-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Alignment - just how evil is hiring an assassin?
- Thread starter Dr Midnight
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Assassins are, by the rules, evil.
Anything not a Assassin (PrC) is just a mercenary -- a hired hand for some slick gold.
So hiring an Assassin is as evil as hiring a mass murderer is. As evil as summoning a demon is. As evil as hiring a rogue of ill repute is.
Thus, it's pretty fricken' evil. It's making somebody else pull the trigger -- someone who takes joy in watching the blood spurt from the wound. You're furthering evil by furthering the joy of one who is evil, and thus hurting the world in general -- every time a demon smiles, the world grows a bit darker.
If your assassins are indistinguishable from mercenaries (e.g.: just people you pay to do things), it can be less significantly evil. If one pays a CE rogue some gold to kill someone, it's still powerfully evil. If someone pays a CG rogue some gold, it becomes less evil -- because the CG rogue won't further the force of evil by the killing, and will make sure that the target deserves it. If someone pays the CN rogue some gold to kill, it's less evil, as well, but it still isn't exactly a pure act. Heck, paying the CG rogue isn't a pure act -- just an abdication of responsibility. The CN rogue is doing it out of money, out of greed, perhaps, but not out of a genuine desire to kill things for money and enjoyment like a true assassin is.
Anything not a Assassin (PrC) is just a mercenary -- a hired hand for some slick gold.
So hiring an Assassin is as evil as hiring a mass murderer is. As evil as summoning a demon is. As evil as hiring a rogue of ill repute is.
Thus, it's pretty fricken' evil. It's making somebody else pull the trigger -- someone who takes joy in watching the blood spurt from the wound. You're furthering evil by furthering the joy of one who is evil, and thus hurting the world in general -- every time a demon smiles, the world grows a bit darker.
If your assassins are indistinguishable from mercenaries (e.g.: just people you pay to do things), it can be less significantly evil. If one pays a CE rogue some gold to kill someone, it's still powerfully evil. If someone pays a CG rogue some gold, it becomes less evil -- because the CG rogue won't further the force of evil by the killing, and will make sure that the target deserves it. If someone pays the CN rogue some gold to kill, it's less evil, as well, but it still isn't exactly a pure act. Heck, paying the CG rogue isn't a pure act -- just an abdication of responsibility. The CN rogue is doing it out of money, out of greed, perhaps, but not out of a genuine desire to kill things for money and enjoyment like a true assassin is.
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
hong said:
Well, I suppose that is a moral distinction. Not the one I was looking for, but if you travel in certain circles, one worth keeping an eye on.
Seyrn Lerramir
First Post
Numion said:How shall I put it?
Hiring an assassin, versus actually being one, is like the Diet Coke of Evil. Just one calorie. Not evil enough.
I love that!
Hiring an assassin... in and of itself should not be termed an evil act. The question of good versus evil should be judged by intent and target. Mostly intent. Killing an evil man for an evil reason is still evil.
And yeah, my character is the morally ambiguous one in the party... she gave a man a dagger so he could kill himself. Was THAT an evil act? She doesn't think so. (Seyrn's CN too, btw) [See the "Shadows over Shelzar" story hour by Tuerny or the plug for it on this board - shameless plug]
And she'd likely hire an assassin. Depending on the why's and who. But most importantly the why's.
Intent. It always comes back to intent.
Which is the hardest thing to gauge. And... like they say... the road to the Abyss is paved with good intentions.Squire James
First Post
IMO it is clearly evil. Perhaps the lesser of two (or more) evils, but still evil. A Paladin doing this even once would fall out of Paladin even if he's still Lawful Good, because in my mind it violates many Paladin codes in several ways (hiring assassins is usually illegal, for instance). Good Clerics receive a couple of "subtle reminder spells" the next time they pray for them (eg: Atonement, Magic Circle vs Good, Detect Evil, a bunch of Slay Living and Destruction spells to suggest he should be killing them himself, etc.).
Sejs
First Post
How is hiring an assassin any more evil then running the guy thru with your sword? You're still killing him, it's just the method that's different. It's like saying it's okay to kill a man by beating him to death with a stick, but if you push a rock onto him ..ooh boy, look out.
Is using poison to kill someone evil?
-No. Your intent is still to kill the person, poison or no poison. Some may see it as dishonorable, or distasteful, but in the big picture you're still trying to kill someone.
Is hiring an assassin to kill someone evil?
-Also no. Same as above. You're still set to kill this person. It doesn't matter who owns the hand the drives the knife.
Is killing someone evil?
-depends on the circumstances.
Hiring an assassin isn't evil in and of itself. It's the conditions around -why- you are trying to kill someone that determines evil or good.
Is using poison to kill someone evil?
