Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
I've always been of the opinion that it should be much easier to fall than to rise. You've got a lot more to prove to Rise.Lothar said:
Alignment - just how evil is hiring an assassin?
- Thread starter Dr Midnight
- Start date
Ferret
Explorer
To few choices; but my vote fell into the top.
My explaination: It is no worse then hiring a mercenay that does things by disguise. If your archenemy is far more powerful then you, and you cannot help but have to distroy him, you send in an assassin, if you and the assassin would work better together just stand on the side, and rush in when they are surprised.
My explaination: It is no worse then hiring a mercenay that does things by disguise. If your archenemy is far more powerful then you, and you cannot help but have to distroy him, you send in an assassin, if you and the assassin would work better together just stand on the side, and rush in when they are surprised.
Happy Monkey
First Post
I had to go with poopie-head 
Hiring an assassin evil...
Well some would say killing is evil, I would not if in self defence.
Anyway, I believe that it depends on the purpose of the assassination. If it is motivated by a desire to save lives by slaying a tyrant, well that isn't evil as I would have to consider that self defence - or the defence of innocent others.
If on the other hand it was in revenge for some slight and you were initiating the attack, well, yes you would be evil in my view.
BTW have I mentioned I love paladin pc's, always such fun!
To not be evil the assassination needs to be the most effective means to averting harm, be proportional to the threat and be reasonably unavoidable. The assassin would be used to deliver death by a means more skillful than you could deliver.
I doubt if many assassinations would not be evil by my stated standard.
Hiring an assassin evil...
Well some would say killing is evil, I would not if in self defence.
Anyway, I believe that it depends on the purpose of the assassination. If it is motivated by a desire to save lives by slaying a tyrant, well that isn't evil as I would have to consider that self defence - or the defence of innocent others.
If on the other hand it was in revenge for some slight and you were initiating the attack, well, yes you would be evil in my view.
BTW have I mentioned I love paladin pc's, always such fun!
To not be evil the assassination needs to be the most effective means to averting harm, be proportional to the threat and be reasonably unavoidable. The assassin would be used to deliver death by a means more skillful than you could deliver.
I doubt if many assassinations would not be evil by my stated standard.
Vaxalon
First Post
From the BoVD:
"Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like."
and later:
"...killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act. Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil (although it's not a good act), because it stops the creature's predations on the innocent. Such a justification, however, works only for creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons."
If the hiring PC truly believes that the target is evil, the act would not be evil, and therefore the hiring would not be evil.
"Murder is the killing of an intelligent creature for a nefarious purpose: theft, personal gain, perverse pleasure, or the like."
and later:
"...killing an evil creature to stop it from doing further harm is not an evil act. Even killing an evil creature for personal gain is not exactly evil (although it's not a good act), because it stops the creature's predations on the innocent. Such a justification, however, works only for creatures of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as chromatic dragons."
If the hiring PC truly believes that the target is evil, the act would not be evil, and therefore the hiring would not be evil.
Happy Monkey
First Post
Just a play on your words there Vaxalon, the PC would need to 'know' the target is evil.
Simply believing something is evil without double checking would lead directly to the slope of much slipperiness.
OT, one of my players sold an unholy bow to a dangerous figure keen to be rid of a large (12000) amount of coin, blood on his hands and everything. Adventure plot without a doubt...
I thought struck me now, what happens to the PC that hires the said assassin and never finds out that the target was innocent? Are they evil in their carelessness, just tainted, troubled, notice??
Simply believing something is evil without double checking would lead directly to the slope of much slipperiness.
OT, one of my players sold an unholy bow to a dangerous figure keen to be rid of a large (12000) amount of coin, blood on his hands and everything. Adventure plot without a doubt...
I thought struck me now, what happens to the PC that hires the said assassin and never finds out that the target was innocent? Are they evil in their carelessness, just tainted, troubled, notice??
Tom Cashel
First Post
Hiring an assassin, not evil?
Gamers = scum of the earth.
Love,
Rabble-Rousin' Tom, aka "The Mixer"
Gamers = scum of the earth.
Love,
Rabble-Rousin' Tom, aka "The Mixer"
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
When the question of is 'hiring an assassin to kill someone evil' is asked, the critical question is not 'am I doing evil to the person I kill?' because that has to be adressed separately when we ask 'is killing someone evil'. The critical question is 'Am I doing evil to the person I hire to do the killing?'. And, I believe you are.
For the person to be an assassin implies that the person is an assassin professionally, and this profession is by its normal interpretation one which is evil. If you are a 'hitman', then you take jobs killing people and you don't by your professional code take much consideration into who you kill just so long as the money is there. By hiring an assassine, you are either encouraging the continuation of this profession, or else encouraging someone to take up this lifestyle professionally. Either case is an act of evil, regardless of how worthy your particular target is of death in your opinion.
