an animal in evey way, and we have plenty of national parks. But National parks for demons shouldn't exist, because "the demon's very existence is evil" as EE puts it.



You can't have a mostly chaotic evil demon, you have a demon. All demons are chaotic evil. Some might be more sarcastic, some might be funnier, and some might be more intelligent, but they are all chaotic evil. A child molester orc is evil, but you can't kill him for simply being there, lock him up. If he fights or no other course of action is around, kill him. But he is still a person, just sick. Demons aren't people, they are evil souls made out of sheer chaos and evil

The thing about demons is, they exist for the sole purpose of causing chaos and evil, along with eventually destroying creation (fiendish codex I)
from
EE


Chaos And Evil. Are Chaos and Evil equal in a demon? Or are so demons more chaotic, as some are more intelligent? Is it 2/3 chaos to 1/3 evil, or are they always equal?

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 02:55 PM
that, and, some of the were once extremely CE mortals in life, whoes souls went to abyss on death, and over time got promoted.

Demonomicon articles suggest that the Abyss actually created some demons out of Mortal Sins- in the Malcanthet article. Others were brought into being by the obyriths- the first of all tan'nari was Demogorgon.

EDIT: Oh yes, and the other exception was Fall From Grace, in Planescape torment, mentioned in Dragon as well.

Cambions are technically demons, but have mortal blood- 10% approx are Not Evil. Like more-demonic Tieflings.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 02:59 PM
Demons aren't natural, they are creatures created by raw chaos and evil.
Weather chaos or evil is more or less doesn't matter, they are still beings who's existence is to cause chaos and evil. They themselves are literal beings of chaos and evil. They aren't mortals, they are pure evil

Your really stretching it now


Cambions and Tieflings aren't pure demon so they actually have a choice in the matter
from
EE

BRC
2008-10-26, 03:00 PM
No, we shouldn't react the same, but we do. If we could find a way to help the bubonic plague survive without killing people, should we? Yes, because it is an animal in evey way, and we have plenty of national parks. But National parks for demons shouldn't exist, because "the demon's very existence is evil" as EE puts it.

So, by that same count, if it was possible to cure a demon of their evilness permenantly (A Helm of Opposite Alignment can do it temporarily) shouldn't we? Ergo, my metaphore remains strong.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:02 PM
point is, unlike tieflings or half-fiend (neither of which has evil subtype) Cambion does. And Outsider, and Extraplanar, making it, by D&D rules, a fiend.

Wish might work, as might Helm of opposite alignment, but neither method of reforming evil in Exalted Deeds, works on fiends, by strict reading of rules.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 03:02 PM
Would a helmet work? Would they become sanction or just die?
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:04 PM
Cambions (as a separate creature from half-fiends) are in Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 03:05 PM
point is, unlike tieflings or half-fiend (neither of which has evil subtype) Cambion does. And Outsider, and Extraplanar, making it, by D&D rules, a fiend.

That is because it is more fiendish, but not a pure fiend, so it doesn't have the total evil existence thing going for it
from
EE

BRC
2008-10-26, 03:05 PM
Would a helmet work? Would they become sanction or just die?
from
EE
They would become good aligned. There are good aligned demons, even though they are oddities, so much so that they should not, in any way, be taken as evidence that demons could be expected to be anything but evil. It's like if you shoot twenty thousand bullets at twenty thousand identical wooden targets, but one bullet dosn't go through, so you say "Wood is bulletproof". However, they show that it is possible for a demon to survive if good aligned.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 03:06 PM
They would become good aligned. There are good aligned demons, even though they are oddities, so much so that they should not, in any way, be taken as evidence that demons could be expected to be anything but evil. It's like if you shoot twenty thousand bullets at twenty thousand identical wooden targets, but one bullet dosn't go through, so you say "Wood is bulletproof". However, they show that it is possible for a demon to survive if good aligned.

i'm not sure, i think they might simply become angels or sanction creatures (Sanction is a template in BoED taht is or creatures who are always evil who have become good through freak accident)
from
EE

Draco Dracul
2008-10-26, 03:06 PM
They would become good aligned. There are good aligned demons, even though they are oddities, so much so that they should not, in any way, be taken as evidence that demons could be expected to be anything but evil. It's like if you shoot twenty thousand bullets at twenty thousand identical wooden targets, but one bullet dosn't go through, so you say "Wood is bulletproof". However, they show that it is possible for a demon to survive if good aligned.

This. Going with what EE said earlier you would be justified in killing demons 99.99999999% of the time but not always.

BRC
2008-10-26, 03:07 PM
i'm not sure, i think they might simply become angels or sanction creatures (Sanction is a template in BoED taht is or creatures who are always evil who have become good through freak accident)
from
EE
Ah, yes, in that case they would probably become Sanctioned. It sounds exactly like the sort of situation that template calls for.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:07 PM
how about Native Outsiders with Evil subtype? The Unholy Scion from Heroes of Horror? Basically, Damian for D&D. Looks normal, Evil subtype, and vicious as they come.

EDIT:
Problem is, Sanctified Creature template says can be applied to any creature "except outsiders with the evil subtype" Then goes on to say subtypes like baatezu, tan'nari, yugoloth get lost. Looks like something that needs DMs discretion, though I'd personally say Helm would push through this limitation, even if Sanctify the Wicked spell doesn't.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 03:08 PM
how about Native Outsiders with Evil subtype? The Unholy Scion from Heroes of Horror? Basically, Damian for D&D. Looks normal, Evil subtype, and vicious as they come.

most likely, but i'm not sure about native outsiders enough to make that absolute
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:12 PM
thing is, an outsider can have a trace of human blood (or in the case of Scion, a lot- its basically a very evil half-fiend thats indistinguishable from a normal creature) and still have the Evil subtype.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-26, 03:14 PM
Ah, yes, in that case they would probably become Sanctioned. It sounds exactly like the sort of situation that template calls for.

Sanctioned Creatures are created through only one method: Sanctify the Wicked spell. It is also not the best example of editing, as it says it cannot be applied to Outsiders with the Evil subtype, but it also removes the Tanar'ri, Baatezu and Yugoloth, which are only for Outsiders with the Evil subtype.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:23 PM
Wish or Miracle might work, at the DMs discretion. According to Dragon Magazine, deities can change alignment subtypes- a succubus with the Lawful subype serves Wee Jas. Then, there are alignment-changing rituals in Savage Species.

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 03:24 PM
that part is kinda vague sadly
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:34 PM
there is a cheap way of telling if the fiend you're looking at is, in fact, Good. A Good Outsider bane Fiercebane weapon. Since beings with alignment subtype opposite their actual alignment, are penalized as if they were both. So, unsheath weapon, and it will glow.

Unfortunately, Neutral outsiders with Evil subtype are sort of stuck.

Other option is Just Observe; if fiend is walking down street of a Good or Neutral city and no-one is batting an eye, maybe they'ver proven their good nature to the populace.

its_all_ogre
2008-10-26, 04:24 PM
i am going to pick apart someones spelling mistakes because i have no way of actually challenging their arguments in a constructive argument

please could you stop?

EvilElitest
2008-10-26, 05:15 PM
please could you stop?

wait did he say that?
from
EE

Starsinger
2008-10-27, 12:55 AM
Oh! Question! In Savage Species which is just as rubbishy as Book of Ed and just as old as Book of VD, it says if you're a creature with alignment subtypes, you act as a creature of that alignment. So a LG, say Ghaele would count as a Lawful, Good, and Evil creature. But AFAIK, creatures with an alignment subtype have to have"Always" in their alignment box. So therefor, there can be LG and CG Demons and Devils and thus not all Demons are inherently wicked naughty bad wrong things.

Kris Strife
2008-10-27, 02:06 AM
If you want to make a bounty hunter, why not go Justicar? Any lawful, can do nonlethal damage without penelty and each nonlethal strike decreases the targets Str score by 1 starting at level two, also gains weapon proficiancy with manacles. bounties tend to be dead or alive.

its_all_ogre
2008-10-27, 03:58 AM
wait did he say that?
from
EE

he/she has been picking at spelling mistakes and grammar of others posts, presumably because they hold no relevant arguments.

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 07:55 AM
Oh! Question! In Savage Species which is just as rubbishy as Book of Ed and just as old as Book of VD, it says if you're a creature with alignment subtypes, you act as a creature of that alignment. So a LG, say Ghaele would count as a Lawful, Good, and Evil creature. But AFAIK, creatures with an alignment subtype have to have"Always" in their alignment box. So therefor, there can be LG and CG Demons and Devils and thus not all Demons are inherently wicked naughty bad wrong things.

Wait, i'm not quite sure i understand what your saying, i don't have savage species. Anyways, i think that is if you add aligniment sub types to an existing creatures For example, if you have a CE creature and add the Good subtype, you have a CEG creature, which has more choice

Ogre, i thought that was just being annoying
from
EE

Fax Celestis
2008-10-27, 10:35 AM
Demons aren't natural, they are creatures created by raw chaos and evil.
Weather chaos or evil is more or less doesn't matter, they are still beings who's existence is to cause chaos and evil. They themselves are literal beings of chaos and evil. They aren't mortals, they are pure evil

Lies. Demons reproduce in the same way humans do, otherwise we wouldn't have Tieflings because, hey, demons wouldn't have sex. Demons are also natural in that they are not created from nothing--they are born, live, and die, just like any other living being.

Furthermore, a "creature of raw chaos and evil" is an elemental, not a demon. Being native to a plane does not make you of that plane, just from that plane.

And further still, "Always X Alignment" does not mean "100% of the time." It means "the creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions." (MM 305, emphasis mine.) This statement not only indicates that demons are not always chaotic evil, but that they also have the free will to determine their alignments, despite the fact that they start as chaotic evil.