-No. Your intent is still to kill the person, poison or no poison. Some may see it as dishonorable, or distasteful, but in the big picture you're still trying to kill someone.
Is hiring an assassin to kill someone evil?
-Also no. Same as above. You're still set to kill this person. It doesn't matter who owns the hand the drives the knife.
Is killing someone evil?
-depends on the circumstances.
Hiring an assassin isn't evil in and of itself. It's the conditions around -why- you are trying to kill someone that determines evil or good.
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Subcontracting
My party just finished a mission where we hired to take out a commanding general/politician on the opposing side. As we were making our way back to the front line we killed the tactical general as well.
Snuck in both times, gave no warning, and didn't really give anyone a chance to surrender. Had to take heads to prove our mission was accomplished. All in the name of Neverwinter and the North.
I'm not commenting on my GM here, fantasy heroes have been pulling similar stunts since time immemorial, but as far as I can tell hiring an assassin would have been sub-contracting. The moral equivalent of paying someone else to go in and do your job for you.
Later we ended up being 'hosted' by a group of Malar worshippers who infected one of our members with lycanthropy and attempted to infect others. They forced us to take them on a mission with us so they could kill orcs who had violated their forest. So evil and good fought together in this one battle despite how shabbily they had treated us and were likely to treat those around them.
Long story short our two nature characters really wanted to kill them but the GM had that 'alignment' frown on and we let them go. After which they basically promised to kill us next time they saw us. In retrospect I can see some of his argument, we are basically professional/high amateur soldiers of one sort or another, and not allowing enemies who had fought beside you to withdraw would probably have been pretty nasty.
It depends on what you're asking him to do, but I don't think hiring an assassin is an innately evil act in such a world. Most fantasy settings are places where death is a 'professional' act. And as long as the larger 'professional' goal was good, then means are fairly value neutral.
So hiring an assassin to help you take out the Illithid Khan might even be good, but trying to stiff that assassin afterwards is certainly bad. Now capturing him and instantly turning him over to the authorities with his tongue ripped out and his hands stubbed so he couldn't implicate your state's secrets would be lawful neutral.
My party just finished a mission where we hired to take out a commanding general/politician on the opposing side. As we were making our way back to the front line we killed the tactical general as well.
Snuck in both times, gave no warning, and didn't really give anyone a chance to surrender. Had to take heads to prove our mission was accomplished. All in the name of Neverwinter and the North.
I'm not commenting on my GM here, fantasy heroes have been pulling similar stunts since time immemorial, but as far as I can tell hiring an assassin would have been sub-contracting. The moral equivalent of paying someone else to go in and do your job for you.
Later we ended up being 'hosted' by a group of Malar worshippers who infected one of our members with lycanthropy and attempted to infect others. They forced us to take them on a mission with us so they could kill orcs who had violated their forest. So evil and good fought together in this one battle despite how shabbily they had treated us and were likely to treat those around them.
Long story short our two nature characters really wanted to kill them but the GM had that 'alignment' frown on and we let them go. After which they basically promised to kill us next time they saw us. In retrospect I can see some of his argument, we are basically professional/high amateur soldiers of one sort or another, and not allowing enemies who had fought beside you to withdraw would probably have been pretty nasty.
It depends on what you're asking him to do, but I don't think hiring an assassin is an innately evil act in such a world. Most fantasy settings are places where death is a 'professional' act. And as long as the larger 'professional' goal was good, then means are fairly value neutral.
So hiring an assassin to help you take out the Illithid Khan might even be good, but trying to stiff that assassin afterwards is certainly bad. Now capturing him and instantly turning him over to the authorities with his tongue ripped out and his hands stubbed so he couldn't implicate your state's secrets would be lawful neutral.
I've come to the conclusion that the great majority of gamers are moral relatavists. But these same people seem to believe that when someone does something that they consider "wrong", it makes that person irredeemably evil.
It's pretty simple:
Assassination is murder.
Murder is evil.
Hiring an assassin is evil.
Anyone who claims that murder is not evil is wrong. A couple of posters got it right, most notably Squire James. The valid question is whether committing one evil act makes you evil. Conversely, does committing one good act make you good?
In the above example, if a CN character commits a single evil act to help the greater good, he is not evil. If he commits several, then that is a different story.
Cheers!
It's pretty simple:
Assassination is murder.
Murder is evil.
Hiring an assassin is evil.
Anyone who claims that murder is not evil is wrong. A couple of posters got it right, most notably Squire James. The valid question is whether committing one evil act makes you evil. Conversely, does committing one good act make you good?
In the above example, if a CN character commits a single evil act to help the greater good, he is not evil. If he commits several, then that is a different story.
Cheers!
Similar Threads
