Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 433400" data-attributes="member: 2486">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?</blockquote>

Verification