Assassins: Is Neutral okay?

[Derren]

Oh and by the way I completely understand the evil requirement on assassin class - part of the requirement is killing someone expressly for the purpose of entering the organization. That pretty much means evil to me.

So why are assassins evil then and a paladin sect which requires you to destroy an undead/demon/evil dragon to enter is good (See D&D 3.5Es Vassal of Bahamut as example)?

I would not assign any alignment to assassins because it a world with objective alignment it always depends on who you kill. Would an assassin who only kills evil creatures be evil? And if yes how can adventurers, including paladins, who do pretty much nothing else than to kill "evil" creatures be non-evil?

 

[Tovec]

So why are assassins evil then and a paladin sect which requires you to destroy an undead/demon/evil dragon to enter is good (See D&D 3.5Es Vassal of Bahamut as example)?

I would not assign any alignment to assassins because it a world with objective alignment it always depends on who you kill. Would an assassin who only kills evil creatures be evil? And if yes how can adventurers, including paladins, who do pretty much nothing else than to kill "evil" creatures be non-evil?

Special

The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

A. That is a requirement of the class. They must kill someone for no reason other than to join. That is generally speaking murder. In every game I've ever played this assassination is either directed by the assassin guild (ie. go kill this person to join us) or it is a significant assassination of someone important and notable so that the potential assassin can say they did it. Either way, killing a person ONLY TO JOIN strikes me as evil.

B. The paladin prestige class requires you kill EVIL* creatures, which I stated previously I find to be generally a good idea. I don't know if killing evil creatures is a Good act compared to a neutral one but killing demons is generally different from assassinating someone just because you have to in order to join a group. The paladin was going to kill evil creatures either way, that is their job.

I know it is a matter of degrees, but everything is. I'm not saying you can't be a neutral or even a good assassin. I am saying I understand the evil requirement based on the fluff and entry requirements for the Assassin class.

EDIT:
Notice the * - EVIL, capital e v i l. Only evil dragons, demons and undead count. Not evil people, weird huh?
Also there is no alignment that the assassins look for when they kill, they look only for the act itself and presumably how well you do it. They don't care if the target is Good, Neutral, or Evil.

 

[Derren]

A. That is a requirement of the class. They must kill someone for no reason other than to join. That is generally speaking murder. In every game I've ever played this assassination is either directed by the assassin guild (ie. go kill this person to join us) or it is a significant assassination of someone important and notable so that the potential assassin can say they did it. Either way, killing a person ONLY TO JOIN strikes me as evil.

B. The paladin prestige class requires you kill EVIL* creatures, which I stated previously I find to be generally a good idea. I don't know if killing evil creatures is a Good act compared to a neutral one but killing demons is generally different from assassinating someone just because you have to in order to join a group. The paladin was going to kill evil creatures either way, that is their job.

I know it is a matter of degrees, but everything is. I'm not saying you can't be a neutral or even a good assassin. I am saying I understand the evil requirement based on the fluff and entry requirements for the Assassin class.

EDIT:
Notice the * - EVIL, capital e v i l. Only evil dragons, demons and undead count. Not evil people, weird huh?
Also there is no alignment that the assassins look for when they kill, they look only for the act itself and presumably how well you do it. They don't care if the target is Good, Neutral, or Evil.

So what happens when the paladin in question would never think of going after the dragon (he has other things to do) but decides only to do so to join that order? Maybe the order even tells him which dragon he has to slay. That would fit exactly your reasoning why assassins are evil.

Also, what if the person you have to kill in order to join the assassins is happens to be EVIL (like a vampire)? You still only kill him to become an assassin but you have done a very good act.

The whole evil vs EVIL thing is pretty arbitrary anyway. Where does evil stop and EVIL begin? Hitler? Stalin? A cultist having personally sacrificed thousands of innocents over decades in order to bring a demon lord into the world? Orcs? A lich who has done evil to become undead a few centuries ago but since then didn't bother anyone and only wants to be left alone?
And again, what if an assassin only kills EVIL creatures (Or just normal evil ones)? There is no real difference between a assassin picky about his targets and a common adventurer or even paladin except for his methods. Adventurers kill thing for money all the time. So why are they not evil while assassins are?

 

[Tovec]

So what happens when the paladin in question would never think of going after the dragon (he has other things to do) but decides only to do so to join that order? Maybe the order even tells him which dragon he has to slay. That would fit exactly your reasoning why assassins are evil.

