Assassins: Just Plain Evil or Misunderstood?

[kamosa]

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.

I'm not trying to pass judgment, just trying to pass on how soldiers felt about the snipers. There was something different about being a sniper and being just another soldier in the trench.

 

[Gez]

Yep. Safety. Relative safety, but safety nonetheless. Envy breeds contempt.

 

[Anax]

Thinking about it, I might say that an assassin who worked *purely* for money might fit as a neutral character--especially if the money wasn't the key motivator. (There is of course the issue of "a tough job, takes more effort, more time, etc., should cost more", though.) That is to say, accepted any job, regardless of what side wants it done. A good character would take jobs that are in the best interest of the world at large. An evil character would take jobs that further his personal goals in the end.

That's not quite enough of a division, though. The other issues are the means and the side-effects. An evil character wouldn't worry about involving other people in the job (by which I mean, killing them, wreaking havoc, etc.) A neutral character should probably aim to perform the job with the most possible finesse--only the target dies. Aside from the fact that there is now one more corpse (which may have a serious impact), nothing has changed.

For the means, we get to the Assassin PrC a little. Using [Evil] magic is something a neutral assassin would avoid. If poison use is considered evil in your campaign, that would be out as well. If it's not, then it's not a problem.


So here we have a recipe for a neutral assassin. An assassin that kills not for personal glorification, but because it's a job, and he performs that job well. Done with appropriate methods, without undue impact on anything but the target.

A good image of this would be the Assassin's Guild in C.J. Cherryh's Foreigner books. Not only would I say they are neutral, I'd say they're lawful neutral. In fact, they *are* the legal system in many ways. They perform their jobs without regard for the reason that their lord requires them to perform the job. If they are not employed by a lord, the general public can hire their services. (And part of "they *are* the legal system" comes in here--it's reasonable for them to turn down a job if they feel the cause isn't lawful.) The organization might be good in a way--it's part of the framework of society, and keeps civil order--but the individuals are neutral. (And the cause of the lord they might follow isn't totally relevant--atevi loyalty ("man'chi") is a biological imperative, not a conscious choice.)

Not a perfect analogue, because of the strange qualities of man'chi, but an interesting idea. Good books, too.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.
[...]

There was a time here in Germany (maybe 10-15 years ago? I can`t remember exactly, I was to young then), where some people said "Soldiers are murderers", and thus created a great discussion. I can`t remember the exact details, but my take on this: (Note: Though I was in the Military service, I just did it because it was the lesser of two evil - either military service or public service - for the latter I would have had to write a moral reasoning why I didn`t want to go there, I had to search for a job and had to work one month longer - it was lazyness, not moral conviction.):
Soldiers are murders. They kill people. It may be there jobs, maybe the have to do it to prevent other murders and rescue innocents, defend the law or whatever. But it doesn`t matter. In the end, they kill people, and killing people is wrong. A soldier doing it will probably recognize it on some level, and it is certainly not fair to him. But the Universe is not fair. And war isn`t fair. War is morally wrong - evil.
This doesn`t mean I wouldn`t kill someone in self defence, or if I would have to defend my country against invaders that want to oppress us, remove our rights, I wouldn`t try to fight them. But I would know that it was morally wrong, even if it seems justified and legally okay.

Well, but since this is quite a politic topic, I guess I (or we) should stop here. (Maybe it was already to much.)

---
But back to the Bard/wouldbeassassin.
Check the Song & Silence - maybe the Spymaster might also fit his interest.
I think it should be mostly compatible with D&D 3.5

 

[Rel]

I guess I (or we) should stop here. (Maybe it was already to much.)

I think that might be for the best.

 

[Grishnak]

I tend to see the Van Helsing in the new film (Not great) as an assassin working for the greater good (in the film), would he classify as evil for killing Werewolves, Vampires and Dr.Jackyl/Mr.Hyde? He kills for no other reason than his orders from the church which comes in line as defending the common person

 

[Asmor]

First and foremost, I think the Assassin PrC is evil. That's that. Anyone who kills primarily for money is evil. I define evil as putting one's own needs/wants above the welfare of others, especially others with whom one is not personally acquainted.

I would not say a soldier is a murderer. A murderer kills someone for personal reasons, whether revenge or just for kicks. A soldier kills because he must, and it is (or, at least, should be) something that haunts them. My step father, a Vietnam vet, feels absolutely horrible about the killing he had to do, but he had no choice. He did it out of duty and survival; duty to his country and survival because he was getting shot at too.

Anyone who kills for self-gain is evil. Even if they're, say, killing a corrupt king with the intention of taking his throne and bettering the lives of the people, he's still evil. If he intended instead to kill the king in hopes that whoever came next would not be as bad, that would be good.

 

[morrigan]

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.

Not so. I realize nobody, or almost nobody, thinks they are evil, Hitler and the others included but if you want to class the "historical" Assassins of Alamut as "evil" you must also therefore class the crusading Knights in the exactly the same way. In fact, by that reasoning, most medieval European rulers, including the Popes must also be classified as evil. If killing another, or even the mass killing of others is considered evil, what the heck were the Crusades not to mention the whole Inquisition.

This topic is precisely why the Alignment system in DnD should be retired. I MUCH prefer the whole idea of Allegiance, like in D20 Modern over the classic Alignments of DnD.

I've also seen the historic Assassins being described in this thread as some type of death-cult like the Thuggee. Before making those statements, I would encourage people to at least familiarize themselves with actual history and not the 700+ year old propaganda still rampant in our civilization.

 

[Kastil]

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.

This is when the DM can House Rule something. I've got a guild that does do killings for hire as long as there is a legitimate reason for it. Like the person is a child molester and the city guard won't touch him because of his station in the city etc. This guild will do the job. The only faction in the city that has morals, if you will.