Good assassins?

[NoOneofConsequence]

@Mark Chance: The Shadowrunners which you describe from your campaign setting are, by your description, not assassins, but special forces operatives or guerilla fighters who sometimes conduct assassinations. An assassin commits assassinations as a matter of course in the normal execution of daily business - not sometimes, always.

Also, while I'm sure your military training readied you for the fact that you would be required to kill your enemy, I will bet cash money that this was in the context of battle or similar offensive actions (eg. counter insurgency, patrol etc). I'll bet you weren't trained to summarily execute prisoners, the wounded, civilians etc. An assassin draws no line of distinction between the woman with her child, fleeing the conflict and the enemy soldier with a gun. The target is slain, regardless of who or when or where.

One small historical note, for the majority of history, soldiers did not kill each other very much at all (as opposed to wounding or capturing). Frex historians estimate that the majority of shots fired in the US civil war not only missed, but were deliberately fired wide (or over the enemies heads). Deliberately training a soldier to kill (rather than simply stand and fire) is an unusual feature for pre-modern militaries.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Everyone,

I'm sure this debate has raged many times before and will rage many times in the future.
For the moment though, a little research and my two cents:

Assassin
- One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person.
- A member of a secret order of Muslims who terrorized and killed Christian Crusaders and others.

Word History:
At first glance, one would be hard-pressed to find a link between pleasure and the acts of assassins. Such was not the case, however, with those who gave us the word assassin. They were members of a secret Islamic order originating in the 11th century who believed it was a religious duty to harass and murder their enemies. The most important members of the order were those who actually did the killing. Having been promised paradise in return for dying in action, the killers, it is said, were made to yearn for paradise by being given a life of pleasure that included the use of hashish. From this came the name for the secret order as a whole, an, “hashish users.” After passing through French or Italian, the word came into English and is recorded in 1603 with reference to the Muslim Assassins.

Hashishin one who has drunk of the hashish. Under its influence the Assassins of the East, followers of the Shaikh al-Jabal (Old Man of the Mountain), were said to commit the murders required by their chief.

- One who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault; one who treacherously murders any one unprepared for defense.

- A hired murderer.

Etymology:
Medieval Latin assassinus, from Arabic hashshAshIn, plural of hashshAsh one who smokes or chews hashish, from hashIsh hashish
Date: circa 1520
- capitalized : one of a secret order of Muslims that at the time of the Crusades terrorized Christians and other enemies by secret murder committed under the influence of hashish.
- : a person who commits murder; especially : one who murders a politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives .

My two cents:
I know it's pretty lame going to dictionaries and word histories but I thought I'd have a bit of a look anyway. My reasoning is that the word "Assassin" has so many connotations attached to it that the denotative aspect of the word tends to get lost - the beauty of our language (seriously, I think this is a good thing).
However, by having a look at the above, our assassin can fall into two categories:

1) The Religious Zealot - with or without the bong.
2) The Secretive Killer for Hire.

1) The Zealot is effectively following the orders of his superiors. His or her mission is simply to kill the target. In terms of the D&D alignment system - which does have flaws - this would indicate an extreme Lawful alignment. The question becomes though: good, neutral or evil?

Evil - not a problem.

Neutral - most likely not a problem. They kill because they have been ordered to. They most probably don't enjoy the killing aspect of it although a certain level of satisfaction and having done a job well may exist.

Good - this is the question. Someone who is good will not want to just kill anyone. They will want to have a clear understanding of the "whys" of the case. If they implicitly trusted the goodness of a superior who has instructed them to do this act, they might be convinced that it is a "good" act. However, it is along this path where the reasoning and thinking have been omitted that the "good" character will slip into a different alignment. Good people will try to exhaust alternatives before arriving at the conclusion to simply "extinguish" the life of someone who may be turned away from evil instead. It is a very grey area and only those of the most lawful nature would do this at the expense of an equal level of goodness. Someone who perfects the killing of others even for a good cause perhaps focuses too much on killing and not enough on alternative solutions. A truly good leader will leave the discretion up to the "Assassin" and more than likely order the offender in alive rather than dead. As such, the "Assassin" is no longer an Assassin; just a marshall for the "Law".

2) The Secretive Killer for Hire is making a choice based upon money before other options. For example, let's say a Good assassin of this description existed - which personally I don't think it can. He gets offered two contracts, one for 10,000gp and the other for a good dinner. The first is from a merchant who needs to off an evil competitor. The second is from a village who has been terrorised by a vile murderer and wants the murderer killed. One would assume that an "assassin" would go for the larger contract and then the other one - but maybe not considering risk vs. reward.

However, following the initial assumption that the assassin is good, we could most probably assume that they would ignore the money issue and gun for the greater evil - which may be the merchant; who knows? However, the fact remains that the "good assassin" will kill or try to kill the offender. No choice, they've been hired to kill and so they must. A good character will never pre-meditate murder while alternative actions have not been considered. For example, the vile murderer may be arrested and imprisoned and maybe one day as they contemplate their life and the lives of others, they may repent and change from their former ways. The important factor in this for a truly good character is the removal of the threat. The whole point of assassination is to kill. If you are hired to do this, then you are nothing more than the knife of someone else's will. This lack of conscience is certainly more the province of the evil character and possibly the neutral but I would hazard to say never the good!

