Assassins Evil?

[rgard]

Or 'less good' if that works better for you. It's all relative. Let's say a conventional soldier is doubleplus good, then a sniper would be merely plus good, ie a little less good. Or more evil, depending on how you look at it.

Nah, neither works.

The folks in any modern western military are neither more good or less good than the general population. And within the military there is no distinction as to more good or less good based upon your military skills or designation.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Nah, neither works.

The folks in any modern western military are neither more good or less good than the general population. And within the military there is no distinction as to more good or less good based upon your military skills or designation.

Do snipers not have something of a reputation, even amongst their own side, as being more detached, colder, more ruthless than the average soldier?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Characters with the assassin class kill people for money (i.e. their motivation is money).

Characters who kill people for other reasons have different classes.

Mercenaries kill people for money. Assassins may have a variety of motivations, just like anyone else.

Killing in general is BadWrong, no matter the reason. In a game world where Good and Evil exist in a real, palpable sense, Assassins are Evil, people who kill PEOPLE are Evil, and people who kill monsters who are Evil are not necessarily Evil.

Hey, monsters are people too!

I'm sure if you looked around this board, you'd find all kinds of threads talking about non-evil assassins and their motivations: killing for a cause; killing for king & country; killing to protect others, organizations or other defined goal...and remember, the people who gave us the term assassin killed for religion.

What separates assassins from others who kill is their methodology. Generally speaking, they kill with tactics of surprise, often operating solo or in small numbers, usually targeting a single target or tightly defined class of targets, and almost always for a clearly defined reason.

 

[Umbran]

Why should an assassin be required to have an evil alignment?

That would depend upon the definition of "evil" in your game world.

A sniper could be considered a modern day assassin because they are sent to kill a specific human target from long range.

Yes, but last time I checked, modern day snipers don't appear in D&D.

This isn't being dismissive - the D&D world is fundamentally different from the real modern world. In our world, alignment doesn't exist. In the D&D world, alignment is a force of the universe that interacts with magic. Define how that force of the universe works in your world, and the rest falls into place.

 

[rgard]

Do snipers not have something of a reputation, even amongst their own side, as being more detached, colder, more ruthless than the average soldier?

I know Hollywood likes to portray the sniper that way, but I don't put much stock in most of the post-Vietnam war Hollywood visions of the military.

On top of that, none of those descriptions equal evil. Those could be used to describe a successful athlete.

By the nature of the job/mission in war time, people will die. It doesn't matter whether you are the bomber pilot, the guy who ordered the bombs dropped, the infantryman, the tank crewman, the artillery gunner or the sniper, people will die as a direct result of your actions to accomplish the mission.

Snipers aside, If you want to label folks in the military 'evil', we probably won't come to any agreement here.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll say this: I know medical personnel who were involved in psych-evals for people entering the military during the 1970s and 1980s. Certain types who would be considered "dangerous to themselves or others" were NOT disqualified from service, but were rather flagged for probable entry into certain branches of the military, such as Snipers...and Special Forces units.

(And to be perfectly clear, said disorders were not a prereq for entry into those branches, just one of a set of predictors.)

Besides, who among us here would call Dr. Ruth evil?

 

[rgard]

I'll say this: I know medical personnel who were involved in psych-evals for people entering the military during the 1970s and 1980s. Certain types who would be considered "dangerous to themselves or others" were NOT disqualified from service, but were rather flagged for probable entry into certain branches of the military, such as Snipers...and Special Forces units.

(And to be perfectly clear, said disorders were not a prereq for entry into those branches, just one of a set of predictors.)

Besides, who among us here would call Dr. Ruth evil?

It could have been that way in the 1970s, but I know people who successfully completed the Q Course in the mid 1980s and none of them would be lumped into "dangerous to themselves or others" psych category. That said, I never took part in any psych evaluation of people for their probable military occupation.

I think I've recently given you xps, but I will try anyway. This will be for the Doctor Ruth reference. Intense life story with Doug's "Ruthless" in the title!

Thanks,
Rich

 

[rgard]

I think I've recently given you xps, but I will try anyway. This will be for the Doctor Ruth reference. Intense life story with Doug's "Ruthless" in the title!

Thanks,
Rich

Yes, have to spread some xps around first.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Like I said- predictor, not prereq. I know a few actual snipers (all police, but 2 who are formerly military)...and someone who is probably in "wetworks" abroad is a family friend.

Nice people, one and all.

 

[rgard]

Like I said- predictor, not prereq. I know a few actual snipers (all police, but 2 who are formerly military)...and someone who is probably in "wetworks" abroad is a family friend.

Nice people, one and all.

If I knew that many I'd be saying that too! Thanks.