Assassins: Is Neutral okay?

[gamerprinter]

I don't have knowledge of past dnd editions, so i could be wrong in the following example, so don't let the argument hinge on that. As far as the example: the monk class in pathfinder (and possibly other additions) is always lawful. is it possible to create a monk character that is not lawful? I would say yes, because depending on the character's past and motivations, actions, and circumstances he could be non-lawful. Using your quote from earlier, if all the previous editions said that monks had to be lawful, then you would seemingly say to a person looking to make a non lawful monk: "No, it has to be lawful." Because all the previous editions and publishers say so.

You don't understand, it's not an issue of a character's personal choice nor his past history. A monk is lawful because to access the ki powers in himself, and to master the martial arts requires the philosophical choice of law, otherwise ki power cannot be manifested. His powers do now work if he is not lawful.

Can a paladin be a paladin and not lawful good?

now to get back to the assassin in particular, my point was that depending on certain circumstances (listed in previous posts) i think a PC could have an assassin that is not evil. would the majority of assassins most likely be evil? yeah. Are all of them? i would say not, and that is all i am saying. Kaisoku listed a great example of an assassin that could be neutral: an assassin of Pharasma.

Even if somebody helps people when not on assassination work, because the way assassination is accomplished and the obvious result, it's an evil act. Is it possible for an Assassin to always be good when not assassinating, thus the balace equals neutral? I think even that is reaching.

I don't think that war is a different animal altogether in the case of this "argument" as to whether an assassin is evil or not. That is one example of a time when an assassin killing someone (as a soldier in a war or under orders from a general/commander/authority) that the kill is a kill and not a murder; and thus not be an act of evil.

Ever heard of war crimes? Assassination during war is a crime, because it's an evil act. Has the US performed assassinations in war - most certainly, but even then it was most likely a CIA backed operation. It was condoned by senior level. Despite that, it is still a crime, an illegal activity, one that the government would face the wrath of the public and the world if it gets caught. Even though it is a crime, it is done in war - that doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong (and evil).

There were attempts to assassinate Hitler during WW2. Most people would agree that killing Hitler to end the war would have been a good thing. Still the act of taking him out, not in a battle situation is assassination, and if the perpetrators get caught they will be considered criminals, war or no war.

Do i think that most assassins would be evil? yes.
Is a neutral assassin walking a slippery slope? yes.
Can an assassin not be evil? i would say yes.

we can agree to disagree.

Agreeing to disagree regards opinions. Assassination being evil is a fact, no matter your opinion - so in this instance, you are wrong.

 

[SteelDraco]

There are two distinct questions here - mechanical abilities and the morality of assassination.

Mechanically, an assassin studies a target and kills him with a single deadly attack. I don't view this as significantly different than a huge volley of sneak attack damage, or dropping a raging barbarian on a target with buff-scry-teleport tactics. They're all methods of killing a target before they have a chance to respond properly. It's a way of removing high-value targets quickly and with a minimum of fuss. There's nothing about the mechanics of the assassin class that suggests to me that they have to be evil. PCs do this kind of thing ALL THE TIME - the mechanics of Pathfinder and D&D really support removing targets as quickly as possible to remove the threat they pose, since a damaged target typically isn't any less effective than an unhurt one, and can be healed without too much fuss if they're prepared properly. PCs regularly make plans to kill the Big Bad, and mechanically that's really all an assassin is doing.

Morally defending assassination is difficult, but the fantasy world is inherently a much more violent one than ours. It's interesting to pose a world in which killing is morally wrong, but it's very different from the assumptions we normally make for fantasy RPGs. Assassination is really just more efficient killing, in a lot of instances. Is it more moral to kill your way through all the hired guards and then chop the Big Bad's head off than it is to put an arrow through him and disappear, leaving everybody else alive? In a lot of instances, I don't think so. It's certainly more HONORABLE to have a straight-up fight, by most definitions of the word, and thus probably lawful, but in the alignment system I don't know if it's as clear on the good/evil axis. I certainly agree that it's a very slippery slope towards "the ends justify the means", which I view as, at best, neutral on the good/evil axis.

I've always made the assumption that assassination was considered a war crime mostly because the people who decide what is and isn't a war crime didn't want to get assassinated themselves. The real world and fantasy games don't play by the same rules.

Agreeing to disagree regards opinions. Assassination being evil is a fact, no matter your opinion - so in this instance, you are wrong.

That seems unwarranted. It's hard to find a more subjective topic of discussion than alignment debates.

 

[gamerprinter]

They're all methods of killing a target before they have a chance to respond properly.

Killing a target, and assassinating a specific person with extreme prejudice are two different things. If you set an ambush to prepare for the possible arrival of enemy soldiers, this is a standard method of operating war. An ambush by itself is no evil act. However, choosing to slay a specific named target, following his moves and setting up a hidden place to kill that one person - this is assassination.

Killing a general enemy is condoned. Purposely planning and killing a specific person is not condoned. The latter is assassination, general killing is not.

That seems unwarranted. It's hard to find a more subjective topic of discussion than alignment debates.

That was not a personal attack. I am not even discussing alignment in the general game per se, rather just within the definition of assassination.

Really beyond the confines of paladins, assassins and necromancers - everything in the game is neutral to me.

 

[enrious]

You need to rephrase that assassin's don't kill, they murder - premeditated and ambushed. Never good, always evil. Look at the prestige class alignment - even the publishers got it right.

Killing a target, and assassinating a specific person with extreme prejudice are two different things. If you set an ambush to prepare for the possible arrival of enemy soldiers, this is a standard method of operating war. An ambush by itself is no evil act. However, choosing to slay a specific named target, following his moves and setting up a hidden place to kill that one person - this is assassination.

