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.
