Thoughts on the alignment of Assassins

[Yalius]

... which non-good people would not do.

I think you just answered your own point. You acknowledge that it was an evil act. Good people can perform non-good acts, but, 1, they have doubts of the rightness of their actions, and 2, don't make a career or habit out of them. A person who takes it upon himself to perform such a thing habitually, regularly, well, he's not a "good" person, is he?

 

[Storyteller01]

Naive? I have seen and done more with my life than you could imagine, kid. I'm sorry your worldview does not seem to admit that, just perhaps, the very concept of killing someone who may or may not deserve to be killed, just on the orders of a superior officer, might possibly be an immoral act? Think about it just for a second, before you let your ideas of the nobility of killing someone go to your head. A military sniper, no matter how "good" he might be in normal life, has made the conscious decision that he will, at a moment's notice, kill another person with no more opinion of that person than a "target." That is part of his job and that is what he is expected to do. If he refuses, trust me, he would no longer be a sniper. He might be tasked with putting a bullet into the head of a father, a husband, someone's friend. But because of the need for military expediency, he's a dead man, because his continued life might be problematic. How the heck do you reconcile that sort of performance with someone you want to call good?

Yes, at times, a sniper or assassin might perform a "good" assassination. But don't fool yourself, a sniper in service to any government is not going to be given the luxury of only taking assignments that are morally upstanding. And any person who takes that responsibility upon himself is, by his very acquiescence to the demands of the job, surrendering any moral high ground he might like to think he enjoys. Don't let romanticized, action-movie cliches cloud your thinking. A person who accepts it upon himself to kill someone in a manner such as that is not, and can not be, "good" in the objective moral standard. Neutral, at best.

Don't get yourself in a bunch there. Per your profile, your not much older than me (year and a half or so). There are plenty of folks here who have seen and done much, been through the military, etc.

As for taking morally upstanding missions, no one has that option. Any soldier can be given what we're classifying an amoral order.

I've known a sniper who have made several confirmed kills. I've also known several marine corps recon. One was retired, working as a truck driver to support a family of 5. I've even met pilots for FA-18's and gunships. All were good people (some a bit creepy) who you could trust with your life. All of us have been trained to take a life, some have done so (myself not included, thank god), and would do so in the defense of others. All of us were trained to take lifes in a pre-emptive fashion. All of us faced the fact that we might get that order. None of us are evil. Going through more than a bit of moral conflict, but not evil.

 

[Storyteller01]

PS: The post was changed. I figured it would be okay, as it had not yet been responded to.

I think you just answered your own point. You acknowledge that it was an evil act. Good people can perform non-good acts, but, 1, they have doubts of the rightness of their actions, and 2, don't make a career or habit out of them. A person who takes it upon himself to perform such a thing habitually, regularly, well, he's not a "good" person, is he?

But your previous arguement was based on the statement that good people could not do evil acts.

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.

Milgram's study shows that they are willing to do far worse, including zapping someone who may or may not be conscious or dead.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Yalius: Thank you for the moral judgements upon me, my wife, my brothers, and many of my friends. You have successfully excersized American's First Amendment Rights. Hat off to you, sirrah.

 

[pawsplay]

Yes, at times, a sniper or assassin might perform a "good" assassination. But don't fool yourself, a sniper in service to any government is not going to be given the luxury of only taking assignments that are morally upstanding. And any person who takes that responsibility upon himself is, by his very acquiescence to the demands of the job, surrendering any moral high ground he might like to think he enjoys. Don't let romanticized, action-movie cliches cloud your thinking. A person who accepts it upon himself to kill someone in a manner such as that is not, and can not be, "good" in the objective moral standard. Neutral, at best.

I disagree. Your argument is sound from a Kantian standpoint, but not from a utilitarian one. A sniper might very well see that they are performing a valuable service, or may simply believe the military insubordination is dangerous enough that participating in it would be to go against society and good. He may have suspended his moral high ground for any particular sniping assignment, but he is still in the position of making a choice whether he can become a sniper for good reasons and in a good manner.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Naive? I have seen and done more with my life than you could imagine, kid. I'm sorry your worldview does not seem to admit that, just perhaps, the very concept of killing someone who may or may not deserve to be killed, just on the orders of a superior officer, might possibly be an immoral act? Think about it just for a second, before you let your ideas of the nobility of killing someone go to your head. A military sniper, no matter how "good" he might be in normal life, has made the conscious decision that he will, at a moment's notice, kill another person with no more opinion of that person than a "target." That is part of his job and that is what he is expected to do. If he refuses, trust me, he would no longer be a sniper. He might be tasked with putting a bullet into the head of a father, a husband, someone's friend. But because of the need for military expediency, he's a dead man, because his continued life might be problematic. How the heck do you reconcile that sort of performance with someone you want to call good?