In conclusion
I suppose this means that assassins come in a variety of flavours. Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil for the Zealot and some level of Neutrality, Chaos and Evil for the hired Killer. I don't think an assassin can ever be good but there is room for a neutrally aligned assassin which has not been allowed in the rules - most likley for game balance reasons.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[CCamfield]

Any Good Assassin would be an out of work assassin.

A good, unimaginative assassin might be out of work. A job offered that they cannot accept might be possible to turn to their advantage. They could indeed warn the target (possibly getting a reward, or a job protecting the target). They might have a policy stating that they must be paid half in advance, and if they determine the target to be undeserving of death, that deposit is forfeit and they will act as they see fit. A consultation fee could also be levied for totally rejected jobs.

Protection jobs could be good, steady work. Like reformed modern-day hackers, they also could offer their services to test the security of a castle or other location.

Your post also assumes that the good assassin works alone. If part of an organization, or in the employ of a noble or king, they will be cared for, kept in reserve until needed. This might include a "cover" position in court that functions as a regular day job.

 

[Sejs]

Hmmm. James Bond, 007, licensed to kill. Assassin? Evil?

And chosen for Her Majesty's Secret Service because of his skill as a sniper, no less. As presented, James Bond would be closest to Lawful Neutral. He doesn't step on his colegue's backs when it would serve his ends and he can get away with it, but likewise, he's not out voulenteering at soup kitchens. He does his job; it just so happens that his job is in the Saving the World, Thwarting the Bad Guy and Getting the Girl buisness. ^_^
~~

Point one - if the character wants only to "kill" the evil overlord, as opposed to overthrowing his evil regime, then the character is pushing their luck claiming to be good. Good is not choosing killing when other choices are possible.

The act of killing in and of itself is a Neutral act. Ending the life of another being is neither inherrently good, or inherrently evil. Anyone who says that all killing is evil, period can go take a flying leap - by their own logic, if they have ever eatten any food ever, preiod, they are indirectly involved with the ending of life and are by their own definition evil. Kill a deer for food and clothing and you're not evil; a bear fishing in a stream isn't evil.

Killing is neutral. It's the motivations behind why a killing took place that makes it good or evil.

Point two - Soldiers are trained to fight, not to kill. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. It's entirely possible for a soldier to go through a whole war, fighting in many battles, and never actually kill someone.

Soldiers are trained to kill. In a war a soldier is not trained, if charged by an enemy man brandishing a sword, to beat the man into unconsciousness and then leave him free to think better of his act. He is trained to, as stated above, give that man the chance to die for his country.
~~

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.

Being of good or neutral alignment doesn't make you into Florence Nightengale, delivering the touch of mercy to the sticken. I can be a good or neutral soldier in a war, and I can kill the other guy. I can even take pride in my killing of the other guy, and not have my alignment threatened. And hell, get this - I can be of a good alignment and kill the other side's men, who themselves are also of good alignment, and neither of us would stop being good.

^_^

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

The act of killing in and of itself is a Neutral act. Ending the life of another being is neither inherrently good, or inherrently evil. Anyone who says that all killing is evil, period can go take a flying leap - by their own logic, if they have ever eatten any food ever, preiod, they are indirectly involved with the ending of life and are by their own definition evil. Kill a deer for food and clothing and you're not evil; a bear fishing in a stream isn't evil.

Killing is neutral. It's the motivations behind why a killing took place that makes it good or evil.

I take it you don't believe in the sanctity of human life?

Soldiers are trained to kill. In a war a soldier is not trained, if charged by an enemy man brandishing a sword, to beat the man into unconsciousness and then leave him free to think better of his act. He is trained to, as stated above, give that man the chance to die for his country.
~~

Exactly my point - a soldier gives the enemy the "chance to die for his country". An assassin kills outright, no chance, no motivation required on the part of the target.

Being of good or neutral alignment doesn't make you into Florence Nightengale, delivering the touch of mercy to the sticken. I can be a good or neutral soldier in a war, and I can kill the other guy. I can even take pride in my killing of the other guy, and not have my alignment threatened. And hell, get this - I can be of a good alignment and kill the other side's men, who themselves are also of good alignment, and neither of us would stop being good.

^_^

You state this as though it were fact - explain how you can kill, take pride in killing, and then stay good? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

To me, this argument always seems to come down to strict definitions versus broad interpretations.

In other words, do you see the word assassin and read "person who kills for money", or do you see the word assassin and read "person focused on the silent kill".

In my experience, the people asking whether an assassin can be good are using the broad interpretation of the word. I've got no problem with that, personally. D&D is all about broad archetypes, and stripped of it's flavor text, the assassin PrC is nothing but a set of numbers and abilities which combine to make a very efficient killing machine, albeit of a different sort than the Barbarian or Arcane Archer or Weapon Master.

