Assassins: Just Plain Evil or Misunderstood?

[Felix]

If the guy wants to go around being an assassin, then let him... I'm sure he (using Gather Info and Bardic Knowledge) can find folks who want hits done.

But if he wants to take levels in Assassin, then remind him that he must be [Evil] and must perform a hit for the evilness of it.

Does the guy want the class levels of the Assassin PrC, or does he just want to do that job... there is a big difference you know.

 

[Sejs]

Part of what gets my goat is that there's no option for a neutral assassin. You've got your evil DMG assassins, your good exalted assassins... but no middle ground.

There's a number of kinda-assassin prcs out there that may be an option for the bard in question, though. Ninja Spy, Bloodhound, Black Flame Zelot (though I think that requires divine spells..), Teflammar Shadowlord, couple others.

 

[Corinth]

Intention drives this question. If a Neutral character were to perform assassinations as part of an intention to protect himself and his family from external dangers, but not for reasons of protecting the general welfare or for the promotion of posterity, then he could be considered Neutral. He doesn't kill indiscriminately, but neither does he go outside the needs of himself or his kinfolk. A tribal champion would fit this archetype, given a suitably disinterested tribe.

 

[morrigan]

Ismailis

Just a historical note here... the term originated from a sect of Islam known as the Ismailis. Yes they assasinated people but the thing to remember here is: they were doing what they thought was right based on their faith. They should not be considered "evil" any more than one would consider a Knight Templar or Knight Hospitaller evil.

 

[Dogbrain]

Just a historical note here... the term originated from a sect of Islam known as the Ismailis. Yes they assasinated people but the thing to remember here is: they were doing what they thought was right based on their faith. They should not be considered "evil" any more than one would consider a Knight Templar or Knight Hospitaller evil.

By that same bizarre sort of "reasoning", Adolph Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were not evil. Indeed, ANYBODY who can rationalize his acts, no matter how vile would not be evil.

 

[Dakkareth]

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.

Dito.

(as soon as I saw that thread title, I was thinking to myself - latest that someone's gonna mention that series is the 18th post - and I was right )

As for a constructive addition ... in Steven Erikson's 'Malazan Book of the Fallen' there are several different and fairly unique groups of assassins.

There's one guild in a big city, which is purely for hire, but actually serves as the valve, by which pressure can be relieved, so the political backstabbing (pun intended) doesn't turn into a all-out war, but is resolved cleanly and by professionals. They are lead by a great sorceress, who equips them with lots of magic items. In DnD terms they'd probably lawful evil, killing without regard for the individual.

Then there're several small, hand-picked groups of assassins serving the 'holy protectors', the rulers of a desert country one continent away. They are probably the most like the historical hashashin with the religious background. Alignment would be chaotic neutral fanatic by my estimation.

Finally there are the assassins of the Malazan Empire, the Claw. Trained intensively as much as mages as to be assassins, their abilities are rightly feared - in fact a rumour of an intervention can be enough to make rulers flee the city/whatever. The greatest among them take the fight to the gods opposing the Empire, for their loyalty is only to the empress. There also exist remnants of their predecessors, the Talon, who were serving the last emperor and even without any magic were defeated only by sheer numbers. In DnD terms both would be lawful neutral - serving a single cause with utter loyalty.

Well, there's one more group ... the Tiste Andii assassins are of an immortal, otherworldly race and as powerful as this implies. Fortunately they are too apathic, too bored by their countless millennia of existance, that they only ever get involved, when their ruler tries to alleviate this boredom by joining just another conflict between mortals just for the heck of it. These people are neutral bored.


As was stated by others before: being evil is just one facet of being an assassin. There are so many motivations and almost all can be served by sudden and convenient death of others ...

 

[dead]

You could remove alignment from your game. That might solve the problem.

The Assassin in "City Works" is a core class. It's BAB is as good as a fighter's but it can't cast spells. Another interesting note, the description of the Assassin's Death Attack in that book says an Assassin can only use this ability with a dagger -- not just any melee weapon.

 

[kamosa]

Assasins = evil

I think that the assasin class is evil, and probably should be evil. There really isn't a way to view taking money to kill someone as a profession as anything but evil. That is to say, I can't come up with a context where it is not a crime to accept payment for killing another human being that otherwise you wouldn't give two cents about, that I wouldn't consider it evil.

There is also a stigma with killing a specific targeted individual instead of the killing that just happens as a result of combat.

Take WWI for example. Lots of horrible stuff happened, trench warfare, chemical attacks, 24 hour barrages of heavy artillary, the worst of the worst of what we can do to eachother. What did they hate? The sniper. Why, because the sniper didn't fight you in battle. He targeted and killed a specific person, a concious act of murder, even in the barbaric trenches of WWI.

So, I would say being an assasin is kind of the same sort of deal, a targeted kill.

We glamorize assasins in movies and TV shows, so that makes it seem like it is less evil. After all, we would never LIKE something that was evil. But think about the stories where assasins are the main characters. Do they start out as good guys that just take money for killing, or do they start out as bad guys that go through a transformation in the movie that turns them into nonkillers?

 

[Gez]

The Assassins are just plain Evil.

The assassins are not necessarily, although they're still shady.

The Assassins are members of a sort of death-cult sect of killers, like the Thugs, the Hashishims, or the Ninja (with a stretch).

The assassins, are not necessarily.

The Assassin cast arcane spells.

The assassin, do not necessarily.

The Assassin has to make a gratuitous kill just to join the brotherhood.

The assassin has but to make a kill, gratuitous or not, to become an assassin.

The Assassin is a killer-for-hire. A killer-for-hire is not necessarily an Assassin.

The rogue who crawls up the walls, sneak in the window, and silently slit the throat of a sleeping victim is an assassin. But so is the fighter who waits for the victim in a dark alley, pull him in, and off him. And so is the witch that hex him with a fatal curse, or the wizard who put a fire rune trap on the victim's house's door. Or whatever other way you can imagine to make a targetted killing.

 

[Rel]

Why, because the sniper didn't fight you in battle. He targeted and killed a specific person, a concious act of murder, even in the barbaric trenches of WWI.

I think we need to be careful here and make sure we are not vilifying soldiers in war who happen to be using a long range weapon fired from stealth. I disagree that this is "a conscious act of murder". The soldier is killing an enemy who would kill him in turn if he had the chance. Better that he doesn't get that chance as far as the sniper is concerned. Such men are not murderers any more than the pilot of a stealth bomber dropping guided munitions on an enemy target are murderers. They are soldiers doing what soldiers do.

A key difference between a military sniper and an assassin is that the assassin is killing somebody who probably WOULDN'T harm him in turn if he had the chance. And I think it is that element that contributes to the Assassin being Evil.