Thoughts on the alignment of Assassins

[Gargoyle]

The assassin is a specific PrC that is evil.

This doesn't mean that all assassins are evil.

The PrC called "Assassin" in the DMG is evil.

Yes.

This is the only problem I have with the class. The name isn't specific enough, and causes people to generalize about the characteristics of all "assassins" (meaning the profession of murdering others) It's like having a hunter or alchemist prestige class, instead of a Grey Ghost Hunter or a Distiller of Dreams class. They should have given it a more specific name in 3.5 to make talking about assassins easier.

I noticed there is a neutral assassin guild in Ptolus. Interesting that Monte Cook seems to think there is room for non-evil assassins (the prestige class) in his campaign.

 

[Umbran]

Are you implying that there are no soldiers in fiction or role-playing games? Why would it have to have a real-world connotation?

No. If I wanted to say that I would simply have said it.

Many adventurers are mercs in disguise. They get their assignments, get the job done, and get paid (or fail and get killed, but I digress). They wonder very little about motivations. Being a merc is a state of mind on its own, and mercs can be of any alignment.

I am sorry, but as I read the rules, "wonder little about motivations" and "Good" simply are not compatible. The Good alignment is typified by going out of your way to aid others, and actively avoiding cruelty and harm when you can. That means killing without some reasonable assurance of just cause or need isn't Good.

I can imagine a good merc, but he'd not fit your description, as he or she would have to pay attention to why he was killing, and make sure that it is for the good.

Soldiers are trained to obey orders. If they don't obey orders, they can make life very difficult for their team-mates. There is no room for philosophical ponderings on a battlefield; hesitate for a moment, and you're dead.

That's rather debatable. As far back as Shakespeare's day, there was the idea that a soldier must answer for his own actions: Henry V notes, "Every subject's duty is the king's; but every subject's soul is his own." There are also several modern real-world examples that run contrary to your assertion.

Which only goes to say that as a DM, you have to choose how you're going to run it.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

The assassin is a specific PrC that is evil.

This doesn't mean that all assassins are evil.

The PrC called "Assassin" in the DMG is evil.

Oh sure, bring the rules into the arguement. I see how you are!

 

[Yalius]

Why wouldn't the military sniper be good? Even though he's trained in a premeditated method of killing, he still cannot take that shot without gaining confirmation via radio or pre-instructed orders. A sniper could kill other targets, but we agree that he would be evil. What would the sniper who follows orders and kills only the target be?

Both examples are of someone killing another on orders from what they believe to be a higher authority, on the auspices that that individual is a threat that is better dead than alive. Both are methods of last resort (snipers have to return through alerted enemy territory, and training costs more than training a typical infantryman or several boxes of mortar rounds).

Simple. Because a military sniper will often (infact, more often than not) be ordered to kill someone who does not pose an immediate danger to others. Indirect danger, but not immediate danger. The expediency of killing someone who does not pose a specific, current danger to someone else disqualifies from being "good." A military sniper who refuses to shoot someone based on lack of immediacy of threat would be court-martialed for insubordination or worse.

 

[pawsplay]

A sniper could be LG. They might, on occasion, violate the precepts of the LG alignment, but it doesn't mean they automatically go sliding down the path to neutrality, if their options are limited. Military snipers are under orders, and hence, can not just refuse to shoot someone because they personally feel it's unwarranted. There would be tension there. And a military sniper who was LG might desert under certain circumstances, but not most circumstances. Particularly, a soldier who feels the greater good is at stake must be willing to make some immediate concessions.

There is a slippery slope there, but just because a LG character shoots another LG character, an enemy scout, under orders doesn't mean they suffer an immediate alignment ding.

A CE assassin who gives someone a valuable gift out of gratitude doesn't stop being evil just because he does something nice.

Being Good does not automatically mean being angelic. It just means, good, to an extent where you are willing to act on that belief.

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

An assassin who tracks down evil being with a writ of absolution from the church in his quarters, making sure that no innocents are harmed, would qualify as Lawful Good. He obeys the laws of his church and god, and kills only those who are beyond redemption (And face it, in D&D it is entirely possible that a soul could be so corrupt that redemption is impossible, or just slaying the demon driven husk of a once good person) only when the church has given permission/orders for the death.