In a typical D&D world, filled as it is with evil priests and demons and devils and dragons and immortal liches and vampires and assorted other always Evil beastie-bugaboos, I have no problem envisioning an implacable, stealthy Good aligned slayer of absolute Evil. He's got all the skills of an assassin - no fortress is barred to him, and he has studied his foes so carefully that he can slay with a single blow - but he's proactive, killing not for money, but because he knows that demons and devils and the undead can never, ever be redeemed, only destroyed.

In that context, yes, an "assassin" can be Good.

Patrick Y.

 

[Sejs]

I take it you don't believe in the sanctity of human life?

Absolute sanctity, no. Absolutes are for vodka and internet discussions. The way I look at it is like this - a man is walking down the street with a nice briefcase, you think to yourself "hey, he probably has alot of money" - you grab said man, drag him into an alley way, and kill him. This is evil. It's evil because of your motivations behind the act.

Other face of the coin - there's some guy stalking the area that's been kidnapping and murdering little kids. His face is all over the news, but he's a slippery bugger and has eluded the police. For the purpose of this example, there is no question into this person's guilt - maybe he makes tapes of himself doing it or something. You happen across him in an alleyway, as he's pulling himself off the corpse of a young boy. You call out "Hey!", rush at him, a fight ensues and you kill him. Intentionally. This is good. It's not a lawful act, mind you, as you took justice into your own hands, but it's good none the less.

Exactly my point - a soldier gives the enemy the "chance to die for his country". An assassin kills outright, no chance, no motivation required on the part of the target.

Aah, gotcha. Okay. I think we actually agree with one another then, but just were at crossed points. Happens, heh.

You state this as though it were fact - explain how you can kill, take pride in killing, and then stay good? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

An example, sure. You're part of a detail assigned to guard a supply train going between the front lines and rear command during a war. The caravan is also carrying some wounded, and the latest intelligence from the front, all very important stuff. You're attacked by a group of enemy soldiers, whom in the ensuing battle, you kill to a man. No quarter asked, none given on either side. Checking the aftermath, you find that none of your men are significantly injured, none of the materials were captured, and maybe through some neat tactic, or just plain luck, your side did very very well. You take pride in you and yours' performance in the conflict and continue on your way. You have killed, taken pride in your perfomance of killing, and are essentially no less evil than how you started out as.

Another example could be, later in the same war, your side moves to capture an enemy crossroads and the fort town that sits astride it. During the attack, men on both sides are killed, but more them than you, and civilian casualties are totally non-existant. Very good for an urban conflict, where according to reports, the fighting could have easily gotten very messy with the town's populace getting involved. But it didn't. You take pride in a job well done - the objective has been secured, and while people died, none of those who fell were non-combatants. You've killed, taken pride in your performance of killing, and don't sway toward evil.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

An example, sure. You're part of a detail assigned to guard a supply train going between the front lines and rear command during a war. The caravan is also carrying some wounded, and the latest intelligence from the front, all very important stuff. You're attacked by a group of enemy soldiers, whom in the ensuing battle, you kill to a man. No quarter asked, none given on either side. Checking the aftermath, you find that none of your men are significantly injured, none of the materials were captured, and maybe through some neat tactic, or just plain luck, your side did very very well. You take pride in you and yours' performance in the conflict and continue on your way. You have killed, taken pride in your perfomance of killing, and are essentially no less evil than how you started out as.

Another example could be, later in the same war, your side moves to capture an enemy crossroads and the fort town that sits astride it. During the attack, men on both sides are killed, but more them than you, and civilian casualties are totally non-existant. Very good for an urban conflict, where according to reports, the fighting could have easily gotten very messy with the town's populace getting involved. But it didn't. You take pride in a job well done - the objective has been secured, and while people died, none of those who fell were non-combatants. You've killed, taken pride in your performance of killing, and don't sway toward evil.

I would contend that it's not the killing that these examples show pride in, but the success. In the two instances above, you show individuals taking pride in victory, a part of which involved killing. You don't show someone taking pride in "killing", which was your inital assertion.

Personally, I think the most important refutation I would offer is the point that in these instances, as with all just war (if there can be such a thing), killing is the outcome, not the aim.

 

[DM_Matt]

What is wrong with using the exact mechanics of the assassin class (minus the evil prerex) to build a special forces-type guy? they have the same skills, after all. Just change the name and the prerex.

 

[Bagpuss]

A good, unimaginative assassin might be out of work. A job offered that they cannot accept might be possible to turn to their advantage. They could indeed warn the target (possibly getting a reward, or a job protecting the target).

If they warn targets then they won't get any business, if they protect targets then they are a bodyguard and not an assassin and also won't get anyone asking for their help in future.

They might have a policy stating that they must be paid half in advance, and if they determine the target to be undeserving of death, that deposit is forfeit and they will act as they see fit. A consultation fee could also be levied for totally rejected jobs.

So the levie a fee and then let the contract go off to an evil assassin? They collect their money and let a innocent person die does that sound like good behaviour?

Protection jobs could be good, steady work. Like reformed modern-day hackers, they also could offer their services to test the security of a castle or other location.

If they are doing Protections jobs they aren't an assassin they are a bodyguard! Perhaps they might do better being a Devoted Defender?