Really, what "Always X Alignment" means is, where a human is born True Neutral, a demon is born Chaotic Evil and an archon is born Lawful Good--but any creature with an intelligence score is considered to have free will and can therefore make its own decisions in its life and potentially alter its alignment to whatever it deems fit.

Starsinger
2008-10-27, 10:41 AM
Wait, i'm not quite sure i understand what your saying, i don't have savage species. Anyways, i think that is if you add aligniment sub types to an existing creatures For example, if you have a CE creature and add the Good subtype, you have a CEG creature, which has more choice

No, it's saying if you already have an alignment sub-type based on your monstrous race, and your alignment is different, for effects like Dictum you count as whichever hurts you more.

Edit: I was looking for this thread, and for some reason I thought it was about outsiders.

On topic, Assassins are evil out of arbitrariness. IMO classes with an alignment restriction are kinda stupid. If you're playing an Assassin and Assassins are supposed to be evil, you should be evil because your character's evil, not necessary because it's required for your prestige class.

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 11:04 AM
Lies. Demons reproduce in the same way humans do, otherwise we wouldn't have Tieflings because, hey, demons wouldn't have sex. Demons are also natural in that they are not created from nothing--they are born, live, and die, just like any other living being.

Not to create new Demons, Fiendish Codex I, they come out of the plan itself. Demons can have sex, because part of being evil is rape and hurting humans, but that isn't how they reproduce with each other, they are evil souls


Furthermore, a "creature of raw chaos and evil" is an elemental, not a demon. Being native to a plane does not make you of that plane, just from that plane.
Again fiendish Codex, BoVD, they are beings who's very souls are combined with evil and Chaos. Elementals are connected to the phyical elements, demons are connection to spiritual elements.


And further still, "Always X Alignment" does not mean "100% of the time." It means "the creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions." (MM 305, emphasis mine.) This statement not only indicates that demons are not always chaotic evil, but that they also have the free will to determine their alignments, despite the fact that they start as chaotic evil.
In terms of Devils and Demons, always evils means 99.9% are CE and stay that way (Both Fiendish Codex, BoVD, other demon books). The few who aren't are freak accidents, even then not all of them are good, most of NE. So appart form freak accidents, all evil

Statsinger i'll get to you when i have time
from
EE

Starbuck_II
2008-10-27, 11:10 AM
Furthermore, a "creature of raw chaos and evil" is an elemental, not a demon. Being native to a plane does not make you of that plane, just from that plane.

Woot, yes stand up for Planar origins!
No longer will be called Raw X; Nah, we are people too.


And further still, "Always X Alignment" does not mean "100% of the time." It means "the creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions." (MM 305, emphasis mine.) This statement not only indicates that demons are not always chaotic evil, but that they also have the free will to determine their alignments, despite the fact that they start as chaotic evil.


It is weird that Core defines Always as almost always.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-27, 11:15 AM
Again fiendish Codex, BoVD, they are beings who's very souls are combined with evil and Chaos. Elementals are connected to the phyical elements, demons are connection to spiritual elements. Again, so? You've never heard of a change of heart? Or even a helm of opposite alignment?


In terms of Devils and Demons, always evils means 99.9% are CE and stay that way (Both Fiendish Codex, BoVD, other demon books). The few who aren't are freak accidents, even then not all of them are good, most of NE. So appart form freak accidents, all evilSo let me get this straight: you're okay with a 99.9% chance of success? Good thing you're not a doctor. "Oh, it's okay. I only drop babies .1% of the time."

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 11:23 AM
Again, so? You've never heard of a change of heart? Or even a helm of opposite alignment?

Demons and Devils can't have a change of heart. A helm of OA has been covered, taht is a matter of coincidence . A good demon would most likely gain the good subtype or the Sanctioned template.



So let me get this straight: you're okay with a 99.9% chance of success? Good thing you're not a doctor. "Oh, it's okay. I only drop babies .1% of the time."
1) There are no demon babies
2) Its actually more than 99.9%. Because of that .1%, most of them would be NE, with some LE, CN, and N. Not many good. Of those that are good, most would be killed by existence, as they could live in their worlds easily being good. If they could get out, and avoid being killed by other demons, they still have to avoid being killed by devils. If you encounter a demon that is good, its a freak accident, its when the system is broken. Thus, they are such minute possibilities, that we don't take them into account.


No, it's saying if you already have an alignment sub-type based on your monstrous race, and your alignment is different, for effects like Dictum you count as whichever hurts you more.

Edit: I was looking for this thread, and for some reason I thought it was about outsiders.

Wait, i think i'm missing something, what is your question?


On topic, Assassins are evil out of arbitrariness. IMO classes with an alignment restriction are kinda stupid. If you're playing an Assassin and Assassins are supposed to be evil, you should be evil because your character's evil, not necessary because it's required for your prestige class.
well on the topic, its more based upon the idea of murder being evil. Assassins could be neutral i suppose, but as it is the idea of having to murder somebody just to join is pretty evil
from
EE

Fax Celestis
2008-10-27, 11:29 AM
Demons and Devils can't have a change of heart. A helm of OA has been covered, taht is a matter of coincidence . A good demon would most likely gain the good subtype or the Sanctioned template. According to what? The Monster Manual, which is the definitive source on how monsters work, states that always doesn't mean always as I quoted before.


1) There are no demon babies
2) Its actually more than 99.9%. Because of that .1%, most of them would be NE, with some LE, CN, and N. Not many good. Of those that are good, most would be killed by existence, as they could live in their worlds easily being good. If they could get out, and avoid being killed by other demons, they still have to avoid being killed by devils. If you encounter a demon that is good, its a freak accident, its when the system is broken. Thus, they are such minute possibilities, that we don't take them into account. And now you're being obstinate. I said nothing about "demon babies", I said it's good you're not a doctor since you'd drop every thousandth baby you delivered. 99.9% (or even 99.9999...%) is not the same thing as 100%, and if I were someone who's very powers depended upon me not harming a good creature, I'd sure as hell make sure that anything I even considered coming after was 100% certain evil. The point I'm making is that one cannot assume a devil or a demon is evil--even one in a thousand makes that chance an unacceptable margin of error.

hewhosaysfish
2008-10-27, 11:33 AM
Firstly, let me see if I understand what people are saying about orcs, demons and the killing thereof:


1) "If X runs around killing, maiming and burning then you can kill it because it deserves to be killed. If X does not run around killing, maiming and burning then it doesn't deserve to be killed (probably; depending on other criteria) so you can't kill it."

2) "Maybe two thirds to three quarters of adult orcs run around killing, maiming and burning. The rest do not."

2b) "It's more likely than not that any given orc you meet will deserve to be killed but not likely enough that you shouldn't still make sure first."

3) "99.999999% of demons run around killing, maiming and burning. A few rare exceptions do not."

3b) "You can kill any given demon you meet with only the most token attempts to verify whether it's evil because the odds are vastly against it being innocent."

Is there anyone who would dispute any of these points?
#3b seems to be the main point of contention and I'm a little hesitant about it myself: if you're in a position to be able to kill a demon, rather than running away screaming, then obviously the risk to you is not so overwhelming that you can't take a little time to make sure you're not carelessly murdering an innocent being.


*************

This brings me to my second point: to the OP.

The problem (as far as I can see) stems from a few ill-defined terms.
Killing is fairly obvious. But what is "murder"?
1) Unlawful killing.
2) Unjustified killing.
3) Killing a person who cannot defend themselves.
4) Something else?

What is "assassination"?
1) Killing for money.
2) Murder for money, however murder is defined.
3) Killing at the behest of someone else.
4) Murder at the behest of someone else, however murder is defined.
5) Killing someone stealthily.
6) Stealthy murder, however murder is defined.
7) Something else entirely.

I'm not going to attempt to define these terms. I'm simply going to discard the ambiguous terms. So here gos:

The class features of the "Assassin" PrC are all geared towards stealthy killing. This is not, in itself, evil.

The fluff of the "Assassin" PrC defines being an Assassin as being part of some specific organisation of Assassins. This organisation allows/requires its members to kill for amoral reasons and even vets potential members for their ability to kill for no reason* (hence the Special prerequisite). Such an organisation and its members are imho undeniably evil (hence the Alignment prereq).

So if you want the class features of stealthy killing but don't want the setting specific(!!!) fluff then you should be able to itch the Alignment and Special prereqs.


*Other than to prove that they will kill someone for no reason other than to prove that they will kill someone for no reason other than to prove....

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 11:37 AM
According to what? The Monster Manual, which is the definitive source on how monsters work, states that always doesn't mean always as I quoted before.

I said, BoVD, Fiendish Codex I-II, Other such source books, demons and devils are creatures of evil essence.



And now you're being obstinate. I said nothing about "demon babies", I said it's good you're not a doctor since you'd drop every thousandth baby you delivered. 99.9% (or even 99.9999...%) is not the same thing as 100%, and if I were someone who's very powers depended upon me not harming a good creature, I'd sure as hell make sure that anything I even considered coming after was 100% certain evil. The point I'm making is that one cannot assume a devil or a demon is evil--even one in a thousand makes that chance an unacceptable margin of error.

well it actually is less then 99.9 % but here is the thing, demons exist for the purpose of evil. A good demon is basically an oxymoron. Demons who's aligniments aren't CE are freak accidents, its when the chaos of their realm screws up, so they are so rare that you can't equate them. A good demon wouldn't be a true demon, it would be a demon like creature who isn't truly demonic. And its very existence is still evil (evil subtype). Killing demons is not murder. A good demon is basically a sanctioned creature, not a true demon
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 11:41 AM
1) "If X runs around killing, maiming and burning then you can kill it because it deserves to be killed. If X does not run around killing, maiming and burning then it doesn't deserve to be killed (probably; depending on other criteria) so you can't kill it."

you can kill an evil person to stop them from doing evil if no other course is around (must accept mercy) if its an evil person, like an evil orc
Also you can be evil without constantly killing maiming and burning

2) "Maybe two thirds to three quarters of adult orcs run around killing, maiming and burning. The rest do not."

