Assassins: Is Neutral okay?

[Summer-Knight925]

Murder is wrong, and I as a human being in the real world am not saying that murder is okay.

But this is a fantasy world, I've killed more men than I've known in real life, it's just how it plays.

So in a world where killing is common (the inner sea) and the skills of being an assassin can be taught (by others than the Red Lotus) is it plausible to be of a neutral alignment if you 'only kill to join an assassin guild/syndicate?'

I find it wouldn't cause that much of a hassle, but I figure asking the community couldn't hurt.

Is there any problem to changing "Any evil" to "Any non-good"?
And 'Kill to just be an assassin' to 'Kill to join the assassins'?

 

[gamerprinter]

Killing and murder are two different things. Even though the result is the same, the means of causing the death is everything. If two foes are facing each other weapon to weapon or weapon to claw - it's a fair fight. Sometimes dangerous diplomacy sessions can lead to sudden violence, even when a fight wasn't prepared for. This while not a good thing, is not necessarily an evil thing - it's pretty much neutral.

Assassination is premeditated with the attempt to catch the target off guard and murdering them. This is very much an evil act. It's nothing close to opposing combat leading to death.

I have assassins in my world, and sometimes I play assassins, but I never make the mistake that an assassin is not an evil class/profession, it very much is.

That said, I've created a divine assassin class for Assassin's Amulet, whose primary job was to enforce normal aging and natural death. Their deity insists that anyone artificially extending their lives was performing an unnatural act, and her adherents included assassins whose job were to end their lives. Despite the goddess herself being a neutral entity, her spiritually inspired assassins were still evil, though they only kill in the name of their goddess, and for her divine purpose. They never assassinated for money against victims that did not require it due to extended life issues. In this rare instance, I could see a divine assassin as neutrally aligned.

Though I think this is only a corner case, and perhaps I'm fooling myself thinking this is neutral. In every other case for certain assassination is evil.

 

[Mr.E_Danger]

If an assassin kills a good person, is it evil? If that same assassin kills an evil man, is it good?

I guess it depends on why your assassin kills. If he kills for money and the joy of it, then he may in fact be evil. If he works for a good aligned god and kills evildoers, then he woudl then in fact be good. Maybe he's been in the assassin game for a while and knows that sooner or later, everyone dies; that death is a gift and that dying is neither good or bad. It just is.

How have you or are you going to be playing this assassin? Also, just becuase a person is trained as an assassin, that doesn't mean he is one. if he is in an adventuring group and uses his skills to take down monsters and the like, then he's not really an assassin, so much as an accomplished adventurer.

 

[paradox42]

They had a "Good Assassin" prestige class in the Book of Exalted Deeds (Fist of Raziel, IIRC?), back in 3.5, whose job was specifically to slay extremely evil beings using stealth and guile- so clearly there's wiggle room depending on the GM's own morality.

My personal take is that political assassination is a valid tool of statecraft, particularly if one accepts war as a valid tool of statecraft; assassination is really a far more efficient choice than war in every case where it could be used. It usually costs far less lives in the end, actually making it the more moral choice in that sense.

I would allow Neutral Assassins, though they'd be on a slippery slope with regards to alignment and would need to watch the contracts they take very carefully if they want to avoid becoming Evil.

EDIT: Bah, got it wrong. Slayer of Domiel. It gets Detect Evil, Sneak Attack, a Death Touch ability, and some spells.

 

[gamerprinter]

If an assassin kills a good person, is it evil? If that same assassin kills an evil man, is it good?

You need to rephrase that assassin's don't kill, they murder - premeditated and ambushed. Never good, always evil. Look at the prestige class alignment - even the publishers got it right.

I guess it depends on why your assassin kills. If he kills for money and the joy of it, then he may in fact be evil. If he works for a good aligned god and kills evildoers, then he woudl then in fact be good. Maybe he's been in the assassin game for a while and knows that sooner or later, everyone dies; that death is a gift and that dying is neither good or bad. It just is.

If it were, I serve a good god, and the death of an evil person is right in the eyes of that god. If I say, I challenge you to a fight to the death" and you prevail - this is not necessarily an evil act.

However, if you premeditate a murder and do not warn your target - it doesn't matter whether that person's death is a good or bad thing, if this is the method of removing them, it's an evil act. Period.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Player characters kill all the time. D&D is classically about "killing things and taking their stuff".

Clearly, assassination is a naturally evil path, but not an exclusively evil one. There is a ton of gray area there. As long as you think about what you're doing and consider who your character is attacking, how, and why, I don't see any problems with a non-evil assassin.

(Personally, I am a pacifist and would say that any killing is wrong, assassin-style or not, but D&D alignments are not structured around that assumption).

 

[Kaisoku]

The entry requirements for the PrC is to kill someone for no other reason than to qualify for the prestige class.

I've always looked at this similar to MK-Ultra or "super soldier/spy" training stuff.
You are led to a room with a person tied to a chair, a bag over their head, and no identifying marks on them. You are given a weapon and told to kill them.
As an assassin, you do it with no questions, no hesitation, and no compunction.

This is what makes it an evil class.

