Good assassins?

[Mark Chance]

@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.

Semantic quibble in order to set up a strawman (see below), plus see my comment about generalizations always being false.

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.

Again, see my comment about generalizations.

Aside from the generalization, you're using the word "assassin" as if it has only one meaning (namely, your preferred meaning used to make your point). You're basically redefining terms in order to set up a strawman.

An assassin, as has been pointed out, is "one who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person."

That's it. That's the definition. Everything else added to it (for example, an "assassin draws no line of distinction between the woman with her child, fleeing the conflict and the enemy soldier with a gun") is just that: Added to the definition. It is the straw stuffing in the man used to make the man stand up long enough to get knocked down.

Deliberately training a soldier to kill (rather than simply stand and fire) is an unusual feature for pre-modern militaries.

Nonsense. Those pre-modern soldiers trained to stand and fire weren't trained to fire at melons. They were trained to fire at enemy soldiers in order to kill them. That is, after all, what those little bullets are designed to do: kill.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Originally posted by NoOneofConsequence
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.

Semantic quibble in order to set up a strawman (see below), plus see my comment about generalizations always being false.

Are you saying that there is no gap between a person who performs a task and a professional for whom that task is a core activity? Is it a "semantic quibble" to say that just because I can drive a car, that doesn't make me a rally driver? This is the distinction I am trying to draw - it may be a fine distinction, but I disagree that it is merely semantic.

Again, see my comment about generalizations.

We are talking about an entire class (or prestige class) of individuals - by definition generalisations must come into play. If you wish me to avoid generalisations, we will need to pick a different topic of conversation.

Aside from the generalization, you're using the word "assassin" as if it has only one meaning (namely, your preferred meaning used to make your point). You're basically redefining terms in order to set up a strawman.

An assassin, as has been pointed out, is "one who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person."

That's it. That's the definition. Everything else added to it (for example, an "assassin draws no line of distinction between the woman with her child, fleeing the conflict and the enemy soldier with a gun") is just that: Added to the definition. It is the straw stuffing in the man used to make the man stand up long enough to get knocked down.

I was under the impression that we were discussing the assassin as a concept as it applies to character classes and prestige classes in D&D3e.

However, your baseline definition "one who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person" renders our discussion moot. The definition that you offer can equally be applied to a burglar caught in the act, the home owner in the same scenario, a battered wife who ambushes her husband et al. The definition is so broad as to almost accommodate all killers who do not engage in "honourable" combat. How can this be regarded as a character class or profession? Generalisations about such a large population are quite correctly seen as meaningless.

Straw man could equally be levelled at your arguement though I think a more honest appraisal is that we are arguing at cross purposes.

Nonsense. Those pre-modern soldiers trained to stand and fire weren't trained to fire at melons. They were trained to fire at enemy soldiers in order to kill them. That is, after all, what those little bullets are designed to do: kill.

This "nonsense" as you call it is a reputable theory of the science of murder and killing. I refer you to the works of LT. COL. DAVE GROSSMAN, U.S. Army (Ret.). Soldiers trained to shoot at watermelons are accurate shots, however they have no experience at shooting at humans. The target is no harder to hit technically, but psychologically there is a barrier that the human psyche resists. This is why after WWII, the US army switched from bullseyes to silhouettes. Shooting at silhouettes prepares a soldier psychologically for the act of shooting a real human in a way that melons and bullseyes do not. It's called operant conditioning.

I think we've strayed far enough from the topic now and am willing to "agree to disagree with you". In the interests of good forum ettiquette I won't be posting more on this subject - I hope you won't be offended.

 

[CCamfield]

If they warn targets then they won't get any business

And the logic behind this is...? If they have a reputation for being honest, reliable, trustworthy, capable of taking out troublesome bandit kings, crime lords, etc... why wouldn't they get business? I see you totallly cut out my suggestion that they could test defenses.

, 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.

There's a difference between a bodyguard and an assassin hunting other assassins from the shadows. Don't be a dope.

 

[med stud]

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.

If 25 % of the soldiers were killed in one battle it was an extremely high number. OTOH, much of it depended on the fact that the soldiers of the past often were mercenaries, who often signed contracts with the victorious ruler and fought for him instead. A soldier was a valuable resource for either side, as soldiers loyal to a cause were pretty uncommon in past days (up to early 18th century at least).

The civilians werent as valuable (in the short term), so the lootings, rapings and killings of civilians were often much more brutal. So from a historical perspective, good soldiers were even more rare.

To compare a medieval soldier with an US soldier (the most human soldiers of the last wars) of the 20th-21st century isnt really possible.