Well that doesn't mean you can kill them for being orcs, just that you can kill them to keep them from doing evil


2b) "It's more likely than not that any given orc you meet will deserve to be killed but not likely enough that you shouldn't still make sure first."
Being evil doesn't mean that you deserve to be killed


3) "99.999999% of demons run around killing, maiming and burning. A few rare exceptions do not."
demons by nature are evil, unlike orcs who have free will



3b) "You can kill any given demon you meet with only the most token attempts to verify whether it's evil because the odds are vastly against it being innocent."
Because demons by definition aren't innocent, there existence is an act of evil (evil souls powering the abysses)

So you pretty much got it
from
EE

Fax Celestis
2008-10-27, 11:43 AM
Firstly, let me see if I understand what people are saying about orcs, demons and the killing thereof:


1) "If X runs around killing, maiming and burning then you can kill it because it deserves to be killed. If X does not run around killing, maiming and burning then it doesn't deserve to be killed (probably; depending on other criteria) so you can't kill it."

2) "Maybe two thirds to three quarters of adult orcs run around killing, maiming and burning. The rest do not."

2b) "It's more likely than not that any given orc you meet will deserve to be killed but not likely enough that you shouldn't still make sure first."

3) "99.999999% of demons run around killing, maiming and burning. A few rare exceptions do not."

3b) "You can kill any given demon you meet with only the most token attempts to verify whether it's evil because the odds are vastly against it being innocent."

Is there anyone who would dispute any of these points?
#3b seems to be the main point of contention and I'm a little hesitant about it myself: if you're in a position to be able to kill a demon, rather than running away screaming, then obviously the risk to you is not so overwhelming that you can't take a little time to make sure you're not carelessly murdering an innocent being.


3b is the point of contention, yes. I'm of the mind that someone who has a vested interest in protecting the weak/innocent/good (ie: a paladin, cleric of a good deity, or some sort of crusader/holy warrior) shouldn't take that .000001% chance.

Oslecamo
2008-10-27, 11:43 AM
And now you're being obstinate. I said nothing about "demon babies", I said it's good you're not a doctor since you'd drop every thousandth baby you delivered. 99.9% (or even 99.9999...%) is not the same thing as 100%, and if I were someone who's very powers depended upon me not harming a good creature, I'd sure as hell make sure that anything I even considered coming after was 100% certain evil. The point I'm making is that one cannot assume a devil or a demon is evil--even one in a thousand makes that chance an unacceptable margin of error.

Well, last time I checked, 99.999% of our society works in the basis that 99.999% is 100% for all purposes.

Doctors indeed kill 00.001% (or even more) of their patients due to their own fault, yet they get away mostly unpunished mostly because they saved the other 99.999%. It's called randomness. You cannot escape from it in the real world.

But it guets worst. In a war, there are normally as much civilians as "bad guys" killed, yet the soldiers doing the killing will be considered "good guys".

The universe isn't 100% predictable. Strange stuff happens. And not droping a nuke on the demon army because there may be a chance that there is one good demon on the middle of the million, well, I don't think a paladin would fall for it.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-27, 11:45 AM
Well, last time I checked, 99.999% of our society works in the basis that 99.999% is 100% for all purposes.

Doctors indeed kill 00.001% (or even more) of their patients due to their own fault, yet they get away mostly unpunished mostly because they saved the other 99.999%. It's called randomness. You cannot escape from it in the real world.

...are we talking about the real world?

Oslecamo
2008-10-27, 11:47 AM
...are we talking about the real world?

In the country where I live, 10% of the deaths in hospitals happen because of the medic's negligence(aka patient was not in risk of life, but the medic proceedment engraved his status and killed him). Yes, we're talking about the real world. But good luck geting them to court. Maybe your sons will be able to end the process.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-27, 11:47 AM
Well, last time I checked, 99.999% of our society works in the basis that 99.999% is 100% for all purposes.

Doctors indeed kill 00.001% (or even more) of their patients due to their own fault, yet they get away mostly unpunished mostly because they saved the other 99.999%. It's called randomness. You cannot escape from it in the real world.


Correct, DNA testing for fatherhood is never 100% accurate.

Ever seen Maury: I bet some of those guys are innocent.
It is just like DNA test and almost always accurate so the show assumes they all are accurate.

chiasaur11
2008-10-27, 11:48 AM
Firstly, let me see if I understand what people are saying about orcs, demons and the killing thereof:


1) "If X runs around killing, maiming and burning then you can kill it because it deserves to be killed. If X does not run around killing, maiming and burning then it doesn't deserve to be killed (probably; depending on other criteria) so you can't kill it."

2) "Maybe two thirds to three quarters of adult orcs run around killing, maiming and burning. The rest do not."

2b) "It's more likely than not that any given orc you meet will deserve to be killed but not likely enough that you shouldn't still make sure first."

3) "99.999999% of demons run around killing, maiming and burning. A few rare exceptions do not."

3b) "You can kill any given demon you meet with only the most token attempts to verify whether it's evil because the odds are vastly against it being innocent."

Is there anyone who would dispute any of these points?
#3b seems to be the main point of contention and I'm a little hesitant about it myself: if you're in a position to be able to kill a demon, rather than running away screaming, then obviously the risk to you is not so overwhelming that you can't take a little time to make sure you're not carelessly murdering an innocent being.


*************

This brings me to my second point: to the OP.

The problem (as far as I can see) stems from a few ill-defined terms.
Killing is fairly obvious. But what is "murder"?
1) Unlawful killing.
2) Unjustified killing.
3) Killing a person who cannot defend themselves.
4) Something else?

What is "assassination"?
1) Killing for money.
2) Murder for money, however murder is defined.
3) Killing at the behest of someone else.
4) Murder at the behest of someone else, however murder is defined.
5) Killing someone stealthily.
6) Stealthy murder, however murder is defined.
7) Something else entirely.

I'm not going to attempt to define these terms. I'm simply going to discard the ambiguous terms. So here gos:

The class features of the "Assassin" PrC are all geared towards stealthy killing. This is not, in itself, evil.

The fluff of the "Assassin" PrC defines being an Assassin as being part of some specific organisation of Assassins. This organisation allows/requires its members to kill for amoral reasons and even vets potential members for their ability to kill for no reason* (hence the Special prerequisite). Such an organisation and its members are imho undeniably evil (hence the Alignment prereq).

So if you want the class features of stealthy killing but don't want the setting specific(!!!) fluff then you should be able to itch the Alignment and Special prereqs.


*Other than to prove that they will kill someone for no reason other than to prove that they will kill someone for no reason other than to prove....


You know, Assasins of the old school, the ones with style, would never kill someone without getting paid for it.

If you do, then what seperates you from a common thug?

Fax Celestis
2008-10-27, 11:52 AM
In the country where I live, 10% of the deaths in hospitals happen because of the medic's negligence(aka patient was not in risk of life, but the medic proceedment engraved his status and killed him). Yes, we're talking about the real world. But good luck geting them to court. Maybe your sons will be able to end the process.

...

...I don't think you're grasping this concept of "gaming discussion". I'm not talking about real life at all: real life is governed by a different set of rules than D&D, and I don't pretend to know as much about life as I know about D&D. So, um, stick to the topic at hand?

Starsinger
2008-10-27, 12:28 PM
Wait, i think i'm missing something, what is your question?

well on the topic, its more based upon the idea of murder being evil. Assassins could be neutral i suppose, but as it is the idea of having to murder somebody just to join is pretty evil
from
EE

It wasn't a question, it was a comment. The rule exists because you can play Good Characters despite being a Demon. Furthermore, saying that Demons and Devils can't change their minds is awfully double standard-esque. I mean what's next? Celestials can't Fall?

I'm aware of what it's based upon, but frankly that pre-requisite is stupid and smacks of bad game design. If you want Assassins to be considered evil, don't worry, anyone that considers murder evil will think of an Assassin as evil. Unless the goal was that Paladins could smite Assassins, which seems to be the case in just about every alignment based decision involving whether something in 3.5 is evil or not.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-27, 12:37 PM
Unless the goal was that Paladins could smite Assassins, which seems to be the case in just about every alignment based decision involving whether something in 3.5 is evil or not.


Maybe that is a clue!
That is why Paladins are designed to have Paladin traps because many monsters they will face is designed to be smitable.

We've solved the case, hurrah! Although, I'm not sure how that helps us.

How often do Pallys face Assasins?

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 12:39 PM
Special note- while there are no demon babies, there are devil babies- erinyes devils reproduced the normal way, raise their children in eyries, and consider themselves a cut above other devils because of this.

Also, there is a male erinyes devil in Exemplars of Evil.

Ecalsneerg
2008-10-27, 12:46 PM
How often do Pallys face Assasins?

Whenever someone gets annoyed at how stuck-up they are, i.e. daily :smallbiggrin:

Oslecamo
2008-10-27, 02:05 PM
...

...I don't think you're grasping this concept of "gaming discussion". I'm not talking about real life at all: real life is governed by a different set of rules than D&D, and I don't pretend to know as much about life as I know about D&D. So, um, stick to the topic at hand?

Fine. Monsters ultimetely exist to be killed by the party and give them exp and gold in a more fun way than actually. So of course they will be evil if they're sentient. So you can kill them whitout regrets while being a good character.

Once I played in a campaign where the orcs/gnolls/kobolds were mostly neutral and could actually be reasoned with. We were working for the human kingdom nearby.

After several conflicts the gnolls/orcs/kobolds ended up surrendering to the human kingdom because of our actions, promising to pay tribute and stop all hostilities in return for our dreaded party don't wiping them all.

We stoped gaining gold and exp. Because everybody had surrendered and we couldn't attack them whitout risking retaliation of the human kingdom, who had been greatly strenghtened by our deeds. All villains cleansed, nobody dared to rise a finger against us. We had created an utopia.

But since we really didn't want to reform, and we wanted moar power, we had to travel far and wide to find foreign lands with other civilizations who hadn't heard of us.

And this time we didn't bother with talks of peace. Find dungeon. Reach dungeon. Kill everybody in the way, get the loot, never look back. With some torture on the middle to get more information.

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 02:10 PM
It wasn't a question, it was a comment. The rule exists because you can play Good Characters despite being a Demon. Furthermore, saying that Demons and Devils can't change their minds is awfully double standard-esque. I mean what's next? Celestials can't Fall?

1) In order to do that you need to add the good subtype to demon, IE making it cease to be true demon
2) They aren't mortals, they aren't gifted with free will. The idea is, a demon is an evil soul that is punished by being merged with the sheer vileness of the abyss becoming a creature of its will, Chaos and evil
3) That is because angels and other good creatures are, being good, required to hold themselves to a standard, while Demons and devils are creatues of evil which has no standard. Also fallen angels tend to become devils


I'm aware of what it's based upon, but frankly that pre-requisite is stupid and smacks of bad game design. If you want Assassins to be considered evil, don't worry, anyone that considers murder evil will think of an Assassin as evil. Unless the goal was that Paladins could smite Assassins, which seems to be the case in just about every alignment based decision involving whether something in 3.5 is evil or not.

Well to be fair, the idea of an assassin is well, murder which is by definition D&D evil
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 02:11 PM
Fine. Monsters ultimetely exist to be killed by the party and give them exp and gold in a more fun way than actually. So of course they will be evil if they're sentient. So you can kill them whitout regrets while being a good character.

Wait a second, thats not true. By the D&D definition of good, killing something soley for its money or exp is quite evil, IE murder


from
EE

Starsinger
2008-10-27, 02:13 PM
1) In order to do that you need to add the good subtype to demon, IE making it cease to be true demon Uhh, no. You do that by writing Good in the alignment box, meaning it functions as a Good creature, an Evil creature, and a Chaotic/Lawful creature (whichever is the least beneficial to the creature). You don't add the good subtype.

2) They aren't mortals, they aren't gifted with free will. The idea is, a demon is an evil soul that is punished by being merged with the sheer vileness of the abyss becoming a creature of its will, Chaos and evil Really? I'd like to see back up.

3) That is because angels and other good creatures are, being good, required to hold themselves to a standard, while Demons and devils are creatues of evil which has no standard. Also fallen angels tend to become devils

So, if they aren't held to a standard, why can't Demons and Devils be Good? They have no standard forcing them to be evil. And so a Fallen Angel can't fall, become a Devil and then repent?

Copacetic
2008-10-27, 02:15 PM
1) In order to do that you need to add the good subtype to demon, IE making it cease to be true demon
2) They aren't mortals, they aren't gifted with free will. The idea is, a demon is an evil soul that is punished by being merged with the sheer vileness of the abyss becoming a creature of its will, Chaos and evil
3) That is because angels and other good creatures are, being good, required to hold themselves to a standard, while Demons and devils are creatues of evil which has no standard. Also fallen angels tend to become devils

Well to be fair, the idea of an assassin is well, murder which is by definition D&D evil
from
EE


But Celestials are the counterpart to Demons/devils, beings of utter good. If demons can't be good, Celestials can't be evil; But Celestials can Fall, therefore, Demons can rise.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 02:19 PM
In Vile darkness, it stats killing something solely for its money is non-evil, but only if its a creature of "consummate, irredeemable evil" and suggests dragons.

In Exalted Deeds, it says "Even killing something like a dragon solely for money is not an evil act (though its not a good act)" and again, specifies really really evil creatures.

So, thats their Exception to the General Rule that killing things for money is evil.

hewhosaysfish
2008-10-27, 02:21 PM
you can kill an evil person to stop them from doing evil if no other course is around (must accept mercy) if its an evil person, like an evil orc
So... you're agreeing with me here? I find it hard to tell with you. You're right about mercy though, I just left it out for simplicty's sake.



Also you can be evil without constantly killing maiming and burning

I never actually mentioned evilness... Just "kill, maim, burn -> deserves killing". And I did imply that there may be other ways to deserve death.



Well that doesn't mean you can kill them for being orcs, just that you can kill them to keep them from doing evil
Well, I don't get to killing them until the next point but even then it's not for being orcs...



Being evil doesn't mean that you deserve to be killed

...or for being evil, for that matter. I just said "kill, maim, burn -> deserves death"



demons by nature are evil, unlike orcs who have free will

Well, I discarded the terms "murder" and "assassination" for being unhelpfully ambiguous so I'm not particularly keen on "free will".

However, the real question is: can demons choose to be Good, as orcs can choose, or can they only be made Good through alignment changing magic? Because if demons can choose to be Good then you shouldn't kill a Good demon any more than you should kill a Good orc, whereas demons that have been made Good with a Helm of Opposite of Alignment can be killed freely...

No, wait, that's ********. It doesn't matter whether a demon is Good through its own will or otherwise: killing Good creatures is wrong.

The real, real question is: can a demon actually be Good, (regardless of the how or the why)? Well, to look at one of the examples being thrown around earlier, Fall From Grace is a demon, Fall From Grace (a demon) is Good, therefore demons can be Good.



Because demons by definition aren't innocent, there existence is an act of evil (evil souls powering the abysses)


They aren't necessarily Evil, as I've said above. Even if they were all Evil, you can't kill someone for being Evil, as you've said above.
When a Succubus Paladin walks into the church, should the other Paladins all rush to Smite her?
"I swear to protect the weak, uphold the law and work for the betterment of all Good races!"
"EVIL-DOER! DIE, DEVIL*, DIE!!!!"
That sounds like the epitomy of the Lawful Stupid Paladin to me.

*No ranks in Knowledge(Planes). C'mon they're Paladins!

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 02:23 PM
Uhh, no. You do that by writing Good in the alignment box, meaning it functions as a Good creature, an Evil creature, and a Chaotic/Lawful creature (whichever is the least beneficial to the creature). You don't add the good subtype.


Really? I'd like to see back up.

In both examples, see Fiendish Codex I and II that cover this. Demons don't get to add the good alignment to their description short of freak accident



So, if they aren't held to a standard, why can't Demons and Devils be Good? They have no standard forcing them to be evil. And so a Fallen Angel can't fall, become a Devil and then repent?
Ok, correction. An angel is a good spirit who is judged worthy of joining the clestrial realms. However they must always strive to be good at all times. Should one fail to uphod that, then they will fall. Demons don't have a standard like that, because the very act of being a demon is evil. Again, they aren't like mortal creatures, they are spirtiual embodiments of evil
from
EE

RPGuru1331
2008-10-27, 02:29 PM
If I may ask a simple question and challenge an axiom from the first page of the thread..

...What makes assassination evil? Chaotic, certainly; There's nothing remotely similar to a fair fight going on, and it's conducted when the target least expects it.

But assassination is basically killing. Killing isn't automatically evil, no?

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 02:30 PM
So... you're agreeing with me here? I find it hard to tell with you. You're right about mercy though, I just left it out for simplicty's sake.

Its just good to mention


I never actually mentioned evilness... Just "kill, maim, burn -> deserves killing". And I did imply that there may be other ways to deserve death.

True, but if the've done that in the past, you can't just radomly kil them without asking for mercy


However, the real question is: can demons choose to be Good, as orcs can choose, or can they only be made Good through alignment changing magic? Because if demons can choose to be Good then you shouldn't kill a Good demon any more than you should kill a Good orc, whereas demons that have been made Good with a Helm of Opposite of Alignment can be killed freely...

No, wait, that's ********. It doesn't matter whether a demon is Good through its own will or otherwise: killing Good creatures is wrong.

A demons existence in itself is evil. Orcs and demons don't operate on the same scale, they are two totally different tpe of beings. A demon with a helm is good only because they are being dominated, not out of any actual good feeling. They are just being forced to be good. A demon with the good aligniment isn't a true demon at all. Demons in theselves are true evil. unlike orcs who are simply humoinds.

The real, real question is: can a demon actually be Good, (regardless of the how or the why)? Well, to look at one of the examples being thrown around earlier, Fall From Grace is a demon, Fall From Grace (a demon) is Good, therefore demons can be Good.


demons can't fall from grace, because unlike Angels being evil isn't a willing act. Angels are people who have been rewarded with angelic powers, while demons are evil by definition



They aren't necessarily Evil, as I've said above. Even if they were all Evil, you can't kill someone for being Evil, as you've said above.
When a Succubus Paladin walks into the church, should the other Paladins all rush to Smite her?
"I swear to protect the weak, uphold the law and work for the betterment of all Good races!"
"EVIL-DOER! DIE, DEVIL*, DIE!!!!"
That sounds like the epitomy of the Lawful Stupid Paladin to me.

*No ranks in Knowledge(Planes). C'mon they're Paladins!

A succubus isn't a true demon, as i said freak accidents cannot be taking into account
from
EE
edit
Guru, its murder, not assassination per say

SadisticFishing
2008-10-27, 02:31 PM
Assassins are evil because they kill for money, and no other reason.

This is a silly argument that misunderstands the concepts of "evil" and "assassination".

"Here, take 30$ to kill that child over there."
"Okay."

No questions asked, money is handed over, the assassin kills the target.

That is unquestionably and unequivocally evil, and that is what the prestige class is about. The Avenger is what most of you are looking for.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 02:31 PM
It's necessarily evil in all ways because it's evil... Sounds like petitio to me.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-27, 02:33 PM
Assassins are evil because they kill for money, and no other reason.

This is a silly argument that misunderstands the concepts of "evil" and "assassination".

"Here, take 30$ to kill that child over there."
"Okay."

No questions asked, money is handed over, the assassin kills the target.

That is unquestionably and unequivocally evil, and that is what the prestige class is about. The Avenger is what most of you are looking for.

...They do? Can't my character pick his own motivation? Not that I have a DnD 3rd ed character, but I'm speaking hypothetically. Can I not use my skills to kill for ideological reasons (As, say, the Assassins guild in Wanted does, among others)?


It's necessarily evil in all ways because it's evil... Sounds like petitio to me.
A thousand pardons, but petitio?

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 02:33 PM
in 2nd ed, assassins were basically people who were hired to perform killings. The key feature is- they will, normally, kill anything they are hired to kill, on the orders of their employer. No matter how Good, young, or helpless.

This totally mercenary attitude, was why hiring an Assassin was called "Not a good act" in 2nd ed.

this tends to carry on in 3rd. Now, not all assassinations are for money, but being a member of the Profession: Assassin- basically means Killer For Hire, Will Kill Anything For Money.

EDIT: Oh yes: EE, where are you getting idea that Succubus is not a true demon? I don't remember seeing it in either FC1 or Demonomicon- Malcanthet, which gives origin of succubi.

Erinyes are a bit different, they are almost pure fallen celestial- descendants of those who Fell with Asmodeus, and in rare cases, actually Fell themselves.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 02:36 PM
A thousand pardons, but petitio?

Part of circular reasoning. That guy is evil. How can I tell? Because he does evil things. What evil things? Being evil. Argument requires the conclusion to be the same as the premises.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-27, 02:36 PM
in 2nd ed, assassins were basically people who were hired to perform killings. The key feature is- they will, normally, kill anything they are hired to kill, on the orders of their employer. No matter how Good, young, or helpless.

This totally mercenary attitude, was why hiring an Assassin was called "Not a good act" in 2nd ed.

this tends to carry on in 3rd. Now, not all assassinations are for money, but being a member of the Profession: Assassin- basically means Killer For Hire, Will Kill Anything For Money.

I'll certainly grant that being willing to kill anything for money makes one evil. But that's hardly a requisite of the Assassin's class, is it? That's just the assumption people are operating off of, it seems like.



Part of circular reasoning. That guy is evil. How can I tell? Because he does evil things. What evil things? Being evil. Argument requires the conclusion to be the same as the premises.
Ah, of course. Yes, that's what I was kinda getting at too. I just don't see assassination as inherently evil, any more then killing is.

SadisticFishing
2008-10-27, 02:37 PM
...They do? Can't my character pick his own motivation? Not that I have a DnD 3rd ed character, but I'm speaking hypothetically. Can I not use my skills to kill for ideological reasons (As, say, the Assassins guild in Wanted does, among others)?


A thousand pardons, but petitio?

No you cannot, if you join the Assassin prestige class, you have joined the Assassins. They're a group, of assassins, who kill for profit. To join them you have to do one killing for free.

You are not Altair, or some guy who kills bad guys. You are an Assassin of the Assassins, similar to becoming a Mage of the Arcane Order. Yes, you can choose your own motivations, but if you're joining the Assassins, your ONLY possible motivation is money.


Special

The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

Q.E.D. There is no subjectivity about this, all 6 pages of this thread are a silly argument. If you want to be a shadowy killer in the night, but NOT just for profit, play a Rogue, Ninja, Avenger, or speak to your DM about playing an assassin, but not an Assassin.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 02:38 PM
Prerequisite: Kill somebody, just to be accepted into the guild.

Now, those who like idea of idealistic assassins could make this a very Evil somebody, and remove Evil requirement.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-27, 02:39 PM
Wait...

Assassins is a specific group now?

It's not like there is only one assassins' guild in the multiverse, after all. Most guilds have different motivations past plying their trade.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-27, 02:39 PM
A succubus isn't a true demon, as i said freak accidents cannot be taking into account

Okay, now you're making **** up.


Succubi are the most comely of the tanar'ri (perhaps of all demons), and they live to tempt mortals.

And please, inform me where it says "demons don't have free will". I'd love to read that somewhere.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 02:39 PM
The possible option that an assissin is willing to kill bad people for money, as opposed to anyone and everyone is a legitimate character concept. This said, that would probably be a form of neutral, not good, although, if that money was needed for orphanages, I wouldn't deny that character a good alignment.

SadisticFishing
2008-10-27, 02:40 PM
No, it's not. Then you're not the D&D definition of Assassin.

They defined their terms: an Assassin someone who kills people for money, and no other reason. Just like how a Bard is an arcane caster that uses music, and a Druid is a divine caster who can turn into animals.

D&D DOES NOT use the same dictionary definitions as anything else.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-27, 02:41 PM
No you cannot, if you join the Assassin prestige class, you have joined the Assassins. They're a group, of assassins, who kill for profit. To join them you have to do one killing for free.

You are not Altair, or some guy who kills bad guys. You are an Assassin of the Assassins, similar to becoming a Mage of the Arcane Order. Yes, you can choose your own motivations, but if you're joining the Assassins, your ONLY possible motivation is money.

This is why I dislike dungeons and dragons. You're basically saying "Screw your fluff, only the book's fluff can ever be right." Oh well, that's not really addressing the ethics problem, so..

Let's try this again, since it's not really answerring the ethical problem. Let's say I'm a Rogue, which has no alignment requisites, and I use my skills at infiltration and sneakery to assassinate an evil tyrant. People seem to be acting like assassination itself is irrevocably evil. Why?

And for the sake of argument, we'll say the King himself is a level 1 aristocrat, so Death Attack is not any more dangerous then Sneak Attack to him.


Q.E.D. There is no subjectivity about this, all 6 pages of this thread are a silly argument. If you want to be a shadowy killer in the night, but NOT just for profit, play a Rogue, Ninja, Avenger, or speak to your DM about playing an assassin, but not an Assassin.
What if I kill a diabolist, or a rapist, or some other horrible thing?

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 02:42 PM
Arilyn Moonblade is a character in Faerun, who calls herself an "honorable assassin"

also, You could have adventurers, who call themselves assassins, since everything they kill, they kill for money, but their targets are Fiends, Evil Undead, Dragons. By Exalted Deeds rules, Not Evil.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 02:42 PM
No, it's not. Then you're not the D&D definition of Assassin.

They defined their terms: an Assassin someone who kills people for money, and no other reason. Just like how a Bard is an arcane caster that uses music, and a Druid is a divine caster who can turn into animals.

D&D DOES NOT use the same dictionary definitions as anything else.

A professional killer does not need to take on all contracts, even given that narrow demonstration. I can play a proffessional who does the work for the money, but chooses contracts based on alignment. Where does anything indicate otherwise?

EvilElitest
2008-10-27, 02:42 PM
wait, i'm not saying a succubus isn't a true demon, but that a good demon isn't a true demon but a freak accident
from
EE

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-27, 02:43 PM
Strangely enough, your definitions of both bard and druid are crunch, while your definition of assassin is fluff. Which isn't even inherent in the class. It's not like it has an ex-assassin clause which says "if you kill someone for reasons other than profit, you lose all abilities of the class and can no longer progress in it".

Oslecamo
2008-10-27, 02:43 PM
Wait a second, thats not true. By the D&D definition of good, killing something soley for its money or exp is quite evil, IE murder


from
EE

Maybe I didn't express myself well.

Players are suposed to get stronger.
Players have to do some kind of work to get stronger.
Players have to kill evil monsters who threaten the world
Players are rewarded for killing evil monsters who threaten the world with gold and exp.

Of course, inocent bystanders are worth negative exp and carry no treasure.:smallbiggrin:

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 02:45 PM
if they insist on confirmation of being paid, before doing any monster killing, they are "Neutral at best"

SadisticFishing
2008-10-27, 02:46 PM
Druids can't be lawful good, bards can't be lawful. It's fluff/crunch, which 3.5 has too much of.

Killing a tyrant IS NOT D&D's definition of being an Assassin. Sure, it's an assassination, but unless you are part of the Assassin's guild and accepting money for it, it's not an Assassination.

And they're saying that by RAW, their fluff > yours. But they ALSO say you can make any changes you want to the game.

A hired professional that chooses which assassinations he does is not a full-time member of the Assassins, and so, not an Assassin.

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

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-27, 02:48 PM
A hired professional that chooses which assassinations he does is not a full-time member of the Assassins, and so, not an Assassin.

There is no universal organization to which all assassins belong, called the Assassins. There are individual assassins' guilds, who train and hire, you know, assassins.

SadisticFishing
2008-10-27, 02:49 PM
There is no universal organization to which all assassins belong, called the Assassins. There are individual assassins' guilds, who train and hire, you know, assassins.

And they're all Assassins who will kill you if you refuse a job, sorta thing, by D&D fluff.

It's fluff, like the Gods people worship. Deal with it as you see fit, but Assassin, as written, is 100% evil.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 02:50 PM
The Garrote is assassins guild in Epic Handbook, supposedly consisting of the Finest Assassins In The Multiverse.

They charge a lot more to ensure victim stays dead, than they do for standard killings.

Tormsskull
2008-10-27, 02:51 PM
Its always entertaining to see the various pro and con sides of the immortal "Why are assassins evil" debate. This is probably the 12th time at least that I've seen a thread dedicated to this subject.

The rules say they are evil. No question there. If you want to go by the rules, you already have your answer.

If you want them not to be evil, and you're just looking for someone else to tell you that your thoughts are justified, read through this thread, several people have said that.

If you want an one more opinon on the heap of opinions:

The only time I have seen a player want to remove the evil requirement for an assassin is because they want a particular mechanic that the assassin has, and wanting a mechanic is not a good enough reason to change a descriptive requirement, IMO.

This is a classic case of "I want it, I want it!"

