Are assassins evil?

[BootStrapTommy]

My pals and I have been having a discussion for a while that I thought I would bring here to the forum.

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

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

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

What do you guys think? Are Assassins necessarily evil?

[Alejandro]

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

[Eldonauran]

What do you guys think? Are Assassins necessarily evil?

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

[Jeopardizer]

I think like you, an assassin is not necessarily evil.

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

No neutral ground :o

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

[BootStrapTommy]

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

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

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

[Remmirath]

I think it depends very heavily on what type of an assassin they are.

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

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

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

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

[Emmerask]

The problem with "for the greater good" is that it just does not work when you are not omniscient (or at least very close to that).

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Water_Bear]

"Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted"

Definitely a Good-aligned philosophy.

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

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

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

[Eldonauran]

**snip**

You said it beter than I could have.

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

[Hiro Protagonest]

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

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

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

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

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

[Chromascope3D]

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

[BootStrapTommy]

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

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

[BootStrapTommy]

"Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted"

Definitely a Good-aligned philosophy.

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

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

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

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

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

[Rejnhard]

Evil? No more than murder-hobos, imho.

[BootStrapTommy]

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

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

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

[Hiro Protagonest]

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

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

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

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

[Eldonauran]

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

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

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

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

[Emmerask]

Evil? No more than murder-hobos, imho.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kyberwulf]

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

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

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

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

[Scarlet-Devil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: Kind've late...

[Chromascope3D]

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

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

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

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

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

[BootStrapTommy]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kish]

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

You can't meet the basic requirement to become an assassin if you do that. You have to be willing to kill someone just to become an assassin to become one.

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

[Emmerask]

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

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

I want to create world piece, a good goal isn´t it?
therefore I kill every human being on earth to achieve it

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

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

[BootStrapTommy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BootStrapTommy]

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

I want to create world piece, a good goal isn´t it?
therefore I kill every human being on earth to achieve it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BootStrapTommy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eldonauran]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KnightOfV]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheCountAlucard]

Tommy, you realize that the Avenger is literally an April Fool's Day prank, right? And that the picture is quite honestly a recolor of the normal assassin picture? And that all his mechanics are the same, except he's been fluffed as lawful?