Assassins Evil?

[FireLance]

Why should an assassin be required to have an evil alignment?

Somewhat tongue in cheek:

1. Because the guy who wrote the rules say so.

2. Because the DM agrees.

3. Because in the fictional universe of the game, only people with an evil alignment have the necessary mindset to acquire abilities from the assassin class (see also: bard, druid, monk, paladin). Anyone can stab people in the back (see also: thief rogue), but the Complete Assassin Package is something else entirely (see also: I'm not a bard, I'm a multiclass fighter/rogue/sorcerer specializing in enchantment spells).

4. Because, like the donkeyhorse, the assassin is broken and the game attempts to balance this by imposing a role-playing restriction.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This debate has been going on since before The Dragon was called a magazine. The argument is getting very tired and cranky at this point. We can stop now.

 

[fanboy2000]

Assassins are evil because they kill public figures you want alive. People who kill public figures you want dead are heroes.

 

[FireLance]

This debate has been going on since before The Dragon was called a magazine. The argument is getting very tired and cranky at this point. We can stop now.

We need someone evilly-aligned to kill the thread.

 

[Herobizkit]

Hey, monsters are people too!

Maybe, from the monster's point of view. From the heroes' point-of-view, they're perfectly justified in smashing in (almost) every monstrous humanoid, giant, and Underdark denizen for the simple fact that "they're Evil, and we're Good".

I'm sure if you looked around this board, you'd find all kinds of threads talking about non-evil assassins and their motivations: killing for a cause; killing for king & country; killing to protect others, organizations or other defined goal...and remember, the people who gave us the term assassin killed for religion.

I'm not going to drag religion into this, but I feel that the motivation behind the act is where the D&D Law/Chaos axis comes into play, whereas the act itself falls on the Good/Evil axis.

Killing people, for whatever reason, is generally seen as Evil. In a D&D society, people (the good/neutral humanoids) don't see the monsters (the evil ones) as people at all, rather as manifestations of Evil in their world, and it's okay to kill Evil things because, well, less Evil = more Good.

... killing for a cause; killing for king & country; killing to protect others, organizations or other defined goal...and remember, the people who gave us the term assassin killed for religion.

Those are all good motivations for a non-Evil "assassin", but I have to side with others in the post that say "assassin" refers to the character's job and not the Prestige Class. The Prestige Class states that someone must kill someone for the sole purpose of joining - and, in that spirit (even if it is tacked on), the PrC is meant to be entered by Evil-aligned characters only because Evil people generally kill people on a whim, on purpose.

 

[Mark]

Why should an assassin be required to have an evil alignment?

It seems to me that their motivations would be varied from individual to individual. And here's an example.

A sniper could be considered a modern day assassin because they are sent to kill a specific human target from long range.

However, to my knowledge, snipers are not drafted to be one, they often volunteer for the job, often out of a sense of patriotism.

And is that not a good thing?

When the time comes, please remember that I gave you XP.

 

[Hussar]

That would depend upon the definition of "evil" in your game world.



Yes, but last time I checked, modern day snipers don't appear in D&D.

This isn't being dismissive - the D&D world is fundamentally different from the real modern world. In our world, alignment doesn't exist. In the D&D world, alignment is a force of the universe that interacts with magic. Define how that force of the universe works in your world, and the rest falls into place.

Just to expand on this point for a second.

Game world morality is not based on any sort of cultural belief system. Game world morality is a physical reality. Good just isn't some sort of philosophy, it has just as much real existence as gravity or electricity. It's 100% objective.

The game world morality has decided that a particular set of actions is always evil. Spells make the best example of this. Animate Dead, no matter what you actually use the spell for, is an evil act. Always. I could animate skeletons to save orphans from a burning building, and I've still commited an evil act (note the evil act is the spell, not saving the orphans).

Now, they, the game designers, have decided that assassin=murder. Murder=evil. Therefore, assassin=evil.

A sniper, in your example, isn't an assassin because he's not evil. I know that's a pretty facile example, but, trying to apply any sort of depth to D&D morality is a morass that you will never dig your way out of.

Also note, that just because a character is evil, does not make him incapable of performing good acts, or even being a hero. It's simply the way the universe describes that particular character. The sniper could be an assassin (and therefore evil) yet be a pretty nice guy, good with his kids, pays his taxes on time. He just belongs to a class which defines him as evil.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Maybe, from the monster's point of view. From the heroes' point-of-view, they're perfectly justified in smashing in (almost) every monstrous humanoid, giant, and Underdark denizen for the simple fact that "they're Evil, and we're Good".

Post 1Ed, you have a growing tide of "monsters" as heroes...or at least as PCs.

As that happened, the black & white of D&D gained shades of grey...at least at the game rule level.

Now, at the campaign level, it may be true that all orcs are bad, all drow are bad, all minotaurs are bad, etc., but its no longer a universal assumption.

I'm not going to drag religion into this, but I feel that the motivation behind the act is where the D&D Law/Chaos axis comes into play, whereas the act itself falls on the Good/Evil axis.

Killing people, for whatever reason, is generally seen as Evil. In a D&D society, people (the good/neutral humanoids) don't see the monsters (the evil ones) as people at all, rather as manifestations of Evil in their world, and it's okay to kill Evil things because, well, less Evil = more Good.

In pre-2Ed D&D, you're absolutely right. However, from 2Ed on, not only did we have evil humans and humanoids show up (just as they always had) but non-evil "monsters" start showing up with increasing regularity. You can even find things like hobgoblin traders pop up in the texts of adventures...at least in the big, cosmopolitan cities. But for extraplanar beings like demons or elementals, alignments for races are a generalization, not an absolute.

Those are all good motivations for a non-Evil "assassin", but I have to side with others in the post that say "assassin" refers to the character's job and not the Prestige Class. The Prestige Class states that someone must kill someone for the sole purpose of joining - and, in that spirit (even if it is tacked on), the PrC is meant to be entered by Evil-aligned characters only because Evil people generally kill people on a whim, on purpose.

(Emphasis mine.)

I agree- "assassin" is just a job description, and may be held by any kind of person- someone of any "alignment"- given the proper motivation.

That we can find examples of non-Evil assassins is what is so disappointing about the PrCl: it assumes that ONLY Evil types would gain that kind of skill at killing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To elaborate a bit on a few points upthrad:

A class is an archetype, not just a collection of skills.

When I pick to be a Druid, I'm not just picking to be "some sort of nature mage." I'm picking to be a very specific kind of nature mage, one who embodies the natural world through shape-shifting and who commands the natural world through divine magic and who belongs to a sect of nature-worshipers who use curved blades and who seeks some empathy with the wild beasts.

When I pick the Assassin PrC, I'm not just picking to be "the sneaky killer." I'm picking to be a very specific kind of sneaky killer, one who values mortal life by the coin, who executes without empathy, who murders as a career rather than as an unfortunate part of living in a dangerous world.

Now, that's just the default assumption. 3e makes it clear that alignment requirements are not balancing mechanisms, they are there for flavor alone. So the Assassin is evil by default because their flavor is evil -- they kill explicitly only for money. But the abilities the Assassin gets aren't necessarily evil, so a DM can certainly expand the Assassin beyond its initial purpose, if a player is interested in those abilities.

This is part of 3e's philosophy that PrC's be tools that the DM uses to add depth to their world, rather than player-based resources.

 

[Stormonu]

Anyways, after my brush with Assassin's Creed, I'm chomping at the bit to try out some sort of non-evil assassin campaign where the PCs are assassins. Perhaps as palassasins (paladin-assassins).

wait, this isn't the PADND forums...