Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NoOneofConsequence" data-source="post: 1038854" data-attributes="member: 5400">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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification