Good assassins?

[Shard O'Glase]

That doesn't make them "good" however... What's the road to hell paved with, boys and girls?

Assassination, as in killing someone quickly, without warning, with the other party not having a chance to defend themselves, is not, to me, a "good" act. I could see a good character that on RARE occasions resorted to that, if they had no other choice, but I couldn't see a good character doing it enough to take even a prestige class dedicated to it.

Just my personal view.

Oh the humanity.

I don't know someone who kills you quickly and cleanly, someone who hacks you to death. Who is doing the evil here?


I wish I could rememer that Bond quote from the books. It was something like Killing people is my job, and I take pride in doing my job well.

 

[Tsyr]

I don't know someone who kills you quickly and cleanly, someone who hacks you to death. Who is doing the evil here?

Neither, and both, at the same time, depending on if you think killing is an inheriently evil act. The length of the death has nothing to do with it, really... It's the avoidability of it.

I wish I could rememer that Bond quote from the books. It was something like Killing people is my job, and I take pride in doing my job well.

And I personaly don't think Bond would qualify for "Good" in the DnD sense, your point?

 

[Drunken Master]

when i think of a 'good assassin', as i've tried to get my DM to let me take the class, i always use the example of john cusack's character in Gross Pointe Blank, or Leon in The Professional. or even garth ennis's comic book character Hitman. although i guess they're probably all Neutral, but basically good people with their own rules, so i could see CG as a viable alignment.
so far, it hasn't worked, because the DM thinks the death attack is too powerful.

 

[gunter uxbridge]

I played an assassin in a good campaign once. The other players were a bit peeved, but the history worked well.

The back story was he was an elf who was taken at a young age by Drow to work as a slave. He spent his youth in the underdark until he and an elderly mage mentor of his escaped. The mentor died just short of freedom, but my guy made it out.

He wandered in the woods for a few days half dead and nearly blind from the daylight until the Riders of Mistledale came across hmi (A Forgotten Realms game.) He swore allegiance to Mistledale and promised to do anything they might ask to protect the dale from harm. ANYTHING.

He operated at the whim of the town council and had a special place in his heart for making drow suffer. His motton was, "Sometimes one man has to suffer so that others might live." He was totally lawful evil and I played him to the hilt. He wasn't out of control or killing people at random, but he worked for the state to protect the greater good, but sometimes he had to do nasty things to get the job done. I justified the assassin requirement to kill somebody to join the guild by him going on one of his frequent "drow hunts."

I think this is a good example of playing an evil character in a good campaign.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Personally, I fall in the "No you can't have a good assassin" camp for this reason.

Yes, both assassins and adventurers kill,

however,

adventurers can fail to kill and still succeed.

In order to succeed, an assassin must kill - that is there entire function. There is no room in their profession for mercy or other mitigating faculties or events. I know that there are plenty of stories about assassins where the assassin refuses to kill someone for some reason - ie. "Crying Freeman". However, at this point the character is failing to be an assassin. You can't be good and seek to be an assassin.

my 2c

 

[rounser]

However, at this point the character is failing to be an assassin. You can't be good and seek to be an assassin.

I don't buy it, else every adventurer who set out with vengeance in their eyes to kill the evil overlord or die trying would instantly turn evil. Soldiers are also trained to kill, they just do it in a different way than special ops like assassins.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

I don't buy it, else every adventurer who set out with vengeance in their eyes to kill the evil overlord or die trying would instantly turn evil. Soldiers are also trained to kill, they just do it in a different way than special ops like assassins.

Point one - if the character wants only to "kill" the evil overlord, as opposed to overthrowing his evil regime, then the character is pushing their luck claiming to be good. Good is not choosing killing when other choices are possible.

Point two - Soldiers are trained to fight, not to kill. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. It's entirely possible for a soldier to go through a whole war, fighting in many battles, and never actually kill someone.

Soldiers take prisoners - assassins do not;
soldiers take land and installations - assassins do not;
assassins cannot claim success in a mission without killing someone - soldiers can.

A similar argument can be made for special ops soldiers - though these soldiers are capable of acting as assassins for select missions.

 

[Mark Chance]

Point two - Soldiers are trained to fight, not to kill.

Counter point: The U. S. Army taught me to fire a variety of weapons, to break necks, and to fight with knives and bayonets so that I would know how to kill. "A soldier's job to ensure the other man gets the opportunity to die for his country." That isn't just a bumper sticker; it is training doctrine.

 

[Zerth]

Just some thoughts of mine...

1) By the rules. There are no good or neutral assassins in D&D, only evil ones. It's just that simple.

2) The IMO part. The D&D universe has it's own idea about good and evil and I agree with those, who have said, that in D&D, the assassin PrC is built for evil characters only. Alignments can change in D&D and it is theoretically possible for someone to have levels in assassin PrC and still be good.

But to me, that character is no longer really an assassin and certainly he shouldn't be acting like one anymore. As a DM, I would never allow him to gain new levels in assassin PrC unless his alignment shifted back to evil. So there could be characters, who possessed all the skills and were good or neutral aligned, but they wouldn't count as "real" assassins and would be doing something else with their lives than killing for money or following some personal code, that makes them murderers.

The "good" or "honorable" assassin would be lawful evil by alignment. They might only kill evil targets and not demand payment, but by using the same evil means as their prey. Maybe they aren't as evil as the ones they kill, but they are still evil. They are people, who would easily place their personal code above everything they are protecting. A chaotic good or neutral person might hard pressed kill someone very evil, but wouldn't likely commit a calculated murder. A non-evil person could not keep up with a systematic lifestyle of murdering, they would not have the heart or the dedication for it. They would regret or change alignment to evil.

 

[rounser]

Still not convinced...

A mercenary kills for money.
A duelist kills for money.
A soldier kills for money.
A bounty hunter captures or kills for money.
An assassin kills for money.

The only real difference I can see is the skills involved - an assassin will slit a sleeping man's throat or slip poison into his wine, whereas a duelist will cut him down after insulting him into single combat, a bounty hunter will track him and capture or kill him, and a soldier or mercenary will try and kill him if they catch him out on the battlefield.

The job (killing) and effect (death) and the reason (money) is the same for all of these professions; only the skills and specialties differ. Are notions of "honourable" and "dishonourable" ways to kill clouding the morality of assassination versus that of melee combat?