NO ONE EXPECTS... THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!! (Does pointing out the inherent inconsistency in that post with a Monty Python reference make me evil?)

 

[Storyteller01]

Simple. Because a military sniper will often (infact, more often than not) be ordered to kill someone who does not pose an immediate danger to others. Indirect danger, but not immediate danger. The expediency of killing someone who does not pose a specific, current danger to someone else disqualifies from being "good." A military sniper who refuses to shoot someone based on lack of immediacy of threat would be court-martialed for insubordination or worse.

The same target can give an order to kill prisoners, which can be carried out in seconds. Or give the order to bomb a target, which will be carried out within minutes. These are examples of both immediate and indirect threats.

 

[Yalius]

The same target can give an order to kill prisoners, which can be carried out in seconds. Or give the order to bomb a target, which will be carried out within minutes. These are examples of both immediate and indirect threats.

True. And Neutral or Evil people can do good acts. The very mentality that would cause someone to become a sniper precludes good alignment, not good acts. A good person would object to the necessities of being a sniper, and would not accept the job so long as he knew what might be required of him.

Too much of this discussion is involving how a good person could be an assassin, not whether or not an inherently good person would ever consider it. A good person would, based on his or her moral compass, refuse to perform some of the tasks that would be required of a sniper. It thus follows, that a person who is a sniper (or assassin) would not be good.

 

[Storyteller01]

True. And Neutral or Evil people can do good acts. The very mentality that would cause someone to become a sniper precludes good alignment, not good acts. A good person would object to the necessities of being a sniper, and would not accept the job so long as he knew what might be required of him.

Too much of this discussion is involving how a good person could be an assassin, not whether or not an inherently good person would ever consider it. A good person would, based on his or her moral compass, refuse to perform some of the tasks that would be required of a sniper. It thus follows, that a person who is a sniper (or assassin) would not be good.

You may want to look into Milgram's study on obedience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment



Especially this quote:

Before the experiment was conducted Milgram polled fellow psychologists as to what the results would be. They unanimously believed that only a sadistic few (0.1%), would be prepared to give the maximum voltage.

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 67.5 percent (27 out of 40) of experimental participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were quite uncomfortable in doing so; everyone paused at some point and questioned the experiment, some even saying they would return the check for the money they were paid. No participant steadfastly refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level. Variants of the experiment were later performed by Milgram himself and other psychologists around the world with similar results. Apart from confirming the original results the variations have tested variables in the experimental setup.

Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland Baltimore County (who is also the author of a biography of Milgram, called The Man who Shocked the World) performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, between 61% and 66%, regardless of time or location (a popular account of Blass' results was published in Psychology Today, March/April 2002). The full results were published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology (Blass, 1999).


Emphasis mine.


Please note that the subjects came from varied levels of education; several of them would have known they were 'applying' potentially lethal voltage to the the subject.


Also, as far as the subjects of the experiment were concerned they were consciously applying increasing amounts of pain on another 'subject'. This is torture, something worse than assassination by D&D standards.

 

[Lancelot]

The assassin is a specific PrC that is evil.

This doesn't mean that all assassins are evil.

The PrC called "Assassin" in the DMG is evil.

Arrr! Quoted for truth, maties.

That scurvy knave ye see in the DMG is simply an evil prestige class, and particularly one that prefers killin' by foul venoms, evils magics, and other sneaky ninja-like abilities. Arrr! Those cursed ninjas!

If ye be wantin' to play a good-aligned killer, ye gots plenty o' options. A Fighter can be an assassin if he kills fer money, as can any spell-worker or Rogue or muchly anythin' else. There's plenty to argue that a Rogue can be a better assassin than an Assassin can, and if that ain't enough to make yer compass spin, well...

As fer the morals o' killin' people, ye just have to make sure it's fer the right reasons. Killin' fer faith or honor or loyalty is never a fair excuse.

Ye should only kill fer gold, pure and simple. That's how ye know yer not a cursed ninja. Arrr!