Now, we could of course modify the terms of the expression somewhat. If you are a duly appointed official of a sovereign state who has been intrusted to protect the group, and the assassine is a duly appointed official who has also been intrusted with protecting the group, and the target is a target which magistrates have declared to be guilty of a crime which involves murder of the citizens of that state or else intent to murder same, then the 'assassination' isn't to my mind of the same category of behaviors. In this case, the assassination is an act of war and could be legitimate self-defence and must be judged good or evil according to the ways that we judge wars just or unjust. However, because of the difficulty in judging whether or not someone is worthy of death we DO NOT normally leave this matter up to an individual and even groups of thoughtful people with what appears to be clear evidence can go wrong - so it is a measure to be taken with extreme care if at all.
I cannot think of a case were a private individual would be justified in hiring an assassine. Even if he has clear need of killing someone and the authorities cannot be trusted to perform the act (perhaps because they are evil themselves), the act of hiring when death is on the line taints the event. If someone needs to die, the person doing the killing must do so from the conviction that what he is doing is just and necessary, and not from the motivation of greed or even professionality. Soldiers should kill because they believe it necessary to defend thier loved ones, and not because it is thier job and thier boss ordered it. No soldier can defend a murder by saying 'I was ordered to do it.'
How much less can you defend it with 'I was paid to do it.'
And, the smaller the group deciding who must live and die, and the more secretly this is done, the more skeptical you must be of your own decision making process. You and a professional killer do not constitute reasonable jurisprudence.
For the person to be an assassin implies that the person is an assassin professionally, and this profession is by its normal interpretation one which is evil. If you are a 'hitman', then you take jobs killing people and you don't by your professional code take much consideration into who you kill just so long as the money is there. By hiring an assassine, you are either encouraging the continuation of this profession, or else encouraging someone to take up this lifestyle professionally. Either case is an act of evil, regardless of how worthy your particular target is of death in your opinion.
Now, we could of course modify the terms of the expression somewhat. If you are a duly appointed official of a sovereign state who has been intrusted to protect the group, and the assassine is a duly appointed official who has also been intrusted with protecting the group, and the target is a target which magistrates have declared to be guilty of a crime which involves murder of the citizens of that state or else intent to murder same, then the 'assassination' isn't to my mind of the same category of behaviors. In this case, the assassination is an act of war and could be legitimate self-defence and must be judged good or evil according to the ways that we judge wars just or unjust. However, because of the difficulty in judging whether or not someone is worthy of death we DO NOT normally leave this matter up to an individual and even groups of thoughtful people with what appears to be clear evidence can go wrong - so it is a measure to be taken with extreme care if at all.
I cannot think of a case were a private individual would be justified in hiring an assassine. Even if he has clear need of killing someone and the authorities cannot be trusted to perform the act (perhaps because they are evil themselves), the act of hiring when death is on the line taints the event. If someone needs to die, the person doing the killing must do so from the conviction that what he is doing is just and necessary, and not from the motivation of greed or even professionality. Soldiers should kill because they believe it necessary to defend thier loved ones, and not because it is thier job and thier boss ordered it. No soldier can defend a murder by saying 'I was ordered to do it.'
How much less can you defend it with 'I was paid to do it.'
And, the smaller the group deciding who must live and die, and the more secretly this is done, the more skeptical you must be of your own decision making process. You and a professional killer do not constitute reasonable jurisprudence.
Zappo
Explorer
I say it depends on who you want dead and why. If it's the Evil Necromancer who is Plotting the End of the World, then I can't see how hiring an assassin who will travel to the Necromancer's tower alone or in a small group doing his best not to get noticed, then sneak into the tower, get to the Necromancer's bedroom and stick a palm of steel into his heart is much different from hiring an adventuring party who will travel to the Necromancer's tower in a small group doing their best not to get noticed, then sneak into the tower (or bash into it, slaughtering all the guards), get to the Necromancer's bedroom, wake him up, and stick a palm of steel into his heart. Ultimately, all you've got is the same: a dead man, without fair trial. The ways of adventurers aren't much different from those of assassins, they are just more... "adventurous".
Once you admit that such an act is good if the man is Evil, whether you wake him or not before killing him is more a matter of honor (lawfulness vs. chaos) than goodness.
Once you admit that such an act is good if the man is Evil, whether you wake him or not before killing him is more a matter of honor (lawfulness vs. chaos) than goodness.
Zappo
Explorer
Something I'm getting more and more convinced of, every time a thread about good vs. evil arises, is that morality in D&D has almost no relationship with morality IRL. I can say that something is good (evil) in D&D and yet is evil (good) IRL without contradiction.Tom Cashel said:
Jürgen Hubert
First Post
Rav said:
"with not too much imagination"?
You can summarize pretty much all plots to a short sentence like this one. But whether the plot itself is unimaginative or not doesn't depends on the summary - but the execution of the plot!
A good GM can make any plot great. A lame one will sink even the best plot ideas.
Similar Threads