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-27, 02:52 PM
No. No, really, they are not. There is nothing in the fluff or the crunch, beyond the prerequisite "Alignment: Any Evil" that suggests they must be evil. No, not even the "must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins".

Assassins are evil "simply because". Just like undead are always evil "simply because", even mindless ones.

The point being discussed is why it is so, not if it is so or not.

Copacetic
2008-10-27, 02:53 PM
Break down, v2

Assassin kills bad person. Assassin makes the world a better place; good act.

Assassin kills good person. Assassin makes the world a worse place; bad act.


What do we call people who do good AND bad? *cough*neutral*cough*

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 02:53 PM
A hired professional that chooses which assassinations he does is not a full-time member of the Assassins, and so, not an Assassin.


How do you come to that conclusion? Why couldn't one accrue as much work as another assassin, though within a certain narrow field? Is that impossible in your world view, for some arbitrary reason?

RPGuru1331
2008-10-27, 02:53 PM
It's fluff, like the Gods people worship. Deal with it as you see fit, but Assassin, as written, is 100% evil.

Your big "QED" was because you have to kill someone to get in.

What if I'm told ot kill a Diabolist who's sacrificing lives/souls for power? Or the corrupt head of the local town guard who's laxity has caused suffering as the people languish under, say, some sort of mafia? Or a merchant who's ludicrous prices are starving the poor district? And furthermore, what if these targets are being selected specifically because of the evils they're causing?

Also, by your definition, the Assassin class is unplayable, since you have to take guild jobs every time they come up and htey kill you if you don't.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 02:55 PM
Actually, by Fiendish Codex 2, we call people who do both good and bad, destined for bad afterlife. Especially if they are Lawful.

The Balance, with people doing both good and bad deeds to remain Neutral, was a 2nd ed conceit, and mostly done away with in 3rd ed.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 02:55 PM
The only time I have seen a player want to remove the evil requirement for an assassin is because they want a particular mechanic that the assassin has, and wanting a mechanic is not a good enough reason to change a descriptive requirement, IMO.

This is a classic case of "I want it, I want it!"

This would probably be more convincing if assassins were actually a decent class, as opposed to both fairly weak and easily negated.

Copacetic
2008-10-27, 02:55 PM
A hired professional that chooses which assassinations he does is not a full-time member of the Assassins, and so, not an Assassin.





...Ummm

No.

A Picky Assassin is still, remarkable, an assassin.

Heliomance
2008-10-27, 02:56 PM
So, demons are evil. Right, fine. I assume that none of you would have any problems with a Paladin killing a Dretch? No, fine.

How about if the Dretch surrenders to you?

SadisticFishing
2008-10-27, 02:57 PM
Because then it's not the evil Assassins that exist in D&D crunch. Or, next, they'll tell you to kill a fluffy bunny rabbit.

The Assassins only teach you their skills if you join them, and you can only join them if you're willing to kill for money. You're evil because they're evil, and they only teach you if you're willing to be evil.

Someone who does good and evil acts is NOT neutral. They are EVIL, if the two are even acts.

For example: I go into a town and end a plague, then go into another one and kill everyone. I am Evil. Not Good. They DO NOT cancel out. Ever, without an atonement spell.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 02:58 PM
Complete Arcane tells us, if you no longer fulfil the prerequisite for prestige class- any prestige class- you lose all magical benefits- spellcasting, etc.

So, an assassin whose heroic career changes his alignment to Neutral, loses his powers.

Think of it as like Blackguard, but sneakier.

SadisticFishing
2008-10-27, 02:58 PM
...Ummm

No.

A Picky Assassin is still, remarkable, an assassin.

BUT he is not an Assassin.

Assassin != assassin, by game terms. Someone who sings and tells stories might be a bard, but they are not a Bard. A Paladin of Heironeous might be a Holy crusader, but he is not a Crusader.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-27, 02:58 PM
The Assassins only teach you their skills if you join them, and you can only join them if you're willing to kill for money. You're evil because they're evil, and they only teach you if you're willing to be evil.

So, assassins are evil because... well, guess what? Because they're evil.

That... doesn't quite work that way.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 02:59 PM
Because then it's not the evil Assassins that exist in D&D crunch. Or, next, they'll tell you to kill a fluffy bunny rabbit.

The Assassins only teach you their skills if you join them, and you can only join them if you're willing to kill for money. You're evil because they're evil, and they only teach you if you're willing to be evil.

The assassin isn't evil in the crunch, other than his controversial use of poison. Class abilities that are meant to kill exist in every player class in the game.

Copacetic
2008-10-27, 02:59 PM
Because then it's not the evil Assassins that exist in D&D crunch. Or, next, they'll tell you to kill a fluffy bunny rabbit.

The Assassins only teach you their skills if you join them, and you can only join them if you're willing to kill for money. You're evil because they're evil, and they only teach you if you're willing to be evil.

Someone who does good and evil acts is NOT neutral. They are EVIL, if the two are even acts.

For example: I go into a town and end a plague, then go into another one and kill everyone. I am Evil. Not Good. They DO NOT cancel out. Ever, without an atonement spell.

I kill someone. I save someone else's life. Overall, One person is dead, and one person who would have been dead is not. Tell me again how that is not neutral.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:00 PM
Interestingly, Exalted Deeds discusses issue of how to keep a fiend who surrenders captive. So Paladin can certainly accept that surrender if he wants to.

Question is- is he obliged to?

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:01 PM
Because you get a Corruption rating, not a Virtue rating "The good mortals do in life is outweighed by the taint of sin" Fiendish codex 2.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 03:01 PM
I tend to say yes, since redemtion is possible. More inquisition types say that they should be killed, simply because they are evil (a la a more complex issue related to smite on sight.)

SadisticFishing
2008-10-27, 03:01 PM
Ruby Knight Vindicator.

... actually, that is a RIDICULOUS argument. None of the PALADIN crunch is inherently Lawful, either, and most of it isn't even necessarily GOOD.

Assassins are evil because only Evil people know how to do such things (poisons, assassin spells), and they're only willing to teach you if you join them. By RAW.

Personally, Ruby Knight Vindicator is just Knight Vindicator in my games, and doesn't have the Wee Jas requirement. Assassins are still evil, but I can understand changing it if you're too lazy to just use Avengers.

SadisticFishing
2008-10-27, 03:02 PM
I kill someone. I save someone else's life. Overall, One person is dead, and one person who would have been dead is not. Tell me again how that is not neutral.

Because you knowingly killed someone, which is a despicably evil act.

The alignment system does not work as you want it to. Saving the universe does not give you license to slaughter babies afterward, EVEN THOUGH you saved billions of lives.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:02 PM
well, only book that says "letting fiends live is evil" is Vile Darkness. Several of its statements have been invalidated by later books. maybe that one should be added to list.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 03:03 PM
Assassins are evil because only Evil people know how to do such things (poisons, assassin spells), and they're only willing to teach you if you join them. By RAW.

Personally, Ruby Knight Vindicator is just Knight Vindicator in my games, and doesn't have the Wee Jas requirement. Assassins are still evil, but I can understand changing it if you're too lazy to just use Avengers.

The primary difference here is that avengers don't charge money, and aren't expecting to necressarily get it.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-27, 03:03 PM
Assassins are evil because only Evil people know how to do such things (poisons, assassin spells), and they're only willing to teach you if you join them. By RAW.

The point is, there is no reason for it to be so. "They are Evil because they are Evil. Because they are Evil." That's your argument. One which doesn't work in most debates.

Heliomance
2008-10-27, 03:05 PM
No, it does make sense. If the only people with the capacity to teach you are evil, and if they will only teach you if you are demonstrably evil, then you cannot be a good assassin because the people that know the skills will refuse to let you learn them.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-27, 03:05 PM
Because you get a Corruption rating, not a Virtue rating "The good mortals do in life is outweighed by the taint of sin" Fiendish codex 2.

If this argument is going to be conducted solely via extraneous sourcebooks, I'm not even going to bother. If BoED and VD is Exalted Deeds and Vile Darkness, that's bad enough, but more is no, just no.


No, it does make sense. If the only people with the capacity to teach you are evil, and if they will only teach you if you are demonstrably evil, then you cannot be a good assassin because the people that know the skills will refuse to let you learn them.
But what if the Guild /isn't/ evil? I repeat: What if they specifically use their skills to kill those who perpetrate great wrongs on the innocent?

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:07 PM
maybe its more like Blackguards- a Dark Path, with Secret Knowledge (assassin spells) only available to those who can prove themselves totally ruthless.

The fact that assassin who become Neutral lose their powers may be relevant here- general rule- applies to all prestige classes- break prerequisite, lose powers.

EDIT: And Fiendish Codex 2 covers both Evil and Lawful acts, making it about the only source which specifically calls out acts as Lawful, and gives them a rating.

Copacetic
2008-10-27, 03:08 PM
Because you knowingly killed someone, which is a despicably evil act.

The alignment system does not work as you want it to. Saving the universe does not give you license to slaughter babies afterward, EVEN THOUGH you saved billions of lives.

Okay, now, you are stretching it a little. On one end of the alignment see-saw is the million pounds of bricks for saving the multi-verse. On the other end, is the brick of strife I induced by eating a baby.

"SEE LOOK THEY ARE THE SAME".

Neutral is a lack of commitment either way. I'm not really a good person for killing someone, but I'm not a bad person for saving one.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-27, 03:09 PM
No, it does make sense. If the only people with the capacity to teach you are evil, and if they will only teach you if you are demonstrably evil, then you cannot be a good assassin because the people that know the skills will refuse to let you learn them.

Why is it so? Were all of the assassins' guilds founded by omnipotent beings who said "you have to be evil"?

Nothing in the fluff supports why one can't be an assassin and still be good. Neither does anything in the crunch?

Then again, I'm biased because WotC refuses to make sense or be consistent in their rulings. Such as mindless undead being made evil in 3.5 so paladins can smite them.

