Alignment - just how evil is hiring an assassin?

[WizarDru]

Re: back on track

I think were wayyy off track here (though it is interesting). Doc asked about a specific situation ie... Dartan hiring an evil assain to kill Jamison.

Well, actually, we're not. The first post in the thread references an event from Doc's game, but doesn't go into details. It then posits a question, the one this poll is based on, and asks for comments....which is where we are.

Originally posted by Mereidian
In the DnD Alignment Graph, killing to defend from evil is not considered an evil act, although by our society's broader considerations, it is. Affected by this graph, hiring an assassin to assassinate an evil warlord would not be considered an evil act; by our society's standards, it would be an evil act despite the good intent.

I suppose that depends on what society you're a member of....we've got quite a few represented here at ENWorld...and remember that many U.S. states address the issue of what is and what is not murder differently. Given how diverse the viewpoints of RL legal pundits and citizens are, I don't know that you could define something as complex and emotional as murder so tightly with so broad a definition as you provide in your post, IMHO.

I think part of the problem is the confusion of an Assasain and 'an assasain'. One is a PrC that has certain prerequisites, and another is just the descriptor of someone who performs the action. A paladin can commit an assaination of the evil dragon king, but not be an Assasain (PrC). One implies evil, and one may or may not.

The assumption, based on Doc's case, is that the person ordering the assaination is powerful enough to commit the act, but chooses not to do so. Obviously, this isn't always the case. The King of Nyrond certainly can't kill one of Iuz's lieutenants, and after the devastation of the Greyhawk wars, he can hardly feed his people, let alone field an army to stop one of the Boneheart from leading a group of orcs into his northern territory. He certainly couldn't match him in single combat, even if he wanted to do so. If selling some of the gold from the castle's coffers to a master killer will cause the invading army to disperse, save countless lives and protect his kingdom, he'll do it. And I don't see that as evil, even if it means using an evil force to do it. The problem, in toto, is that to be real leader in any gameworld, you can't afford to be LG, I suppose.

Does this mean I'm implying there aren't better ways? Surely not. I would expect a paladin to look for a ways, and a good DM to be sure and provide some. But sometimes, evil needs killin'.

 

[Malachai_rose]

still dodgin

Wizardru, while your right that Doc doesnt get very specific, he is posting about a specific in game situation that he was wondering about. With that in mind we would be remiss not to adress the situation instead of dancing around and arguing semantics about the larger issue of good and evil.

Was Dartans hiring of an evil assasin to kill Jamison, given the circumstances, evil ?

I say yes. And I have stated my reasons for this above. I would like to see some posters comment on this specific case given the context of the question (I am just curious, not really trying to provoke anybody).

 

[WizarDru]

Re: still dodgin

Wizardru, while your right that Doc doesnt get very specific, he is posting about a specific in game situation that he was wondering about. With that in mind we would be remiss not to adress the situation instead of dancing around and arguing semantics about the larger issue of good and evil.

Was Dartans hiring of an evil assasin to kill Jamison, given the circumstances, evil ?

Well, I don't have a problem with that. My point was that if Doc wanted to know only specifically about that situation, he should have changed the poll and this opening statement:

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.

This indicates he wants to know in general. Not having read Doc's story hour, I can't comment on the specifics. However, if the character in question was CN, then it may or may not be evil. It's not good, but then, neither was the player in question requiring it. The problem here is the assumption that the act can only be good or evil, leaving no grey area. Was the CN character behaving in a good fashion? Clearly not. But CN characters act in a very unenlightened self-interest. They tend to only care about themselves, and have very little trouble sliding into CE, and much more difficulty pulling themselves 'up' to CG. The other players alignment isn't given, but truthfully, that doesn't matter as much. The CN player is the more relevant, and what the other player was doing that elicited this action.

If you can give me a link to the specific page where this event begins and occurs, I'll be glad to give a specific opinion.

 

[Hand of Evil]

This always gets ugly.

Grist for the mill: in medieval thought (not that the ethics of your typical D&D world are necessarily the same as medieval thought, but it's closer than what we've got...)

