Why are these evil?!?

[Elder-Basilisk]

Re: Re: evil

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'?"

Neutrality does indeed fit "a certain 'moral flexibility'" but that doesn't mean that if fits all 'moral flexibilities.' As far as basic D&D 3e goes, neutrality ceases to fit any 'moral flexibility' when that flexibility extends to killing innocents. See the PH description of alignments. Neutral characters have compunctions about killing. Anyone who doesn't isn't neutral; they're evil.

 

[Xarlen]

Well that's sort've silly that you have to 'bond with evil' just to learn how to effectively shoot someoen in the jugular.

How about some Non pact forming Assassin PrCs?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd be down for it. It's possible to use the abilities of the assassin without having the default accompanying wickedness.

But there's nothing really wrong with it as-is, either.

 

[Xarlen]

Except the spells. Well, to me, atleast.

Atleast, I could be cool with the spells, if they wern't done like a Wizard. I could think it would be cooler if it seemed like they were an extention of the assassin's skills.

Undetectable Alignment is from disguisng himself so well, reading 'Good' well enough to disguise that aura. Spiderclimb is simply knowing exactly Where to touch, to climb, without even thinking. Almost like a Sorceror. GIve it more of a cool flare then 'You get these spells'.

 

[gfunk]

Seems fairly clear cut to me.

DEATH KNELL

EXAMPLE 1

Evil orcs sack a town, killing many innocents and raping and pillaging in general. This attack was completely unprovoked and done merely for profit and pleasure.

A group of LG Paladins and Clerics finds the orc stronghold and kills them to the last man in retribution.

*NOT EVIL*

EXAMPLE 2

Evil orcs sack a town, killing many innocents and raping and pillaging in general. This attack was completely unprovoked and done merely for profit and pleasure.

A neutral Necromancer and his army of Undead attack the orc stronghold in retribution. Rather than killing the orcs through force of arms, the necromancer has his ghouls paralyze them and rounds them all up in a pen. One by one he takes them out and eviscerates them in a blood ritual to increase his arcane powers.

*EVIL*

----------------------------------

The assassin PrC in the DMG is evil b/c of the requirement of killing someone for the hell of it.

Can you make a PrC that is more akin to a modern day sniper or special forces solider? Yes. Does it have to be evil? No.

 

[Rhialto]

I'd have to say the Death Attack isn't inherantly evil--however the group that teaches it IS. Thus what we have here is a philosophical alignment matter, not a cosmic alignment matter...

As for Death Knell--the spell takes evil energy to function, and its very use has quite a few morally objective aspects. A spellcaster using it only in times of dire need might not change alignment, but continuous use is almost certain to start warping their mindset...

 

[silvertable81]

Another thing I think sould NOT be evil is a ranger (bounty hunter style) Taking his own race as a favored enemy.

Some good answers on the others thanks.

 

[Kichwas]

An assassin by definition sets out with the goal of intentionally murdering people for mercenary reasons.

By definition they are willing to kill innocents, and to kill those they are not engaged in conflict with.

That is pretty much one of the core points around which D&D defines evil:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil duty or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions agaist killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships. A neutral person may sacrifice himself to protect his family or even his homeland, but he would not do so for strangers who are not related to him (pg 88, Players Handbook).

The Death Knell spell seems to revolve around the issue of sacrifice. However I would have to read the spell to see how I saw it from there.

 

[jester47]

Death Knell is evil because you are killing when you are not in danger of being killed by that person (he is unconscious). Whatever he was doing, you have stopped him. There is no reason to do anymore harm.

Assassins are a bit trickier. An assassin does not consider the reason behind his kill. He does not question why the employer wants that person dead. He just goes and does it, whather the person is doing somthing right or wrong or nothing at all.