I guess it really is like what was said earlier: if WotC wants something to be smote by paladins, it's evil. Otherwise, it's not.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-27, 03:09 PM
maybe its more like Blackguards- a Dark Path, with Secret Knowledge (assassin spells) only available to those who can prove themselves totally ruthless.
Why do you have to be totally ruthless? Because the book says the Assassins guild is evil mercenaries and that there's just the one?


The fact that assassin who become Neutral lose their powers may be relevant here- general rule- applies to all prestige classes- break prerequisite, lose powers.

It.. doesn't say anything remotely similar in my DMG, which directly trails the PHB, which *does* point out when people lose their abilities. See: Monks and Bards, Paladins, Druids, Clerics.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 03:10 PM
maybe its more like Blackguards- a Dark Path, with Secret Knowledge (assassin spells) only available to those who can prove themselves totally ruthless.

The fact that assassin who become Neutral lose their powers may be relevant here- general rule- applies to all prestige classes- break prerequisite, lose powers.

I don't believe that that is actually played, because the assassin class existed prior to the non-core ruling found in complete arcane. I'm not sure that one is meant to rule in that direction.

Also, IIRC, the rules compendium and the core rule books both supercede the supplements, complete arcane and its rulings on things such as loss of abilities, and the correct use of wands included.

Deepblue706
2008-10-27, 03:11 PM
Break down, v2

Assassin kills bad person. Assassin makes the world a better place; good act.

Assassin kills good person. Assassin makes the world a worse place; bad act.



That's speaking from a strictly utilitarian outlook. Killing someone could be considered a bad act, no matter who it is. Just because the results to follow are favorable, it doesn't stand that the act is in fact good.

Assassins are evil per the DMG because you have to specifically kill someone for no reason other than to join the assassin's guild, which the Assassin class is specifically attached to.

You guys all know that the classes were based on some amount of fluff, right? The DMG's PrCs were made not in the PHB because this was basic stuff for the DM to consider and then implement into games as he or she saw fit.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:11 PM
It may take more than one evil act to change alignment. Murder one person, Corruption rating goes to 5. Not enough to send you to Nine hells, in absence of alignment change.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 03:13 PM
It may take more than one evil act to change alignment. Murder one person, Corruption rating goes to 5. Not enough to send you to Nine hells, in absence of alignment change.

Slayers of Domiel must be awefully pissed about this.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:14 PM
CArc ruling does say- All prestige classes. Maybe SRD implements ruling- lose prerequisite, lose powers. Or maybe not, I have all 3.0-3.5 Generic D&D , Eberron, and Faerun hardbacks, many softbacks, but not SRD.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-27, 03:14 PM
That's speaking from a strictly utilitarian outlook. Killing someone could be considered a bad act, no matter who it is. Just because the results to follow are favorable, it doesn't stand that the act is in fact good.
Of course, if killing someone is always a bad act, PCs are screwed either way.




Assassins are evil per the DMG because you have to specifically kill someone for no reason other than to join the assassin's guild, which the Assassin class is specifically attached to.
Did I really miss some sort of missive that stated only the DMG fluff can ever be used in a DnD game ever?

Copacetic
2008-10-27, 03:15 PM
That's speaking from a strictly utilitarian outlook. Killing someone could be considered a bad act, no matter who it is. Just because the results to follow are favorable, it doesn't stand that the act is in fact good.

Assassins are evil per the DMG because you have to specifically kill someone for no reason other than to join the assassin's guild, which the Assassin class is specifically attached to.

You guys all know that the classes were based on some amount of fluff, right? The DMG's PrCs were made not in the PHB because this was basic stuff for the DM to consider and then implement into games as he or she saw fit.

Ahh, but killing someone is not a bad act, no matter what.


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Is the sacrifice of the risk of getting caught or killed murdering that evil king outweigh the evilness of killing?

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:15 PM
Way around it- slayers only kill fiends, dragons, and the like. Ones who disguise themselves and take over countries.

EDIT:
And absolutely nothing wrong with houseruling it, but in Massively multiplayer D&D games, be prepared to face normal DMG ruling.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 03:16 PM
Way around it- slayers only kill fiends, dragons, and the like. Ones who disguise themselves and take over countries.

Where does it state that?

BRC
2008-10-27, 03:17 PM
What if you have an assasin, totally evil, kills for money, all that stuff, who then realizes the error of his ways and becomes good. Could he not teach those skills to people he decides would use them for good?

Assasins losing their spells and class features, those are usually for cases where said class features are granted by somthing else. A Monk's power comes from their intense devotion to a philosophy, their intense personal discipline. a person capable of such discipline would be lawful, if a monk is nonlawful, then they cannot maintain that discipline, and lose their monk powers.
A paladin gets their powers from some all-pervading force of Law and Good, if they do Chaotic and Evil things, that force takes away their powers.


However, Assasins are arcane casters arn't they? Their powers come from personal study and training, not some force of law and evil. Unless, what lets assasins be assasins is the mindset, they must be capable of coldly killing with no remorse or emotion. It's one thing to stab somebody until they die, it's another to carefully look at somebody, your mind totally focused on the best way to end their life. I think the point is that it dosn't matter whose life your ending, you should feel regret at having to end a life at all, you shouldn't be able to put that much thought and focus into it unless you don't recognize killing as inheriently bad, somthing that requires an evil alignment. Once an assasins mind is such that they think of their target as a person with hopes, dreams, friends, family ect, they can't kill them in such a calculated manner. An Assasins Class features are made possible by their ability to think of sentient people as nothing more than targets.

Therefore, I think you could have an assasin that does good deeds, that kills tyrants and evil warlords, however they would be somthing of a heroic sociopath. They may have the deeds of a hero, but they would have mind of a villain.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:17 PM
Vile darkness- killing super-evil creatures isn't murder, but Murder is Evil (FC2), so slayers, to avoid losing abilities, must make sure all their killings are Not Murder.

EDIT:
When new supplements come out, if one uses them, one must fix inconsistencies. This is example: since technically, any killing of a public figure is assassination, so, allows the phrase "Order of spies and assassins" to still be valid.

Also, Exalted stresses that Exalted heroes really ought to be dealing with the truly evil, not the vaguely sinister.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 03:18 PM
Vile darkness- killing super-evil creatures isn't murder, but Murder is Evil (FC2), so slayers, to avoid losing abilities, must make sure all their killings are Not Murder.

Murdering super evil creatures is distinct from killing them, much as paladins killing fiends is distinct from murdering them.

Deepblue706
2008-10-27, 03:20 PM
Ahh, but killing someone is not a bad act, no matter what.

Is the sacrifice of the risk of getting caught or killed murdering that evil king outweigh the evilness of killing?

I would think yes, but it does not mean that the act is actually non-evil. Murder is not the only solution - which is why Superman kills so few villains.



Did I really miss some sort of missive that stated only the DMG fluff can ever be used in a DnD game ever?

Did you miss my next two sentences? The DM can refluff whatever he feels like to accomodate the PCs, and should. I was saying the DMG fluff was a suggestion.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:23 PM
it says "even killing dragon for profit is not an evil act, but justification only valid for ceatures of consummate, irredeemable evil."

effectively, Vile Darkness says its impossible to Murder creatures that are That Evil.
EDIT:
By "Super evil" I mean fiends, and, under most circumstances (not in Eberron) dragons.

RPGuru1331
2008-10-27, 03:23 PM
Therefore, I think you could have an assasin that does good deeds, that kills tyrants and evil warlords, however they would be somthing of a heroic sociopath. They may have the deeds of a hero, but they would have mind of a villain.

Arright, someone seperating from the fluff. Now I can ask my question and actually get some answers.

What do they do that makes them villainous or evil?

Copacetic
2008-10-27, 03:23 PM
I would think yes, but it does not mean that the act is actually non-evil. Murder is not the only solution - which is why Superman kills so few villains.




Act is neutral if said King killed one other person. Act is good if he killed multiple people. But failing Superpowers, Murder is actually quite effective.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-27, 03:24 PM
Did you miss my next two sentences? The DM can refluff whatever he feels like to accomodate the PCs, and should. I was saying the DMG fluff was a suggestion.

I think the entire point was that it's a stupid suggestion and it should be changed.

At least Blackguards consort with evil outsiders and stuff.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 03:25 PM
it says "even killing dragon for profit is not an evil act, but justification only valid for ceatures of consummate, irredeemable evil."

effectively, Vile Darkness says its impossible to Murder creatures that are That Evil.

"as新as新i搖ate (ə-sās'ə-nāt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. as新as新i搖at搪d, as新as新i搖at搏ng, as新as新i搖ates

To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons. "

So how is it possible then, that Slayers of Domiel are ever assassins, if a necessary part of assassination is that it be murder?

Starbuck_II
2008-10-27, 03:25 PM
CArc ruling does say- All prestige classes. Maybe SRD implements ruling- lose prerequisite, lose powers. Or maybe not, I have all 3.0-3.5 Generic D&D , Eberron, and Faerun hardbacks, many softbacks, but not SRD.

But CArc ruling that has issues: Dragon Disciple is in a perpetual spiral. It gains Dragon type diosqualifing it causing to lose type.
This loss which re-qualifies it; causing to gain it again.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:33 PM
I suppose one could describe it as "Killing of public figure" depending on which dictionary used.

Also, there are those who argue that a tyrant who has seized power illegally is a valid target, and assassination in this case, ceases to be murder. Not necessarily good arguments, but the do use both the term assassination, and the statement "Not murder"

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 03:36 PM
Murder is defined as an unlawful, premeditated killing. A premeditated lawful killing is an execution. Those are the only real differences here. Your description of the Slayer of Domiel is as an executioner, which any class may partake in without ethical quandry (arguably) whereas the text for the slayer states that they may act as an assassin. Because of that, it is likely that they defeat evil that is not necessarily of the same sort that your describe.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:38 PM
Maybe rule that when it hits dragon type, previous prerequisite is no longer required. The book was written earlier, after all.

