Assassins: Just Plain Evil or Misunderstood?

[rbingham2000]

I agree with Mustrum_Ridicully.

A guy willing to kill anyone just for the sake of money is not a guy that I would want to hang around with. I mean sure, he may be a decent guy when not on the job, but when he accepts a contract on someone, an assassin can be one of the most cold and ruthless people on the planet.

I'm reminded of an exchange between the hitman and a pianist from Le Samourai, a classic hitman movie that inspired The Killer:

Jeff Costello: Why say you did not recognize me?
Valérie: Why kill Martey?
Jeff Costello: I was to be paid.
Valérie: What had he done to you?
Jeff Costello: Not a thing. I didn't know him. I met him for the first and last time 24 hours ago.
[pause]
Valérie: What sort of man are you?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Robin Hobb's books. The main character is an assasin. He is trained in stealth, observation, spying, poison, killing silently with small concealed weapons etc. etc. But I would not for a second say that he is evil. I would likely categorize him as good. He kills and spies for his King. The people he kills at times are not evil themselves, but are political problems whose death would greatly simplify things for the Realm, and sometimes he does not kill at all, but uses intimidation, diplomacy and other tactics to put an end to the problem. I see no reason an Assassin PrC could not be easily adapted to fit that mold if it suits the character.

 

[Particle_Man]

Historical note: When Assassins were first introduced, they got the middle alignment (Neutral) (back when there were only three alignments). Make of that what you will.

For the player, I would suggest you make up a similar prestige class, but give the Death Touch ability a la cleric with the death domain instead of the death attack, and give a ranger favored enemy bonus instead of the bonus to poison saves/immunity to self poisoning by accident. See if the player still wants to do it then. A lot of players are just jonesing for the Assassin death attack.

 

[FireLance]

Well, my view is, an assassin is evil not because he kills, but because of why, who and how he kills:

1. Why - because he's paid. Not to serve the greater good. Not to prevent greater bloodshed. Not in self-defense or in the defence of others. Consider the entry requirement to kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

2. Who - anyone. Not only evil creatures. Not just monsters. No exceptions for women, children, the elderly, whatever.

3. How - preferably, when the target is helpless or unprepared. No challege. No warning. No chance to fight back. (Note: I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion on honor. Let's just accept that to me, killing a creature in this manner is somehow "less good" than in a challenge, duel, or other fair fight).

No doubt, a DM can create a group of "principled" assassins who kill for reasons other than profit, only accept certain contracts, and give some kind of warning to their targets. I am only speaking of assassins as I understand them to be presented in the DMG PrC.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Ah, the old Bond 007 question. Which is the age old question; does the ends justify the means? Is the hand-of-one, the hand-of-all?

This is going to get heated.

I tend to think the assassin is misunderstood, my soapbox is to define good and evil in your game. Assassins (in my game) while performing an evil act (cold blooded murder) are protected from the taint of evil by their god, they perform a service, taking the action onto themselves leaving the one-who-hired-the assassin free of sin.

 

[Angcuru]

My position is that the fundamental basis of an assassin is being a (mostly) stealthy killer, and from there you branch out into different ethical stances. An assassin could be a mafia hitman, marine scout sniper, hashishan, vigilante, the list goes on. They are not necessarily D&D Evil, but are quite capable of being so. As well, I don't think the use of poison is necessarily evil. You are simply choosing to say, poison a drink instead of stabbing the guy in the neck, or poisoning the blade so that if by chance the stab doesn't kill him, he's gonna die anyway. Now, if one were to use a poison that causes excruciating pain just because it's funny, THAT's evil.

An assassin privately hired by a woman to kill her rich husband so she can get his money would be evil, as would the assassin who is part of a militant sect and kills a benevolent leader so his boss can take over. An assassin who on his own goes out and kills a Ted Bundee-like figure once the guy's gotten off the hook on a technicality would be good, as would the military sniper who takes out an evil dictator a' la Hitler.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

This may be more of an alignment question

This may be more of an argument of how evil is defined. If we have an assassin that is a killer only when he is hired to be, but is otherwise a decent person, is he evil. In fact, when Vlad Taltos was statted for 2nd edition his alignment was listed as Lawful Neutral (some Dragon article I would have to look up), I could see many assassins that would be under that banner. True, dedicated assassins (much like Michael Moorcock's Blue Assassins who were foes of Chaos) can be whatever alignment their belief systems require them to be. Except for the entrance requirement I would have more problems with a Chaotic assassin than a nonevil one, because the class is about honoring contracts and would probably change the alignment requirements to nongood, nonchaotic (and give them back their spellbooks, damn it, they are all about being prepared for a job, not about natural spellcasting talent).

 

[Dogbrain]

Historical note: When Assassins were first introduced, they got the middle alignment (Neutral) (back when there were only three alignments). Make of that what you will.

"Neutral" meaning "not lawful, not chaotic".

 

[Mr. Kaze]

"No, a psychopath kills people for no reason. I kill people for money. That didn't come out right." -- Martin Blank, Grosse Point Blank

Assassins who just take jobs are certainly evil in the "I care more about my personal ends more than any moral standard I might pretend to have" kind of way. And if you have an assassins' guild that assigns the initiates somebody to kill for no reason but to join the assassins as far as the PC knows, then the PC is necessarily evil as described above. (If it's a strict guild system, then assassins may be necessarily lawful, otherwise they may be necessarily non-lawful. Your call and your definition of lawful, too.)

However, Rule 0 says that you don't have to have an assassins' guild imposing all of this -- and if your PCs can level up while on the road, it probably doesn't make sense to have an assassins' guild dishing up class levels. So what I would do is this: Character can become an unguilded assassin of N, CN, NE or CE alignment with all class features except the poison use. If they join the guild by taking a guild assignment, they get taught how to use poison. And if the guild catches them doing freelance work, good luck to 'em.

::Kaze

 

[Grodd JoJoJo]

I think of the assassin as a nongood, yet possibly principled man of business. Has anyone seen "The Replacement Killers" or any of Chow Yun-Fat's Hong Kong films? Those characters are likely neutral, but certainly not evil.

BTW, I prefer the FFG assassin core class from "City Works"; I've never liked the automatic assumption that an assassin has spells.