Killing a general enemy is condoned. Purposely planning and killing a specific person is not condoned. The latter is assassination, general killing is not.

Ever heard of war crimes? Assassination during war is a crime, because it's an evil act. Has the US performed assassinations in war - most certainly, but even then it was most likely a CIA backed operation. It was condoned by senior level. Despite that, it is still a crime, an illegal activity, one that the government would face the wrath of the public and the world if it gets caught. Even though it is a crime, it is done in war - that doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong (and evil).

There were attempts to assassinate Hitler during WW2. Most people would agree that killing Hitler to end the war would have been a good thing. Still the act of taking him out, not in a battle situation is assassination, and if the perpetrators get caught they will be considered criminals, war or no war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Murphy_(sniper)

Thomas Plunket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Francis Pegahmagabow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vasily Zaytsev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simo Häyhä - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carlos Hathcock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley

I will simply say that I find your historical, legal, and ethical knowledge of the subject suspect and leave it at that.

 

[Argyle King]

Can a paladin be a paladin and not lawful good?

While I know the D&D answer is "no," I personally feel the answer should be yes. I feel that way because not all gods are Lawful Good; as such, I feel a champion of a religion should have morals and ideals which are suited to the cause he or she chooses to champion.

Ever heard of war crimes? Assassination during war is a crime, because it's an evil act. Has the US performed assassinations in war - most certainly, but even then it was most likely a CIA backed operation. It was condoned by senior level. Despite that, it is still a crime, an illegal activity, one that the government would face the wrath of the public and the world if it gets caught. Even though it is a crime, it is done in war - that doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong (and evil).

There were attempts to assassinate Hitler during WW2. Most people would agree that killing Hitler to end the war would have been a good thing. Still the act of taking him out, not in a battle situation is assassination, and if the perpetrators get caught they will be considered criminals, war or no war.

How would snipers fit into this idea?

Long range missile strikes?

 

[gamerprinter]

I will simply say that I find your historical, legal, and ethical knowledge of the subject suspect and leave it at that.

I guess I painted myself into that corner - too bad you couldn't have posted all that until now. I truly make no legal claims, only as it applies to Pathfinder. The prestige class says "must be evil", that's the only real leg I can stand on.

 

[paradox42]

I guess I painted myself into that corner - too bad you couldn't have posted all that until now. I truly make no legal claims, only as it applies to Pathfinder. The prestige class says "must be evil", that's the only real leg I can stand on.

Exactly. And the subject of this thread is whether a GM could reasonably decide to change that. House-rule it, in other words, which makes your argument irrelevant. We all know the RAW says "must be Evil," but the fact of the matter is, that doesn't matter to the subject in this case.

I (and an apparent majority of others) say the answer to that question is, "yes, there is a reasonable argument for it."

 

[gamerprinter]

Exactly. And the subject of this thread is whether a GM could reasonably decide to change that. House-rule it, in other words, which makes your argument irrelevant. We all know the RAW says "must be Evil," but the fact of the matter is, that doesn't matter to the subject in this case.

I (and an apparent majority of others) say the answer to that question is, "yes, there is a reasonable argument for it."

Well you can always house rule anything really.

I read the thread as "why is assassin not neutral", not so much as "can I make my assassins not evil in my game" - almost as a question between a player and his GM.

I never question a given GM's houserule for their own game. Whether I choose to play in that game is a completely different matter.

 

[enrious]

I guess I painted myself into that corner - too bad you couldn't have posted all that until now. I truly make no legal claims, only as it applies to Pathfinder. The prestige class says "must be evil", that's the only real leg I can stand on.

Heh.

For what it's worth, I think it speaks volumes that you're willing to admit it, dust yourself off, and continue on in a friendly and polite manner.

As it is, I realized after I made that post that in Pathfinder terms, the "must be evil" was a wobbly leg for me and one that I concede.

However, in the time spent between my post and returning to write more about it, I found a post I read a few weeks ago, written by James Jacob.

Bolding is mine:

Assassins have always been evil in the game, so on one level, we kept it that way due to tradition.

But also, the concept of being paid money to kill someone is, in my opinion (and in the opinion of pretty much all of us at Paizo) is evil.

A non-evil assassin would need different flavor text going along with it. They'd need another motivation to kill than greed or a desire to turn murder into an art form, for one thing. We might build a prestige class to fill this niche some day, but it won't be called an "assassin."

I wouldn't say becoming an assassin automatically makes you an NPC though. If a GM's cool with running evil characters, then no problem. If a GM doesn't want to run evil characters, then don't let a PC become assassin in the first place.

OR: Just drop the evil requirement. The class still works fine without that, it just doesn't match our design philosophy. But our design philosophy doesn't have to match anyone else's.

Source: paizo.com - Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion: Why was the Assassin kept as a purely evil PrC?

I really don't have any commentary on his statement per se, because I really don't disagree with any of it.

I do find it telling that the requirement to enable a non-Evil Pathfinder Assassin is by re-writing the flavor text. That's it. (I hear Assassin's Creed calling) Of course, such an action is ultimately up to the group/DM, so I sorta think everyone will end up back to where so many gaming and game rule discussions end up.

The group or individual preference.

 

[gamerprinter]

However, in the time spent between my post and returning to post more about it, I found a post I read a few weeks ago, written by James Jacob....

Well, if you read my first post, I pretty much gave an example of a fluffed non-evil assassin - it's even published. I actually created the entire premise of a 'non-evil' assassin in the publication below, and a magic-item map the whole publication is based. Except for a little design, I didn't write it though...

Assassin's Amulet

As an aside, I have ninjas in my Kaidan setting, except they are mostly spies.