I wonder how Living Greyhawk DMs resolved prestige classes losing prerequisites? Or, how important losing an alignment based prerequisite is?

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:39 PM
Note that they haven't necessarily been given order to execute, and in fact, within the nation they are in, their "execution" may in fact be illegal.

Is Bond an "executioner?"

EDIT: the point I was making is the Much Later written book Fiendish Codex 2 defined Murder as Evil act. so, logically, if one wishes to use both it and BoED, one must adjust activities of Slayers slightly.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 03:44 PM
Note that they haven't necessarily been given order to execute, and in fact, within the nation they are in, their "execution" may in fact be illegal.

Is Bond an "executioner?"

Sometimes yes, as MI6 tells him to wack a guy, but other times, he's a sociopathic murderer, which is something I believe Ian Flemming wanted to portray him as.

In addition, that they don't get orders to execute is exactly why they are assassins and murderers, and not executioners.

Starsinger
2008-10-27, 03:47 PM
The point of the Book of Ed is so people who want to be good can use the exact same tools as evil people (but with different names so it's okay). Poisons? Diseases? Those are wrong! Use these renamed versions instead and everything's kosher! Assassins? No, be a Slayer!

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:48 PM
yes, there was a bit of that. There was also large amounts of text on Good acts, moral dilemmas, etc.

Ravens_cry
2008-10-27, 03:52 PM
The way I look at it, is it is not the fact an Assassin kills, 'Heroes' do that all the time, and it is not the use of poisons, that is just a force multiplier, it is not the spells, at least the way I look at it. I think of magic as power, and power is neither good nor evil, it is how you use it. It it isn't the money, Heroes get loot all the time, it's part of the fun of adventuring.
It's more the fact that you have no choice who you kill. The Assassin Leader could say you have a hit on a newborn infant, the new crown prince, and you would do it. They could tell you to kill an old man who refuses to sell his stall space to some Merchants who wish to expand,and you would do it. A mendicant whose calls are driving away customers, or a Guard lieutenant who is making too much noise about City Guard Corruption. And you would do it. The Queen could offer herself in place, but no, you must kill the child. No substitutes, no options, just do the job. If others get in your way, then that is their mistake. You have no choice, the job is all. If you deviate, then your fellow assassins have no choice but to remove the . . .inconvenience.
You could have a group called the Guild of Assassins who are actually flower pickers, but they would not be assassins. You could have a group in your game called the Boisterous Boys of the Gilded Blueberry Muffin who killed people on the pay of others, and they would be assassins.
No choices, no accepting of surrenders or bribes, or pleas or substitutes.
You have your target and it will die, one way or the other.

Deepblue706
2008-10-27, 03:53 PM
Act is neutral if said King killed one other person. Act is good if he killed multiple people. But failing Superpowers, Murder is actually quite effective.

Wait, so if a man kills another man, and you kill him, it's okay? Are you killing him BECAUSE of this act? You didn't specify. However, I would argue that having killed someone who has killed another is not inherently just - and more likely, unjust. Depending on motivation, it may be evil.

Killing someone who has killed X more people is no different. Motivation behind killing the murderer is the only thing to consider here.

Murder is certainly effective - that's why evil has no qualms in doing it. A good character should struggle with the decision to kill someone, because of how Good is defined to value life and dignity, per the PHB. Alternatives should be sought-out. Non-good, however, might be off-the-hook.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 04:00 PM
I've always wondered why good has to gimp itself so much. My guess is that an evil person pretending to be good taught it to everyone, such that his evil lackeys would have all the advantages.

Starsinger
2008-10-27, 04:03 PM
Ok, correction. An angel is a good spirit who is judged worthy of joining the clestrial realms. However they must always strive to be good at all times. Should one fail to uphod that, then they will fall. Demons don't have a standard like that, because the very act of being a demon is evil. Again, they aren't like mortal creatures, they are spirtiual embodiments of evil

To borrow some of your trite rhetoric, Stop evading my point. What about a fallen angel who becomes a Devil, as you said happens, and then Repents?

Copacetic
2008-10-27, 04:09 PM
Wait, so if a man kills another man, and you kill him, it's okay? Are you killing him BECAUSE of this act? You didn't specify. However, I would argue that having killed someone who has killed another is not inherently just - and more likely, unjust. Depending on motivation, it may be evil.

Killing someone who has killed X more people is no different. Motivation behind killing the murderer is the only thing to consider here.

Murder is certainly effective - that's why evil has no qualms in doing it. A good character should struggle with the decision to kill someone, because of how Good is defined to value life and dignity, per the PHB. Alternatives should be sought-out. Non-good, however, might be off-the-hook.

A murderer is Evil enough to kill and it not be murder. A mass murderer is way beyond that. This is all assuming no other methods were explored. And Yes, because they killed someone.

snoopy13a
2008-10-27, 04:18 PM
Killing doesn't always equal murder. Killing someone could be the following:

1) An accident- for example you are driving (car in RL, cart in D&D), paying complete attention and someone gets in your path at the last moment and dies. Not morally wrong from a D&D viewpoint.

2) Self-defense- the person you killed attacks you first and you defend yourself resulting in the other person's death. Not morally wrong.

3) Protection of an innocent- in defending an innocent from harm, you kill their attacker. Not morally wrong in D&D.

4) War- as a soldier in war you kill enemy soldiers in battle. Not morally wrong in D&D.

5) Execution- as the judge, a member of the jury, or the executor you are part of a process leading to the execution of a criminal. Not morally wrong in D&D. A bounty hunter who has the option of bringing in a target "Dead or Alive" fits in this category.

6) Manslaughter- while intending to merely assault another person, you accidentally kill them (e.g. bar fight). An accident where one is found to be negilgent can also be considered manslaughter. Morally wrong but not as bad as murder as one did not intend to kill someone.

7) Murder- one intentionally kills another. Morally wrong.

Deepblue706
2008-10-27, 04:18 PM
A murderer is Evil enough to kill and it not be murder. A mass murderer is way beyond that. This is all assuming no other methods were explored. And Yes, because they killed someone.

I will not counter this argument because it will undoubtedly end with this thread becoming locked, as the Death Penalty - something I would mention - is still hotly debated. From what I can tell, Politics is a no-no here.

Random NPC
2008-10-27, 04:24 PM
Assassins get paid to kill things. They are willing to cause suffering and exterminate someone in exchange for something beneficial to them, be it money, honor, revenge or your mom (Ohhh I totally did that). They assassinate.

Assassins = Evil

HOWEVER, you can still be a PC and a hero while being Evil. Belkar is Chaotic Evil and he tends to do Quasi-Good things.

You can turn evil and still stick with your group because they are your friends and you can get something out of the whole adventuring business. You can still be lawful Evil

Deepblue706
2008-10-27, 04:28 PM
Assassins get paid to kill things. They are willing to cause suffering and exterminate someone in exchange for something beneficial to them, be it money, honor, revenge or your mom (Ohhh I totally did that). They assassinate.

Assassins = Evil

HOWEVER, you can still be a PC and a hero while being Evil. Belkar is Chaotic Evil and he tends to do Quasi-Good things.

You can turn evil and still stick with your group because they are your friends and you can get something out of the whole adventuring business. You can still be lawful Evil

I don't think anyone was arguing against what you propose. It would appear they only believe there should be an ammendum to how the Assassin's prerequisites work, since non-evil and even good people can assassinate, under specific circumstances, without being subject to alignment change.

The Rose Dragon
2008-10-27, 04:28 PM
Assassins get paid to kill things. They are willing to cause suffering and exterminate someone in exchange for something beneficial to them, be it money, honor, revenge or your mom (Ohhh I totally did that).

Isn't that the description of nearly every dungeon crawler ever?

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 04:28 PM
In Exalted Deeds we are told "the death penalty for serious crimes is widely practiced and does not qualify as evil"

In the context of D&D, of course.

However, we are also told that, under normal circumstances (I.e, not fiends, mostly) Exalted Good characters are required to offer quarter if possible (being ambushed might not give them the chance) and accept surrenders, if enemy surrenders to them, no matter how many crimes enemy has committed, and not to kill prisoner once prisoner is in their custody (excepting cases of self defence, if prisoner turns dangerous)

My rationalization of the two put together was: adventurers, under normal circumstances, must hand over their prisoners to regular authorities for trial and sentencing. Yes, very Lawful, but their are Chaotic courts as well, by DMG2.

Also, if adventurer is actually commisioned to carry out sentence of someone who is already sentenced to die, he may do so, without problem. Including if prisoner has escaped. In which case, the Taking Prisoner clause in BoED no longer applies.

BRC
2008-10-27, 04:29 PM
Arright, someone seperating from the fluff. Now I can ask my question and actually get some answers.

What do they do that makes them villainous or evil?
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.

Yukitsu
2008-10-27, 04:29 PM
Assassins get paid to kill things. They are willing to cause suffering and exterminate someone in exchange for something beneficial to them, be it money, honor, revenge or your mom (Ohhh I totally did that). They assassinate.

I'd argue that assassins cause less pain than say, a wizard who uses ray of frost on you until you die. One kills you now, one hurts until you die from it. Both get paid for it, benefitting in some way or another, so why aren't all wizards evil? Or clerics? Or bards? Or paladins?

Renegade Paladin
2008-10-27, 04:33 PM
Assassin is the only prestige class with situational or "fluff" requirements, that is, to kill someone only to gain access to the prestige class.
I direct you to the very next class in the book, the blackguard, which must make peaceful contact with an evil outsider to gain entry. :smalltongue:

Starbuck_II
2008-10-27, 04:33 PM
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.

That is more an argument for requirement: non-good, then evil.