Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 482771" data-attributes="member: 2486">Hmm...The good mayor turned to the noble characters and explained to them the threat of the necromancer.&nbsp; He carefully told them that to preserve the village under his protection, the PCs would need to slay the vile necromancer before he could raise his army of undead.&nbsp; As an added incentive, he was more than willing to give each of the valiant heroes 1000 gold pieces each.So...going out and killing someone for money is not evil.Yet as soon as you place the word 'assassin' on it, it is?&nbsp; It seems that it's not the act which is evil, but the semantics.Personally, I can see non-evil, and even good assassins.&nbsp; Assassination is a last resort for most good characters (I hope), but it seems that in DnD it is not the act but the context which counts.&nbsp; In the context of defeating evil, 'assassination' is perceived as a good thing (by most characters)- but it cannot be called as such.&nbsp; Why not have a 'good' (or non-evil) assassin working for a good-aligned group to get rid of evil foes.&nbsp; I hate real-world examples to illustrate a fantasy argument, but if one were to assassinate Saddam Hussein, I would hardly call that evil.&nbsp; Since it is the context, not the action (and certainly not the terminology) which counts, I have no problem with non-evil assassins.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Al, post: 482771, member: 2486"] Hmm... The good mayor turned to the noble characters and explained to them the threat of the necromancer. He carefully told them that to preserve the village under his protection, the PCs would need to slay the vile necromancer before he could raise his army of undead. As an added incentive, he was more than willing to give each of the valiant heroes 1000 gold pieces each. So...going out and killing someone for money is not evil. Yet as soon as you place the word 'assassin' on it, it is? It seems that it's not the act which is evil, but the semantics. Personally, I can see non-evil, and even good assassins. Assassination is a last resort for most good characters (I hope), but it seems that in DnD it is not the act but the context which counts. In the context of defeating evil, 'assassination' is perceived as a good thing (by most characters)- but it cannot be called as such. Why not have a 'good' (or non-evil) assassin working for a good-aligned group to get rid of evil foes. I hate real-world examples to illustrate a fantasy argument, but if one were to assassinate Saddam Hussein, I would hardly call that evil. Since it is the context, not the action (and certainly not the terminology) which counts, I have no problem with non-evil assassins. [/QUOTE]

Verification