The answer to why these are both evil is where they both cross over. Death Knell is evil because there is no way it could ever be nessecary to cast the spell. The subject has been rendered helpless and taking the life of somthing or someone helpless is an evil act even if that being was a severe threat moments ago. In the case of the assassin we find the same thing. There is no rhyme or reason, just the fact that you are senselessly (meaning you dont think about it) killing.

Now an agent is a different situation entirely. An agent (be it a rogue/ranger sent to kill an evil king or 007) always knows why he or she is killing and understands and cares about the overall picture. An agent has loyalty behind his actions, a hired killer has nothing.

I always see it as evil being absence. The absence of reason, emotion and thought. Good in my mind is presence. The presence of reason, emotion (positive or negative), and thought. Neutrality is a not so strong good, sort of a diluted good. Law and chaos is how you handle this presence or absence. If you are lawful you control your reaction to this presence or absence. If you are chaotic you do not seek to control your reactions. Neutrality on this axis indicates that you make an effort at control, but it is not all that important, you were just following orders.

That is why I think that Assassins and DeathKnell are evil. They both results of an absence of reason and thought.

Aaron.

 

[Sixchan]

You could argue this but it wouldn't get you anywhere with most people. The point is that the assassins represented by the prestige class kill people for money. Period. Whether they enjoy it or not is immaterial. According to the D&D understanding of good and evil and my understanding of good and evil, anyone who would kill an innocent for money is evil.

Similarly, one could argue that a criminal defense attorney who lies in order to ensure that guilty criminals aren't punished for their crimes is just doing a job and getting paid for it. He might not even particularly like his job although he's good at it. The problem, however, is that his "job" is evil.

Even if an individual only killed the guilty--for instance, a bounty hunter who kills bandits for the bounty on their head or the perennial favorite of dark fiction: the assassin who only accepts contracts on really bad guys (which seems pretty unrealistic to me--almost as unrealistic as the clean living assassin in films like Leon--but that's beside the point)--and they could therefore arguably be neutral rather than evil, that's clearly not what the D&D assassin class represents. It represents members of an organization of hired killers who kill for money and only for money (or maybe pleasure) without any restricting factors.

Well, I dunno about this. Aside from the flavour prerequisite, what are the chances that an assassin will ever be hired to kill someone completely innocent?

This is ridiculous. That particular defense of guns works because guns are not moral agents. They don't make decisions about who to shoot and who not to shoot. If someone pulls the trigger, they shoot. And that's what they're supposed to do. Humans, by contrast, are moral agents. They're not supposed to be (and can't be, even if they try) simple automotons. Thus the key portion of the argument--that guns are not moral agents--is different in the case of the assassin. Assassins are moral agents. And that's why they're evil.

Assassins don't make decisions on who to shoot and who not to shoot either. Their employer does that.

The other difference is that guns have uses other than murder. Guns can be used for sport (the biathalon or skeet shooting, for instance), or for hunting. Those guns are just as much guns as military guns that are used to shoot people. An assassin who didn't kill people, however, wouldn't be an assassin.

Hunting is killing too, even if you're not killing a person, and the whole idea behind guns is killing, even if it is used for other things. You can use a longsword to chop carrots.

Similarly, guns can also be used to defend the innocent (without killing or even being fired; most confrontations involving a gun end without anyone being killed). An assassin could theoretically defend the innocent, but would not be acting as an assassin when doing so--the "assassin" would be acting as a bodyguard in that case. (An assassin could theoretically also be used to defend the innocent as an assassin by killing someone who threatened the innocent however that is much more indirectly defending an innocent than the gun in question).

So, really there is no significant similarity whatsoever between the moral status of guns and assassins.

A gun is a weapon, and so is an assassin. If a gun will kill whoever it is fired at, and an assassin will kill whoever he is paid to kill, then the role of an assassin and the role of a gun are pretty much equal in my eyes. Just because the assassin accepts payment, and because he has feelings makes little difference, IMO.


And regarding a good Assassin only killing for his country. I don't think that's possible, as IMO someone who kills only for their country is Lawful Neutral.