The paladin still has all the tools - smite evil and detect evil - to go kill that evil dragon either way. Usually it is mandate by their order/god/religion to do it. Just because they are being told which target doesn't mean that the target isn't worth killing. In a specific sense the paladin knows and cares the creature is evil (and majorly so) before killing it.

Also, what if the person you have to kill in order to join the assassins is happens to be EVIL (like a vampire in disguise)? You still only kill him to become an assassin but you have done a very good act.

You can't say the same about the prospective assassin in this case. The assassin doesn't know or more importantly doesn't care the target is a vampire in disguise. It is really tangential to joining the assassins who the prospect happens to kill. It can't be a good act unless the person killing him knows who it is and is doing it for a good reason, simply doing it to join up by itself isn't a good act.

The whole evil vs EVIL thing is pretty arbitrary anyway. Where does evil stop and EVIL begin? Hitler? Stalin?

Overall I would have to agree with you, which is why the paladins trying to join their "assassins guild" aren't killing Hitler or Stalin. They aren't killing creatures who happen to be evil. They are killing creatures who embody evil. They are going after the vile the big EVIL creatures, not just a guy who happens to be Evil.

And again, what if an assassin only kills EVIL creatures (Or just normal evil ones)? There is no real difference between a assassin picky about his targets and a common adventurer or even paladin except for his methods.

If the assassin (the job title not the class title) is killing only EVIL creatures for some holy purpose then that is fine. That is similar to what paladins do, though through different tactics. That is why I agree you can be neutral or even good (possibly) while still being an assassin. That assassin is probably not an Assassin.

HOWEVER, if you are someone trying to become the Assassin class and join the Assassins, then you are no longer a good guy doing it for a good reason. There are two evil requirements to join the class. You must be evil and you must do an evil act of killing someone (dare I say murdering someone?) just to join the Assassins.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

It's all postulation at this point everyone. As I've said before this is all determined by the table and the GM who is running the game. There are shades of grey for good/neutral/evil and at your table you need to decide what constitutes what alignment for purposes of certain classes. We can go back to Rule 0 and it really doesn't matter what the book says the alignment "should" be to be that class as long as everyone at your table is having fun.

 

[Derren]

The paladin still has all the tools - smite evil and detect evil - to go kill that evil dragon either way. Usually it is mandate by their order/god/religion to do it. Just because they are being told which target doesn't mean that the target isn't worth killing. In a specific sense the paladin knows and cares the creature is evil (and majorly so) before killing it.

That is an assumption of your part. Just because the dragon is evil it doesn't automatically mean the paladin would kill it anyway. It is entirely possible that the paladin decides to go after the dragon instead of the real BBEG just so that he can join the order

You can't say the same about the prospective assassin in this case. The assassin doesn't know or more importantly doesn't care the target is a vampire in disguise. It is really tangential to joining the assassins who the prospect happens to kill. It can't be a good act unless the person killing him knows who it is and is doing it for a good reason, simply doing it to join up by itself isn't a good act.

What if the assassin does know that the target is evil? What if he does care (because his family is suffering under this evil guy for example)? It might be a coincidence but it can happen. Also if intention matters as you say here, the paladin would be evil too as he doesn't kill the dragon to do good, but to join the Bahamut club. The would be assassin on the other hand could have tried to kill his evil target anyway and the additional job offer when doing it is a lucky coincidence.
I admit it gets a bit far fetched here, but the common adventurer is killing quite a lot of things for personal gain during his lifetime. Thats no different than an assassin killing his target to join an organization

HOWEVER, if you are someone trying to become the Assassin class and join the Assassins, then you are no longer a good guy doing it for a good reason. There are two evil requirements to join the class. You must be evil and you must do an evil act of killing someone (dare I say murdering someone?) just to join the Assassins.

Exactly this is what being disputed/discussed in this topic so using it as an argument why assassins are evil is circular logic.

In the end you can't really defend assassins being always evil without using arbitrary limitations (evil vs EVIL, intention matters but only for the assassin, not for the paladin, etc.)

