An assassin's motives.

[Agback]

Most PCs also kill for money (treasure).

Not perhaps my favorite character, but the one I played for longest and with whom I am most associated by my gaming buddies, was a chap called Pausanias of Lacedaemon. Pausanias was the eldest son of a lesser noble from a duchy with an austere military tradition. During the last war between the domains, Pausanias had served with the Special Cavalry Service, an elite unit tasked to long-range cavalry patrolling and operations in the enemy's rear. Pausanias was also a bit of a of a Scarlet Pimpernel: good-looking and charming, he affected foppish frivolity, and hung about mostly in a friendly domain that was much more luxurious and comfortable than his homeland, but where his exploits with the SCS were unknown.

Pausanias was a much less potent fighter than the rest of his party (except on the occasions when we had a magician among us). But he was very stealthy, a good climber, able to fit in to any social occasion, able to get about in the wilderness, make camp, and was the best archer in the group. I think in D&D you would do him as an aristocrat-ranger. But in non-game terms he was an assassin. His military speciality had been sneaking about and whacking enemy officers at unawares. And his distinctive approach was this: faced with any problem, his first thought was to wonder what was the smallest and easiest-to-accomplish set of killings that would solve it. If the necessary hits were numerous, outrageous, or difficult he would then try to think of something else, and often enough one of his comrades would come up with a plan that didn't involve assassinations. But Pausanias' first thought was always to solve his problems by killing people. Secretly and by surprise, for a preference. As a result partly of this, Pausanias ended up killing hundreds of people over the four years I played him. More than all the other characters in the party put together, I think, though perhaps Danger Spite might have rivalled him by setting fire to inhabited buildings, cities, etc.

Pausanias never killed for money: he was rich, and wasn't out for loot. He never tortured anybody, and he didn't kill out of hatred or for revenge. He killed people because it was his duty to his duchy or to his Empire, or as part of his political intrigues in favour of meritocratic aristocracy against the forces of despotism, or because they were bad guys who obviously needed killing. But he did kill an awful lot of people in his time, and as few as he could manage did he kill in fair fights.

He was on the right side. But I really can't say that his heart was in the right place. He was a cold-blooded and habitual killer, an assassin in all but game terms. Was Pausanias evil?

 

[green slime]

I'm rather surprised at some of the "killing is an evil act" arguments in this thread.

Are all predatory animals (or animal-like monsters) Evil?
Are all soldiers/mercenaries whose main motivation is their pay or "special benefits" Evil?
Are all adventurers who accept money to accomplish tasks that involve killing Evil?

I'll agree that most kill-for-money assassins will be Evil in DnD terms. But simply accepting money for killing is not necessarily Evil.

I'd disagree with your last statement.

Killing is obviously not unequivocally evil, yet you try to muddy the waters.

Animals do not kill for monetary gain. Young animals kill to gain expertise, older animals kill for food, or in self-defense.

All soldiers do not kill (estimates claim 90% of soldiers in WWII did not kill). The purpose of most armies is not to kill-for-pay, but to defend and provide security for the inhabitants of the area. Most soldiers would accept a serious attempt for parley and surrender.

And for adventurers, there is a distinct difference between killing ordinary sentient beings, and creatures that are "Always Evil". As a further factor, many players and DMs do not seem to consider the possibility of surrender, either for PCs or BBEGs. Try surrendering to an Assassin with a contract on your head...

 

[Cthulhudrew]

You should take a look at the original Mage: the Ascension game by White Wolf. Before they were sanitized, the group known as the Euthanatos fulfilled that exact purpose...

There was just such an organization in Mage: The Ascension, in fact, although most people seemed to think of them as scary ooga booga killers and that's all.

Thanks for pointing this out- I'd never heard of them before, but there seems to be all sorts of info about them on the net. Cool.

 

[Iku Rex]

Animals do not kill for monetary gain. Young animals kill to gain expertise, older animals kill for food, or in self-defense.

