Why are these evil?!?

[silvertable81]

Why are some of these things considered evil?

The spell Death Knell. A creature below 0hp is killed and you get a boost of energy. It's O.K. to bash its head with a hammer, but to gain benefit from its death is evil?!?

Assassins, besides having to kill just to join the guild, You also MUST be evil. A good (really good) Bluff check would give you the "kill" you need. And the authorities never even found the body. wink wink nudge nudge.

There are other things that I personally don't view to be evil, but can't get them off the top o' me head.

 

[Oni]

While I agree with you for the most part, that isn't the angle the game is approaching it from. Deathknell isn't evil because your killing someone, it's about how your killing someone, the source of the power. Animate dead is evil because of the forces involved. Fireball isn't evil because it's roots are not evil. In ways I think it is silly, but it is consistant with the moral absolutes common to the game, in short it's a flavor thing.

 

[kengar]

Oni has got the right idea. I would also add one thing on the subject of Assassins. Assassins are evil not just because of what they do (Kill people) but why (for personal gain). Now, people will argue that if a CG Fighter can go out, kill a bandit or whatever, and loot the body without being evil, what's the difference?

The difference is that the CG fighter isn't going out looking to kill people, he is -however- prepared to fight if necessary. The "active disregard" for life that the assassin has is what makes them evil. They simply don't care that someone else dies to make them a profit. In fact, they look forward to getting their next target so as to profit further. It's that difference in attitude that makes one evil and the other not.

At least, IMHO

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

I agree with Oni.

Your Campaign May Vary, but negative energy spells are generally considered Evil in my campaign. But then I've tried to divide personal alignment from cosmological/planar alignment. (Detect Evil, for instance, detects objects and creatures associated with Cosmological Evil (Evil Clerics, Evil Outsiders, Evil Magic Items), not necessarily creatures that are Personally Evil (Evil Barkeep)).

It's a vain attempt to bring some order to the mess that IMHO is Alignment in D&D: It's several things at once, at that's what makes it complicated, when in reality it should be the easiest part of the game.

IMC Assassins would have to be Personally Evil because they tap into Cosmological Evil energy. Likewise Paladins would have to be Personally Good. Thus it isn't about the tools or the special skills of the Paladin or the Assassin that makes them restricted alignment-wise but the source of their powers. And thus if they stray from this alignment they lose their powers.

It may be not make complete sense, but to me at least, it is In Game explanaition enough why the Barbarian suddenly loses the skills and powers he've had for most his life just because his outlook on the world changes.

Meta Game the whole Barbarian is Chaotic, Death Knell is Evil is to adhere to narrative of the genre.

 

[Sixchan]

I think it depends on how you look at things. Assassins could be said to be neutral because they don't have to look forward to the next kill, just as I don't look forward to the next to the next block of forms dumped on my desk for me to type up. Even though I don't enjoy doing my job, I do it because I'm good at it, and I get paid for it. You could argue that an Assassin is just doing a job. and getting paid for it.

Another comparison would be of the sort the NRA uses. If you use a gun to kill someone, the use of the gun may have resulted in the person's death, but it is you that is evil, the gun is neutral. Just replace gun with assassin.

 

[El Seso]

I disagree with the alignment restriction on assasins, too.
They didn't have that in 2e, did they? I played an assasin once that was working for and had very strong ties to his country.
He didn't think he was evil; on the contrary, what he was doing was for the good of his country. Taking out mob bosses, invaders that threatened the crown, etc.

 

[Mordane76]

This is why I like the idea of the assassin without spells. If the assassin is simply a highly trained individual whose job is to kill people, he can be neutral -- the people paying for the service are evil, the assassin is just a tool; it's exactly the same thing as hiring adventurers to slay orc raiders. We can argue the semantics of the moral absolute that killing orcs is okay because they're evil, but even the MM says that not all creatures of a given species are automatically evil. Those orcs could be neutral settlers that the townspeople just want run off. A neutral assassin could even refuse jobs because of his outlook.


Death Knell, however... I have to agree should be evil. I actually used this spell once as a lawful neutral fighter/cleric/necromancer, and the rush of power made me, the player, feel kinda bad after I'd thought about it -- the situation involved a fight in which a powerful illusionist used spells to conjure up enemies from individual party members' minds for us to fight, and once we broke through the illusions, I was NOT happy. After a very brutal fight, I took the bleeding carcass by the neck (it was a gnome illusionist) and drew the power from him, telling him that his spirit would pass to my god (god of the dead) once I had used his energies to replenish my own. It was a moment of angry for the character, and the spell was used as a punishment for my enemy. It kinda shocked the rest of the party...

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

I disagree with the alignment restriction on assasins, too.
They didn't have that in 2e, did they? I played an assasin once that was working for and had very strong ties to his country.
He didn't think he was evil; on the contrary, what he was doing was for the good of his country. Taking out mob bosses, invaders that threatened the crown, etc.

IIRC Assassins had to be evil in 1E as well. (There were no core 2E Assassin Class).

You can be an assassin all you like and be all kinds of different alignments, but if you want to be an Assassin, you have to be Evil. The powers of the Assassin aren't just tools or skills: They are inherently Evil. You cannot compare them to a rifle or to martial arts.

This is where D&D alignment gets confusing: You must seperate the notion of Alignment as decided by your motives (your personal alignment) from Alignment as cosmological forces that you gate in in the form of the power you use (the "cosmological" alignment).

So if you want to play a "patriotic assassin" character like the one you describe above, go ahead - just don't use the Assassin Prestige Class. Or accept that even though you do it for the right reasons, you're still Evil, because you use Evil powers.

Evil in D&D isn't just something you discuss rhetorically (Is killing orcs evil? blablabla ) It's a very real and material force that has an effect on the world.

 

[noretoc]

evil

Sorry, but in my opinion assasination is evil. It isn't the fact of the kiling, it is the willingness to do it. When a good person kills an evil creature, it is good, (It is getting rid of evil). It is not the killing. When a good person kills a neutral or good person, he feels bad, even if it was self defense. When an evil person kills anyone, they don't feel remorse. That morality part. In the movies gross pointe blank cusack said it. "They found I fit a certain 'moral flexibility'" an assasin can love his country, but that is just loyalty, not goodness. If you were good, and and killed only evil people, I would not concider that an assasin. MAybe a new class, an evil hunter... But I would think any good society or good person would not use killing as a first solutions every time. It would be a last resort, and thus not fit in with the assasin class.

 

[Mordane76]

Re: evil

Sorry, but in my opinion assasination is evil. It isn't the fact of the kiling, it is the willingness to do it. When a good person kills an evil creature, it is good, (It is getting rid of evil). It is not the killing. When a good person kills a neutral or good person, he feels bad, even if it was self defense... In the movies gross pointe blank cusack said it. "They found I fit a certain 'moral flexibility'"...

I'll agree -- the D&D Assassin PrC is evil; it uses evil spells. Now, if there were a non-spellcasting assassin class (core or PrC)...

Your statements cover good and evil alignments? What about neutral alignments? Why couldn't an assassin be straight neutral? Does not neutrality "fit a certain 'moral flexibility'?"