An assassin's motives.

[Set]

Originally Posted by Deadguy

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...

I wrote up an Euthanatos who maintained that the world had a finite supply of good fortune that could occur to people. Only so many people could win the lottery, for example. He was the ultimate expression of the petulant child who looks at someone else getting away with something he has been punished for and saying, 'That's not fair!'

He would search out people who had far more 'good fortune' than he felt that they deserved, or had earned, and arrange 'accidents' for them. He tried (futilely, obviously) to balance out his own karmic scale by not only distributing resources from those he had killed among those less fortunate, but also seeking out for each person he killed a person whom he felt 'deserved better' from life, and arranging things behind-the-scenes so that the person came into money, or overcame a chronic illness, or found their problems mysteriously resolved. He tried to make sure to save a life for each life he took, so as to keep everything 'in balance.'

His particular pet peeve was when he would find someone in such a disadvantaged state, and give them a little boost, only to find them now turned into the sort of people he would have to hasten on to their next life...

Whether Euthanatos or just garden-variety killer-with-a-sense-of-justice (a la the Punisher), the problem becomes the character's judgement while he's 'playing god.' Is it acceptable to kill a bodyguard of the evil magistrate? Sure, he was working for a 'bad man,' but does this make him inherently worthy of death? History is replete with people who feel that they are perfectly just to kill off a certain type of person to help make a better world for themselves and their people. Aside from the obvious dude in Germany, there's also Pol Pot, Lenin and Osama, all quite convinced that the only way to make a better world is to 'break some eggs,' and all quite convinced of the morality of their actions.

Where does the gentleman assassin with his code of honor vary from these people? Killing is either always wrong, or it is not wrong when convictions and honor and good intentions are behind it, in which case all of these mass killers from history get the same pass, since all of them wanted to create a better world by killing off people that they thought stood in the way of that world.

 

[Wolfwood2]

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?

A LG paladin is not at ease slaughtering foes en mass for being "evil".

There's really two ways to play the evil alignment. One way is that it's a philosophical position and it's possible to be "evil" without having done anything actually illegal or beyond the boundries of civilized society. That is, an evil bartender might water down the drinks and screw people out of thier money whenever he gets the chance without descending to the 'slaughter travelers in their sleep' level. In this case, obviously a paladin is going to have to go by a 'deeds, not alignment aura' philosophy and hope to redeem those "evil" people by example.

The other way to play it is to assume that one doesn't get to be evil without showing a serious and significant disregard for intelligent life, and having done brutal deeds that would sicken most normal human beings. In this case, evil is EVIL and one might make a case for a paladin being an instrument of divine justice and hacking those poeple apart.

 

[Ranger REG]

The other way to play it is to assume that one doesn't get to be evil without showing a serious and significant disregard for intelligent life, and having done brutal deeds that would sicken most normal human beings. In this case, evil is EVIL and one might make a case for a paladin being an instrument of divine justice and hacking those poeple apart.

Would you consider devils and demons intelligent life forms? Would killing them mercilessly and torturously be considered an evil act, despite that these life forms are hardwired to corrupt and molest our species? Would killing them humanely makes it any less evil?

 

[Wolfwood2]

Would you consider devils and demons intelligent life forms? Would killing them mercilessly and torturously be considered an evil act, despite that these life forms are hardwired to corrupt and molest our species? Would killing them humanely makes it any less evil?

I would not consider them to be fully intelligent life forms, because they lack free will. (Except when they don't, because D&D is a game and therefore can be inconsistent on certain subjects.) They aren't really "alive" per se, but rather animated spiritual energy.

Killing them torturously would be an evil act as I understand the PHB definition of evil, but not mercilessly, because it is impossible to extend mercy towards them.

 

[Ranger REG]

I would not consider them to be fully intelligent life forms, because they lack free will. (Except when they don't, because D&D is a game and therefore can be inconsistent on certain subjects.) They aren't really "alive" per se, but rather animated spiritual energy.

Energy? So an energy-based life form is not considered "alive, per se"?

I have never considered them as energy-based beings.

Killing them torturously would be an evil act as I understand the PHB definition of evil, but not mercilessly, because it is impossible to extend mercy towards them.

Yes, you can. Try and kill them as quickly and humanely as possible, as you would have been done unto you.