 

[Tovec]

That is an assumption of your part. Just because the dragon is evil it doesn't automatically mean the paladin would kill it anyway. It is entirely possible that the paladin decides to go after the dragon instead of the real BBEG just so that he can join the order

What if the assassin does know that the target is evil? What if he does care (because his family is suffering under this evil guy for example)? It might be a coincidence but it can happen. Also if intention matters as you say here, the paladin would be evil too as he doesn't kill the dragon to do good, but to join the Bahamut club. The would be assassin on the other hand could have tried to kill his evil target anyway and the additional job offer when doing it is a lucky coincidence.
I admit it gets a bit far fetched here, but the common adventurer is killing quite a lot of things for personal gain during his lifetime. Thats no different than an assassin killing his target to join an organization

Okay, I went looking and the only reference to Vassal of Bahamut I can find is in the Book of Exalted deeds. If you are using a different source then I can look at that one too.

So based on that I am going to make some assumptions based solely on the language used. I can't quote the Book of Exalted but I can paraphrase. The vassal of bahamut must single-handedly slay a juvenile (or older) red dragon. This version only mentions red dragons and it mentions the act must be completed before joining. Now what it doesn't mention is: that the paladin* must do this for no other reason than to join. The paladin may have done this because he was commanded to by the head of his church, or he may have been compelled to by a vision from his god, perhaps he just happened across a juvenile red dragon and slayed it all by himself out of the course of adventuring. But he isn't required and probably didn't do it JUST TO JOIN A GROUP. To me this seems pretty clearly to indicate the paladin is doing it because the red dragon is a red dragon and EVIL and needed to be put down.

The Assassin on the other hand MUST kill someone for no other reason than to join. That is their goal. It isn't clear if the guild assigns the target or not, but the motivation seems clear here. To me this seems pretty clear that the Assassin doesn't care who the target is or their alignment or anything about them EXCEPT that they need to be put down so the Assassin can join up.

Exactly this is what being disputed/discussed in this topic so using it as an argument why assassins are evil is circular logic.

In the end you can't really defend assassins being always evil without using arbitrary limitations (evil vs EVIL, intention matters but only for the assassin, not for the paladin, etc.)

If you want to talk about the legitimacy that the class have the restrictions like that at all that is fine. I was giving my opinion based solely on how the rules and classes work NOW, not what they should be in your game.

And certainly there is a certain measure of alignments being in the grey in DnD. But paladins aren't and red dragons aren't. Assassins aren't really either, though I've admitted I can see (non classed) assassins being of any alignment based on motivation. I do see the motivation of joining other assassins and killing someone for no other reason than to join to be fairly clear cut as evil even in DnD's grey area. If you disagree that is fine but I'm giving you the best information I have on how the game DOES work not on how it SHOULD work.

Oh, and if this is your entire point then that is fine, just let me know and we can be done as I'm not going to argue it.

* the rules actually doesn't mention 'paladin' but we'll skip that part for now, it does say LG and kills a dragon so we can easily assume paladin.

 

[N'raac]

It seems fairly easy for the Assassins (PrC which is a specific group occupying a niche in the campaign world) will simply use a spell to determine whether the applicant meets the job requirements. Not Evil? Not admitted. And maybe the fellow someone evil is assigned to kill solely for the purpose of joining their clique.

Nothing prevents anyone else from modifying the PrC to occupy a different niche in their own campaign world which does not require Evil alignment as a prerequisite to join, and/or does not require its initiates to kill someone for the sole purpose of joining their clique. But the one published in the rules requires the character be Evil.

Funny how much of the defense refers to a Paladin carrying out such an activity, but no one suggests that Paladins should not be absolutely required to be LG. What's wrong with a Paladin who believes entirely in Good (NG) or even one who believes in both Good and Freedom (CG)? Nothing, really. But the Paladins in basic Pathfinder occupy a specific niche in the campaign - they are LG Holy Warriors. If someone sees a need for such a group in their campaign which also allows NG or CG, or perhaps requires one of those alignments, and rejects LG applicants, what is wrong with that approach?

NOTHING - just like nothing is wrong with modifying Assassins for your campaign world. But those Paladins, like non-evil Assassins, reflect a decision to change the rules from those applicable to the Paladin (or Assassin) organization(s) described in the RAW to those applicable to a somehow different organization in a different campaign world.

 

[Argyle King]

Something I've learned from this thread is that I would probably be considered evil by either D&D/Pathfinder standards or the standards of many people who discuss the game. I don't feel bad about that. It's simply something which is interesting to consider.