Assassins Evil?

[Wolf1066]

"you must spread experience..." yadda yadda yadda

I think I fell out of my chair laughing. I'm not sure, just woke up on the floor with a bruise on my forehead and a smile.

I know your pain. I've been wanting to give Danny XP for a number of posts in this thread and that one "capped" them all. I'm glad I was not drinking or eating anything when I read it.

 

[Hand of Evil]

For my games, it is that they kill in COLD BLOOD. They are paid to take out someone, period - they do not care if that person is good or evil, lawful or chaotic, worship X or Y; they just kill because they are paid for a life.

A sniper is not an assassin, he is a speciality warrior during combat, his job is to take out the enemy. Warriors are not evil because they are fighting and killing for a reason and for the most part only fight other combatants.

----
In a game of mine, a player would not kill anything, unless he was paid. Orc, goblins, demons, drow, he would let them attack the rest of the party until they agreed on fees.

 

[hamishspence]

For my games, it is that they kill in COLD BLOOD. They are paid to take out someone, period - they do not care if that person is good or evil, lawful or chaotic, worship X or Y; they just kill because they are paid for a life.

BoVD does say that if you kill creatures of "consummate, irredeemable evil" solely for money, it's not an evil act, though it's not a good act.

So you could be an assassin, hired by the celestials to kill fiends for money, the only thing you ever kill are fiends- and thus, you're not committing evil acts.

In a game of mine, a player would not kill anything, unless he was paid. Orc, goblins, demons, drow, he would let them attack the rest of the party until they agreed on fees.

Sounds a bit like Kelemvor's ancestor (who was an incredibly mercenary jerk) or Kelemvor up to a point (because his ancestor was cursed, the curse reversed when it hit the next generation, and was passed down ever since). Kelemvor could at least kill if he thought he was in danger, though.

 

[Wolf1066]

For my games, it is that they kill in COLD BLOOD. They are paid to take out someone, period - they do not care if that person is good or evil, lawful or chaotic, worship X or Y; they just kill because they are paid for a life.

Would mercenaries therefore qualify as "evil" as they, too, are just in it for the money and not caring if their opponents are good or evil, lawful or chaotic, worship X or Y?

I can think of a number of "warrior"-like reasons that a person might use to to justify to themselves the need to coldly assassinate another and I'm sure there are rationales that people use to justify killing for money.

One could argue that killing for money is at least understandable when compared with "patriotism" - that it makes more sense to kill for a tangible, usable reward than for something over which you had absolutely no control or choice - to whit: your place of birth.

Add to this the fact that the very people whence we get the word "assassin" were primarily acting like snipers - "surgically" removing enemies.

 

[Deset Gled]

It's worth noting that the concept of a covert assassination is against many of the more romanticized honor codes. The "cowboy code", for example, condems shooting a man in the back. Some legends state that ninjas exist because the samurai code forbade the samurai from killing opponents who could not defend themselves. The Predators will not kill humans who are unarmed and not a threat.

A central theme in all of these honor codes is that it's only okay to kill someone when they are aware of your threat, and are capable of protecting themselves. In D+D 3.x, the Assassin's death attack ability requires the exact opposite; it only works if the target is unaware. It's easy to find gray areas in these "heroic" codes or in motivations for the Assassin, but I think it's just as easy to see that the abilities of an Assassin are leaning toward the darker side of the spectrum.

 

[Crothian]

Well yes, but look at the class features of the assassin class. You get a spell list filled with deception enhancing magic, you get skill in poison use, and you can make special particularly lethal attacks. What about any of those abilities is inherently "evil?" Dimension door? Why does a character need to be evil to gain access to those abilities?

Because that's the way it was written. People are free to change things all they want but it is written as evil so it is evil. In D&D evil is defined and can be detected. It doesn't matter what the class features because the game does not define class features as evil or not evil.

 

[Bullgrit]

Not even for hemorrhoids?
__________________
You are now breathing manually.

Your sig, with that post. . . weird.

Bullgrit

 

[Bullgrit]

It is erroneous to make a link between "assassin" and "sniper." They are not equivalent, in any way.

A military sniper is a specialist soldier. He is not an assassin, and is not brought into play as an assassin.

An assassin is a killer for hire. He is not a soldier, and is not brought into play as a soldier.

Making a link between the two terms shows a terrible misunderstanding of both concepts. They are completely unrelated "persons."

Bullgrit

 

[Hand of Evil]

Would mercenaries therefore qualify as "evil" as they, too, are just in it for the money and not caring if their opponents are good or evil, lawful or chaotic, worship X or Y?

NO - because they are weapons and weapons don't kill, people do.
YES - because they take the money and then become the weapon AND as long as they do not question the task they are performing, just actting they take on the aligment of their user. You, then get the line "I was just following orders.

I can think of a number of "warrior"-like reasons that a person might use to to justify to themselves the need to coldly assassinate another and I'm sure there are rationales that people use to justify killing for money.

One could argue that killing for money is at least understandable when compared with "patriotism" - that it makes more sense to kill for a tangible, usable reward than for something over which you had absolutely no control or choice - to whit: your place of birth.

Add to this the fact that the very people whence we get the word "assassin" were primarily acting like snipers - "surgically" removing enemies.

and there are a number of cultures that torture, steal, kill, etc as rights of passage. As all things, this is where definning of what is evil in your games is important, you are building a cultral taboo and campaign setting that your players have to use as guildlines. That is why I said in "my games", for some horse stealing is an evil act, leaving a fire unattended, coming into a camp without warning, all can be evil based on the campaign I am running.

As all threads that go on about alignment, people apply current morality to a fantasy game, that takes place in a fantasy world. It just does not work.

 

[Savevsdeath]

Snipers are that little bit more evil than conventional soldiers. Because of the surprise element, the personal nature of picking out a single target (it's quite possible a sniper could see his victim's face before he pulls the trigger) and because their job is specifically to kill rather than, say, to destroy vehicles or buildings.

Every soldiers first, last and most important job is to kill efficiently. Don't let hollywood or a mistaken belief propagated by god-knows-who convince you otherwise.