Anyway, in medieval thought it was NOT "murder" to kill someone in a duel, or a barfight, or a brawl, or what-have-you. You could get in a squabble with someone over unpaid rent and, like Christopher Marlowe, get stabbed in the eye and killed and that was your tough luck.

What WAS considered "murder" was to kill someone by stealth. In their sleep, with poison, etc. was the lowest of the lowest ways to do someone in.

Hiring someone else to do it would not only make you evil, but also a coward.

And Zappo, I didn't say gamers were incapable of having an RPG discussion without bringing RL issues into the mix...I said that gamers are the scum of the earth.

Love ya,
Thomas Cashel Fitzmaurice O'Boyle O'Flynn

KMRIA

This is why it is so important (soap box please) to define what is evil in your games.

Don't forget the church said killing non-believers was not a sin to allow the crusades.

I guess in a way you could justify the use of an assassin because they are taking the sin/crime onto themselves, willing to pay for the murder in the after life, hoping for the protection of their god. This leaves a the person hiring the assassin with a lesser mark on their soul, a form of loop hole. But again, this would have to be defined in your game.

 

[Noir]

Assassination evil?

Hiring an assassin is not an evil act, it's a political act.

 

[alsih2o]

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.

what strikes ME as evil is preventitive assasination i mean, killing someone for what they have done is one thing, but killing someone for what they WOULD DO, now that's evil.

 

[green slime]

This is why it is so important (soap box please) to define what is evil in your games.

Don't forget the church said killing non-believers was not a sin to allow the crusades.

I guess in a way you could justify the use of an assassin because they are taking the sin/crime onto themselves, willing to pay for the murder in the after life, hoping for the protection of their god. This leaves a the person hiring the assassin with a lesser mark on their soul, a form of loop hole. But again, this would have to be defined in your game.

Well said Hand of Evil.

Irrespective of how the individual understands the alignment descriptions in the DMG, it is imperative that the DM have a good, solid, logical interpretation, and sticks with it, so the players know how their acts are judged.

Then the rest of us can debate till we are blue in the face.

I find with most problems that need resolving, there are more than one way to skin a cat. There is more than one way to remove the threat of the evil necomancer.

Otherwise where do all these ancient tombs of unburied horrors come from, if not from heroes of bygone ages removing threats without resorting to "Kill and Plunder!!"

 

[Al]

I would argue for the case of assassination not necessarily being evil, dependent on the circumstances. Rather than reiterate all the points made earlier, I will attempt to bring the address the arguments of the 'always evil' lobby.

Assassination is Murder

True. The PCs going off to kill the lich-king is also murder. The champion who kills the orc warlord is a 'murderer'. Taking murder in the strictly legal sense (i.e. unlawful killing) the PCs perpetrate murder in an average campaign many times every session. Slaying the vile (insert enemy) is noble, so why does it suddenly become evil if the word 'assasssination' is used. Do the semantics really determine the alignment?

Not every conflict must be resolved with an assassination

True. Yet this is ignoring the other ways of 'conflict resolution'. I am not sure about the specifics of this case, but many DnD villains are too treacherous, nefarious or insane to successfully negotiate with. The only other way of 'resolving' the conflict may well be to engage in a long and bloody war with the forces of Darkness, resulting in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. What is the greater evil- the death of one wicked person, or the deaths of thousands of innocents?

Assassins are Evil- hiring them is Evil

Not true. This absolute puritanical notion is one of the most restrictive elements of the paladin's code, though few recognise it. More often than not in many cases, it is required to collude with evil people, at least temporarily, to achieve an ultimate goal. If we take a scenario where the world is threatened by, say, a massive tanar'ri invasion who will slaughter the entire population, then is it not in the common interest that good and evil ally against this threat. Allying with a *lesser evil* is morally legitimate (IMO) against a *greater evil*- vice versa is more tricky. Granted, the money for the assassins could allow him to kill a handful of victims, but compared to the millions that could perish if the mad necromancer completes the true dweomer he's been working on, this is an awkward decision that has to be made.

Remember- all that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. In this case, 'nothing' can be reinterpretated as 'not enough'. If the situation can be resolved be other means, this is clearly preferable. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to prevent evil is to collaborate with evil. Given the unenviable choice between two evils, who would not choose the lesser of the two?