Why are these evil?!?

Take the Ranger.

Take away spells.

Alter the skills slightly (no wild lore, for instance)

Add sneak attack, death attack, poison use, etc.

Bingo. Assassin. They even have use for Track. TWF can be replaced, however.

I used a Ranger/Rogue Mindflayer for an assassin I sicked on my PC's once upon a time. He was pretty baddass. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sixchan said:


IMO, an assassin doesn't really need to know these things. He could be told "Kill Mr. X" and then go kill him. Why does the assassin know (or even want to know) that Mr. X is a Undead Slaying Paladin?



If they were following a contract, then IMO their actions would be Lawful Neutral. The actions weren't evil since they were following orders. They weren't good because they were killing.



I disagree.


You disagree that an assassin is making a choice in accepting a contract and doing his job? You disagree with my statement that an assassin has moral reposnsibility for his actions? Or are you disagreeing with something different that I said?

Are you saying that killing people is morally neutral if it is done simply because someone wants them dead and is willing to pay for it?

Blind obedience may be lawful, but the good or evil consequences of the resulting actions are still good or evil.
 

Voadam said:



You disagree that an assassin is making a choice in accepting a contract and doing his job?

Nope. :)

You disagree with my statement that an assassin has moral reposnsibility for his actions?

Yep.:)

Or are you disagreeing with something different that I said?

Probably, but I can't remember now.:)

Are you saying that killing people is morally neutral if it is done simply because someone wants them dead and is willing to pay for it?

Yep.:)

Blind obedience may be lawful, but the good or evil consequences of the resulting actions are still good or evil.

If you say so.:)
 

Sixchan said:

Assassins don't make decisions on who to shoot and who not to shoot either. Their employer does that.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. (appologies to any Rush fans)
An assassin kills for money.
Killing things for money is evil.
Therefore an assassin is evil.

Even if killing evil things, he's still doing it for money. An assassin may defend his country, but he will be doing it for the money. Not for the love of country. Someone who is acting out of love of country is not acting as an assassin. An assassin only kills for money (or self defense). That's it. He won't kill to save others - unless he's getting paid. Hell an assassin would take a job from Bob to kill Joe. Kill Joe. The accept the job from Sue to kill Bob. And kill Bob (after he got his money). Its all about the money.
-cpd
 

schporto said:

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. (appologies to any Rush fans)
An assassin kills for money.
Yes.
Killing things for money is evil.
No.
Therefore an assassin is evil.
No.
Even if killing evil things, he's still doing it for money. An assassin may defend his country, but he will be doing it for the money. Not for the love of country.
Ah.
A patriot Loves his country
A government job pays
Therfore patriots cannot take paid government jobs?
Someone who is acting out of love of country is not acting as an assassin.
Unless you take out the flavour text of the assassin PrC.
An assassin only kills for money (or self defense). That's it. He won't kill to save others - unless he's getting paid.
He can be paid to kill and still love his country.
Hell an assassin would take a job from Bob to kill Joe. Kill Joe. The accept the job from Sue to kill Bob. And kill Bob (after he got his money). Its all about the money.
-cpd

Unless Bob was President and Sue and Joe weren't and Kirsty (the assassin) was one of the above mentioned 'kills for country' assassin.
 

Sixchan said:


Nope. :)



Yep.:)



Probably, but I can't remember now.:)



Yep.:)



If you say so.:)

Agreement! :)

Do you think it is non-evil because they get paid/they are only doing their job/taking orders? Because they don't choose their victims?

That's OK this is enough to disagree on for now :)

I do :)
 

Voadam said:


Agreement! :)

Do you think it is non-evil because they get paid/they are only doing their job/taking orders? Because they don't choose their victims?

That's OK this is enough to disagree on for now :)

I do :)

Yes!:)
Glad we could sort of agree. :)
 

Voadam said:
You disagree with my statement that an assassin has moral reposnsibility for his actions?

Originally posted by Sixchan
Yep.:)

I imagine this is the bit I fail to credit. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I understand you to claim an assassin bears no moral responsibility for indiscriminate killing pursuant to orders from paying customers because he is "merely following orders."

From the standpoint of moral philosophy (and, I would argue, D&D), "merely following orders" does not excuse moral turpitude. It is one of the underpinnings of philosophical discussion, especially moral philosophy (the discussion of right and wrong), that, barring severe mental impairment, every person (as a sentient/sapient being), even a professional assassin, is capable of choosing his next action, of choosing which impulses he'll act upon, of deciding which thoughts he will translate into behavior.

That very capability turns every (*every*) person with that capability into a moral actor and imposes moral responsibility on that person for every (*every*) act taken. The villain can choose whether or not to take the princess captive and lock her away in a tower. The hero can choose whether or not to go seek out the villain and engage him in single combat. The villain can choose whether to try some underhanded trick to get the better of the hero.

The assassin can choose whether or not to seek out and kill the target he's paid to. He is absolutely not absolved of moral responsibility for *his choice* because someone whispers a name in a dark corner of a tavern. He cannot be absolved of moral responsibility because he got a slip of paper with his pile of gold. Et cetera... and I utterly fail to understand how someone can argue otherwise. Sixchan, are you just trolling? Because it sure worked on me.... :(

Voadam said:
Are you saying that killing people is morally neutral if it is done simply because someone wants them dead and is willing to pay for it?

Originally posted by Sixchan
Yep.:)

We can approve or disapprove of the assassin's choice. We can excuse his choice. We can rationalize his choice. We can applaud his choice. Whatever... but how we view his choice does not change the fact that the assassin made a choice to behave in a certain way. And I don't see how it can be argued that his behavior pursuant to that choice has no moral content.

In D&D, behavioral choices with moral content can be graded on a scale from Good to Evil. (Ethical choices are the ones graded from Lawful to Chaotic.) An indiscriminate killer (one who kills anyone he's told/paid to) in D&D is Evil, as already posted by arcady and others. Doesn't matter how coldly he plans murder; he's still a murderer. Doesn't matter who told him to do it; he still did it. Doesn't matter if he was paid; he still took the money. Doesn't matter whom he killed; he still killed someone who (on the average) did no wrong to him or his. This rationale holds without flavor text.
 
Last edited:

We'll have to disagree on that one, Sixchan - I can't break the impasse that I firmly believe that a moral agent (someone capable of making a moral judgment) is not responsible for the morality of actions that they take, as long as it is done for pay or a higher cause. Under the same line of reasoning, the whole "you must kill an innocent or your family will suffer" could also be justified, but I just can't see it.


As for that cleric who fed the poor getting assassinated, should the employer want him made an example of on the morning that said cleric is to receive a high honor for his work, let's say, would clue the assassin in pretty quick as to the type of person he's slaying in cold blood. :)
 

Sixchan said:
Wasn't one of the main points of this debate wether or not the assasin is evil once you take out the flavour text?

However, the evil requirement is not flavor text - it is a REQUIREMENT to be an assassin as described here. Now, you could make one without that requirement, but then you would need to replace it with a reason why they WOULDN'T be evil - perhaps an organization of holy slayers, slaying only those absolutely verified as irrredeemably evil, or those who could not be reached by any other means. However, at best this would be an organization of Lawful Neutrals, as you suggest.

But an assassin who kills regardless of moral circumstances? I can't agree that such a character would not be evil.

Even Martin from Grosse Point Blank gave up the business when someone very close to him was targeted. :)
 

Remove ads

Top