Alignment - just how evil is hiring an assassin?

[Dr Midnight]

In a recent session, a PC in my game (CN) hired an assassin to murder another PC in the party. The first PC had every reason to believe that the second was evil and would bring down death and worse on the party and world.

A big debate popped up about whether hiring an assassin is:

A. Certainly not good, but understandable considering the circumstances. A means to an end.

B. Incredibly evil. If you want someone dead, you should have the courage to do the job yourself.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I see nothing wrong with assassination as a tool. I find it horribly self serving for leaders to call it ok to send thousands of young men off to war to fight and die but at the same time talk of assassinating enemy leaders as wrong and evil. BS in my book, pure and simple.

 

[Darkness]

Hiring someone to kill a person isn't worse than doing the deed yourself. It ain't any "nicer," though, either.

 

[NiTessine]

It's not necessarily Good, but certainly not Evil, either. As I recall, in one of David Eddings' Tamul books, the heroes hired a veritable bunch of assassins to dispose of a whole lot of unsavory people, for the greater good.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Hiring assassins is a sign of civilisation.

If we still had to do the deed ourself, we'd be running in pack where the alpha male leads until defeated in a challenge for supremacy.

 

[the Jester]

Well, for those who'd argue that hiring assassins is innately evil and you should do the job yourself, I'd like to ask what they think of killing enemies with summoned monsters? What about with dominated monsters or npcs?

Of course, I'm a big fan of moral ambiguity....

 

[Ravellion]

Isn't "Go and defeat the evil Necromancer in the East!" an often used story for DMs with not too much imagination? Yes? But surely, that must also qualify as assassination, no?

Rav

 

[Black Omega]

Isn't "Go and defeat the evil Necromancer in the East!" an often used story for DMs with not too much imagination? Yes? But surely, that must also qualify as assassination, no?

Well, let's see...from Websters

Assassination, transitive verb
1: to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2: to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons

Since 'defeat the evil Necromancer' is rather vague, I'd have to say it would not qualify as an assassination just based on information given. If they sneak into his stronghold, spread lethal contact poison over his favorite staff, and sneak away and wait to hear news of his death, then it's assassination.

If they march up to the front gate and challenge him then kill him, or if they capture him to return him to home for justice, or simply destroy the "Great Carbuncle" all his plans relied upon and the Necromancer escapes, then he's defeated but not slain by treacherous means, and thus it's not an assassination.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Hiring assassins is a sign of civilisation.

If we still had to do the deed ourself, we'd be running in pack where the alpha male leads until defeated in a challenge for supremacy.

That's a lot more functional than most "modern" societies. Sign me up.

For the record, hiring an assassin = carrying out the murder personally. Judge alignment accordingly.

 

[WanderingMonster]

Now you see, I wouldn't have hired an "assassin". I would have hired a "mercenary".