Yes, at times, a sniper or assassin might perform a "good" assassination. But don't fool yourself, a sniper in service to any government is not going to be given the luxury of only taking assignments that are morally upstanding. And any person who takes that responsibility upon himself is, by his very acquiescence to the demands of the job, surrendering any moral high ground he might like to think he enjoys. Don't let romanticized, action-movie cliches cloud your thinking. A person who accepts it upon himself to kill someone in a manner such as that is not, and can not be, "good" in the objective moral standard. Neutral, at best.

I don't consider killing to be noble in any way. I think it is tragic and sad that the world so often comes to people having to kill or be killed. And I'm not letting action-movie cliches cloud my thinking at all. I think the concept of morality in the *real* world is considerably more complicated than labeling people "good" or "evil" or "neutral". By following your reasoning, *all* soldiers are evil because they are willing to kill people. Now, I've never been in the military but from my understanding a soldier or sniper is trusting that he is being ordered to kill for the greater good. The soldier is still a human though, and they have the ability to *not* follow orders. You point out that such a soldier/sniper would quickly be removed from that role, but that is assuming they are not in the right. I would think that in such a situation there would be an investigation into the situation and it could very well be determined that the commanding officer was in the wrong (isn't that one of main function of JAG lawyers?). Even if it is determined that the soldier was in the wrong and they are disciplined, at least they could still say they have their humanity.

Ultimately, I watch the news and see people who are willing to die a world away from their family and friends, fighting for a variety of reasons, one of which is often the sense that they are defending their country. I feel terrible that people are being asked to make such sacrifices but I am glad there are people willing to do so.

I hope my post wasn't too political for the fourm rules, but I suspect it was. I appolgize if it was.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The DMG assassin is what you get when people whine and complain that a PrC should not be a collection of mechanical bonuses provided in a void.

It is clear from the abilities of the assassin that he is a mystically-inclined silent and efficient killer.

Personally I think that's enough for a PrC. I think that any PrC that _requires_ the existence of some organisation that are mysteriously the only people in the world who can teach the special abilities is ridiculous. I think that any organisation that _requires_ membership in a specific PrC are similarly ridiculous.

However, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who complain and whinge about PrC's that don't have extra fluff, and would be outraged if the assassin was just a 'mystical silent killer' PrC without any alignment or organisational requirements.

 

[diaglo]

Creatures with the Animal type can only have Inteligence scores of 1 or 2. Creatures with "humanlike" intelligence have Int of 3 or higher. While technically the Humanoid type does not specify 3 or higher, that's gotta be one really dumb humanoid.

Technically, "Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil." I expect a DM might well rule that Int of 1 or 2 is simply too low to make moral judgements.

:doh: that's right. when a druid awakens an animal it is no longer an animal. it becomes a magical beast or something else.

gotta love how the rules make it possible for a leopard to change its spots or a zebra its stripes.

 

[pawsplay]

The DMG assassin is what you get when people whine and complain that a PrC should not be a collection of mechanical bonuses provided in a void.

Then I guess I'll keep whining and complaining, since I appreciate the fact that someone went through to make the Assassin a meaningful Prestige Class. Have fun writing your Silent Mystical Killer base class.

 

[Spatula]

Like unintelligent undead being evil in 3.5, the 'must be evil' assassin PrC in 3.0 and 3.5 is a nonsensical and frankly shallow concept.

I could see an argument for it being exclusively 'non-good', though such arguments would typically be very context based and subjective, but excluding neutral characters? *shake* I would argue that the largest number of assassins would be some flavor of neutral, viewing the job as exactly that, a job. They're killing because they're following orders, doing a job, aiding an organization, a religion, a patron, a state... the killing isn't enjoyed, it's rationalized by it being a necessity to the wellbeing of that patron person/organization, which in most cases won't be evil.

Is a SWAT team sharpshooter who takes out a guy with bomb, or a psycho holding a knife to a child's neck an evil person because it's his job to disable or kill? I would say no.

Do you have to kill someone to join SWAT? Because you do in order to enter the assassin PrC.

Not all assassins are captial-A Assassins with levels in the PrC. You don't need the PrC to kill people. You don't need the PrC to kill people in one hit. If you want a neutral alignment mercenary killer he might refer to himself as an assassin but he won't have levels in the prestige class.