Good assassins?

[Bagpuss]

Still not convinced...

A mercenary kills for money.
A duelist kills for money.

Agreed and unless he was very particular about the contracts he took I wouldn't allow a good mercenary. I wouldn't allow a good duelist either unless they only dueled on matters of honor and not for cash. And in both cases the person they kill is also attempting to kill them.

A soldier kills for money.

Disagree a soldier is payed to either defend his nation or to fight war for his nation, and a good or neutral one would only kill where needed to fulfill those objectives. Sure you can have evil soldier or mecenaries that loot and murder but that isn't required for the job.

A bounty hunter captures or kills for money.

A bounty hunter only captures or kills those people that have already committed crimes. The people he hunts would not be in the situation if they had not taken unlawful actions to make them a criminal.

An assassin kills for money.

A assassin will kill a noble king, or a charitable priest for money, none other people you mentioned above would do such an act for money. Oh and an assassin would probably much prefer to kill them in their sleep, less chance of a fair fight the better, all the others are much more likely to come across their foe on equal terms, and in all the other cases the person they kill is partly responsible for being at the end of their sword, unlike an assassin where his foe can be completely innocent.

 

[rounser]

Disagree a soldier is payed to either defend his nation or to fight war for his nation, and a good or neutral one would only kill where needed to fulfill those objectives.

I would have thought that true soldiery doesn't involve such discretion, but rather, simply obeying orders. If those orders involve seeking out and killing an enemy, then that's what a soldier would do unless he's unprofessional, and therefore by definition not really a soldier, no?

This relates back to the "an assassin who doesn't kill isn't really an assassin" argument on the other page, I think - similarly, a soldier who doesn't obey orders might not really be considered a soldier.

 

[Bagpuss]

Depends on the order. I doubt any soldiers of a Good alignment would follow an order to massacre the unarmed women and children of a village, where as a Neutral one might if his own life depended on it and an Evil one would perhaps without a second thought.

 

[Mark Chance]

By the rules. There are no good or neutral assassins in D&D, only evil ones. It's just that simple.

By core rules, there are no good or neutral PrC assassins. This does not preclude the possibility of good or neutral characters engaging in an act of assassination.

Move beyond the core rules and there are good or neutral PrCs that engage in acts of assassination. I wrote one for Path of Shadow, for example.

 

[rounser]

I doubt any soldiers of a Good alignment would follow an order to massacre the unarmed women and children of a village, where as a Neutral one might if his own life depended on it and an Evil one would perhaps without a second thought.

Just as an assassin might refuse certain contracts, waiting only for opportunities to retire evil targets, who in his view, deserve death?

Is it non-good for such an assassin to do a Judge Dredd, and act as judge, jury and executioner by deciding to accept a contract on an evildoer? Or can good only be done in a reactionary manner, waiting until the village is burnt and the innocents dead before sending in the cleaners?

 

[Bagpuss]

Just as an assassin might refuse certain contracts, waiting only for opportunities to retire evil targets, who in his view, deserve death?

If he was good and they did deserve death why wait around to be paid to kill them? Why not go out and kill them without need of reward, like perhaps a Paladin might?

Surely the fact you need financial incentive to get off your bottom and fight evil means you arn't good? If you were good you would fight evil without the need for a reward.

 

[rounser]

Surely the fact you need financial incentive to get off your bottom and fight evil means you arn't good? If you were good you would fight evil without the need for a reward.

Even good people need to fund expeditions. A good adventurer might accept payment for helping the village; a hero might refuse it. This is usually very easy for adventurers to do because they're often flush with wealth already, so in many cases perhaps it isn't really the selfless act it may seem.

 

[Mark Chance]

Surely the fact you need financial incentive to get off your bottom and fight evil means you arn't good? If you were good you would fight evil without the need for a reward.

To elaborate on rounser's post: I'm a middle school teacher. I love teaching. I love my students. I need financial incentive to get off my bottom and fight evil. I don't work for free.

 

[Bagpuss]

Even good people need to fund expeditions. A good adventurer might accept payment for helping the village; a hero might refuse it. This is usually very easy for adventurers to do because they're often flush with wealth already, so in many cases perhaps it isn't really the selfless act it may seem.

So this imaginary good assassin, sits on his bum all day, waiting for someone to offer him a contract for someone he is sure is evil, then he demands a fee to fund his assassination, and provide food and shelter for him until the next contract that he is willing to except?

So assuming this 'good-assassin' doesn't stave to death while waiting for a contract he can except, what does he do about the contracts he can't except? He now knows that someone wants to assassinated a good (or at least half-decent) man or woman, does he as a Good aligned character stand idlely by while the chap takes the contract to another Evil aligned assassin? That's not very good of him.

Does he pray to his God that the next person through the door will have a contract on the person who was in earlier, or at least the assassin he's hired to kill the local LG cleric.

If he does do something about it how long do you think it will be before the next idiot is daft enough to offer him a contract?

Any Good Assassin would be an out of work assassin.

 

[Mark Chance]

Any Good Assassin would be an out of work assassin.

All generalizations are ultimately false.

As I've already mentioned at least twice, I designed for Path of Shadow the ossorus, an assassin-like PrC the alignment requirement of which is to be either lawful neutral, lawful good, or neutral good. The same book also contains the royal assassin, which can be of any non-evil alignment.

I also have a home-brew 20 level core class in my campaign which is assassin-like and must be either lawful good or neutral good called the shadowrunner. One of my players has been running this class for a while now, and things are going well. Here's some fluff text from the shadowrunner:

The unending war between light and darkness requires soldiers. For a soldier to fight his enemy effectively, he must know his enemy's strengths and weaknesses. To learn those strengths and weaknesses, he relies on spies. When that spy is in the service of light, she is sometimes a shadowrunner. Shadowrunners train their bodies and minds for action in enemy territory, moving in cognito among the very evil they oppose on missions of intelligence, sabotage, theft, and even assassination. Her talents encompass both the magical and martial.

Obviously, it is not only possible for a campaign to include non-evil assassin-like characters; it is also a fact that some campaigns do just that.