NOW, that isn't to say that you couldn't basically write a version that did most of the same stuff but had a code of conduct of some kind, that allowed a more neutral or even good alignment.

The class ability to "watch a target for a bit and then striking to lay them low instantly" isn't exactly alignment focused.
Some of the "prevent raising" stuff might require more negative energy stuff, but I can see a divine "soul sealing" option working even in that situation too.

An assassin of Pharasma, for example, would seem to make an excellent Neutral Assassin.

 

[Mr.E_Danger]

You need to rephrase that assassin's don't kill, they murder - premeditated and ambushed. Never good, always evil. Look at the prestige class alignment - even the publishers got it right.

However, if you premeditate a murder and do not warn your target - it doesn't matter whether that person's death is a good or bad thing, if this is the method of removing them, it's an evil act. Period.

I don't think premeditation and using ambush tactics make it an evil act. A soldier of any alignment can premeditate an ambush on his enemies and not be evil doing so. A farmer killing a group of bandits while they are unaware would not be an evil act.

In terms of the prestige class alignment requirements, that is a different story. Rule 0 means a DM can waive that. If a PC's assassin doesn't kill innocent people, and only kills evil/unlawful people, i don't see why he couldn't be a good aligned assassin.

If an assassin works for himself or he is ending a life for personal reasons, then the act he commits is murder. However, like a soldier or city guard that kills because it is his job, an assassin that works for a city, king, guild, ect... is killing not murdering. There is a slight difference between killing and murdering someone. it is at this point that intent, purpose for the act, and who the PC works for comes into play.

In the setting of role playing games, I would say there can be evil-neutral-good assassins (whole spectrum). It depends on who is being killed and why, regardless of ambush, stealth, premeditation, ect... in my opinion.

 

[gamerprinter]

I don't think premeditation and using ambush tactics make it an evil act. A soldier of any alignment can premeditate an ambush on his enemies and not be evil doing so. A farmer killing a group of bandits while they are unaware would not be an evil act.

In terms of the prestige class alignment requirements, that is a different story. Rule 0 means a DM can waive that. If a PC's assassin doesn't kill innocent people, and only kills evil/unlawful people, i don't see why he couldn't be a good aligned assassin.

If an assassin works for himself or he is ending a life for personal reasons, then the act he commits is murder. However, like a soldier or city guard that kills because it is his job, an assassin that works for a city, king, guild, ect... is killing not murdering. There is a slight difference between killing and murdering someone. it is at this point that intent, purpose for the act, and who the PC works for comes into play.

In the setting of role playing games, I would say there can be evil-neutral-good assassins (whole spectrum). It depends on who is being killed and why, regardless of ambush, stealth, premeditation, ect... in my opinion.

War is a different animal altogether. Soldiers aren't assassins. Not to say that assassinations can't occur in war, but really such an act is still evil.

I agree killing is not murdering, even in modern law there is a difference. Assassination is not the same as killing it's murder.

You can argue all you want, but even the publishers of D&D in every single edition, as well as Pathfinder perfectly agree that an assassin is an evil class - look at your book and tell me I'm wrong. You may not agree with it, but most everyone else does. That is even why AD&D 2nd edition removed the class altogether - they didn't want to associate with a specifically evil class. Assassin is evil - no way out of that argument.

 

[Mr.E_Danger]

War is a different animal altogether. Soldiers aren't assassins. Not to say that assassinations can't occur in war, but really such an act is still evil.

I agree killing is not murdering, even in modern law there is a difference. Assassination is not the same as killing it's murder.

You can argue all you want, but even the publishers of D&D in every single edition, as well as Pathfinder perfectly agree that an assassin is an evil class - look at your book and tell me I'm wrong. You may not agree with it, but most everyone else does. That is even why AD&D 2nd edition removed the class altogether - they didn't want to associate with a specifically evil class. Assassin is evil - no way out of that argument.

I don't have knowledge of past dnd editions, so i could be wrong in the following example, so don't let the argument hinge on that. As far as the example: the monk class in pathfinder (and possibly other additions) is always lawful. is it possible to create a monk character that is not lawful? I would say yes, because depending on the character's past and motivations, actions, and circumstances he could be non-lawful. Using your quote from earlier, if all the previous editions said that monks had to be lawful, then you would seemingly say to a person looking to make a non lawful monk: "No, it has to be lawful." Because all the previous editions and publishers say so.

now to get back to the assassin in particular, my point was that depending on certain circumstances (listed in previous posts) i think a PC could have an assassin that is not evil. would the majority of assassins most likely be evil? yeah. Are all of them? i would say not, and that is all i am saying. Kaisoku listed a great example of an assassin that could be neutral: an assassin of Pharasma.

I don't think that war is a different animal altogether in the case of this "argument" as to whether an assassin is evil or not. That is one example of a time when an assassin killing someone (as a soldier in a war or under orders from a general/commander/authority) that the kill is a kill and not a murder; and thus not be an act of evil.

Do i think that most assassins would be evil? yes.
Is a neutral assassin walking a slippery slope? yes.
Can an assassin not be evil? i would say yes.

we can agree to disagree.