If you kill people to get better at killing that's fine? If a civilizations's currency is food, killing for currency is a-ok? Maybe assassination is a "neutral" act if you eat your victim afterwards?

All soldiers do not kill (estimates claim 90% of soldiers in WWII did not kill). The purpose of most armies is not to kill-for-pay, but to defend and provide security for the inhabitants of the area.

A soldier's job is to kill people and break their stuff. The idea that "most armies" are defending and "providing security" is naive to extreme, even more so in a medieval setting. (Funny how all that "defending" is necessary when everyone is busy protecting their homes...) Furthermore, the question is not if armies are inherently evil, but rather if accepting money for killing total strangers (which soldiers/mercenaries do) is Evil.

Most soldiers would accept a serious attempt for parley and surrender.

Normally, no, they wouldn't. It's not their job. Officers and kings handle that stuff. The average soldier is just there to kill the enemy. Once you start second-guessing the people in charge as to whether or not "the enemy" needs killing you're no longer a proper soldier. You're just a heavily armed guy in funny clothing. (And probably with a court martial to look forward to.)

And for adventurers, there is a distinct difference between killing ordinary sentient beings, and creatures that are "Always Evil".

Moving the goalpost. The question was if accepting money to kill made you Evil. Now all of a sudden it's "killing ordinary sentient beings"? (Like, say, that conscripted farmboy in the BBEG's army of doom?)

Most adventurers will have killed non-evil sentient creatures, and pretty much every adventurer will have killed non-"always evil" creatures. (Like orcs.) For a significant number of those adventurers the main motivation for their actions will have been reward or loot.

As a further factor, many players and DMs do not seem to consider the possibility of surrender, either for PCs or BBEGs. Try surrendering to an Assassin with contract on your head...

So killing for money is only OK if you give your victim a chance to spend their life in prison, or give up all their possessions, or get "properly" executed by the authorities, first? Try surrendering to the king's headsman.

 

[Deadguy]

Thanks for pointing this out- I'd never heard of them before, but there seems to be all sorts of info about them on the net. Cool.

If you look you can find all sorts of versions of them. I like the original version where they did the horrendous task of judging mankind to make people better. They know how corrosive it is to themselves if they slip up, and they know that others fear what they are because they don't understand - and more importantly don't want to understand them!

In D&D terms, with absolute Good and Evil, they would still be bad people, doing what they do for good reasons (or they are if you're DM and want it to be so). Because what they do is so important they can't afford to give people the choice over the Good Death, lest they choose wrong and further harm their dharma.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm rather surprised at some of the "killing is an evil act" arguments in this thread.

Are all predatory animals (or animal-like monsters) Evil?

Well, they kill for food, usually those lower in the food chain.

By that logic, meat-eating humans like me are evil, especially ranchers and butchers.

I'll agree that most kill-for-money assassins will be Evil in DnD terms. But simply accepting money for killing is not necessarily Evil.

Yeah, I guess you have to have some pleasure doing your job. But is that so wrong, to be able to work in a job you enjoy and get paid for it?

 

[Krelios]

IMO NE. Killing is an evil act, and they don't care who as long as they get the money.

Then all your PCs are evil too.

 

[Mr Jack]

I find the notion that Assassins have to be evil in the D&D universe absurd. In a world where an LG paladin is entirely at ease slaughtering foes on mass for being "evil", how does targetted killing get flagged as more evil?

 

[Sarellion]

Perhaps because he meets his enemies openly or at least members of the class are supposed to do so.

Open combat gets associated with chivalry, valor, honor and similar things while backstabbing is considered to be cowardly and treacherous.

 

[Umbran]

Are all predatory animals (or animal-like monsters) Evil?

No. Take another look at the alignment descriptions - creatures incapable of moral action (like animals) are neutral. Period.

Alignment is not just the result of actions, it is the result of choices. If you don't have the brains to understand or ability to choose with that understanding, the Universe doesn't label you for it.

So, if you were playing an assassin with an Int of 3 or less, maybe killing won't be evil