Why are these evil?!?

[Sixchan]

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....

First, I never really wanted to get into a debate. Other people looked at what I said and argued against it. If no-one had said anything else related to my post I would probably just have gone on reading.

I have your answer, just at the end of this post, because your entire argument will be shown futile, and I want to put it at the end of the argument. Mind you, this is not to say that on other people probably of greater intellectual ability than myself this argument would not work so I'm not trolling by saying I think I'm better than you or anything.

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.

Right, here goes: I don't believe in free will.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Right, here goes: I don't believe in free will.

Oh, all right. Then I'm going to exercise *my* free will and *choose* to give up trying to make a convert out of you. Thanks for lending an ear to my rant.

 

[Sixchan]

Oh, all right. Then I'm going to exercise *my* free will and *choose* to give up trying to make a convert out of you. Thanks for lending an ear to my rant.

No problem. Any time you want to rant, just come to me and I'll listen. I might not contribute anything useful, but hey, I just have to listen, right?

 

[jester47]

The only thing I get from these conversations is the overwhelming impression that many people can never see the evil in themselves. But this gets into all sorts of Thomist thought.

It is not the nature of evil to be obvious. Evil hides behind things like "just following orders." Evil runs on people being too scared to do the right thing. Evil is moral weakness.

I cannot think of anything more morally weak than a HIRED KILLER.

1. Killer does not ask questions meaning he is someone who for some reason has bypassed his conscience.
2. Killer is willing to allow himself to be used no quesitons asked as a tool for a fee. While it is not sexual, it is prostitution.
3. Killer is doing somthing wrong that someone else does not have the guts to do themselves.

But that is in the real world where everything is mixed up. Where objects cant be evil and all people are evil in some way but good in many others.
----------------------------------------
D&D is completely different. In D&D you can bottle evil and sell it. A bowl can be bad. A bowl can be intelligent.

Now there is the issue of killing. Wow. Everyone in D&D kills. Well ok, most player characters kill. Why is this?

I think this is the real problem with the assassin. He kills too but he is just better at it. When comparing the actions of your average PC and the actions of this character class, there really is not much difference.

I have been thinking about this off and on over the years and it occured to me that GOOD characters would go out of their way to not kill. Some would say that the characters are often in a Kill or Be Killed situation and if they are killed the evildoers super scheme will come to fruition spoiling the party for everyone.

But it seems to me that the situation is very rarely kill or be killed. It is more Subdue or be killed. There are numerous occaions where I have thought that all they have to do is knock the bad guys out and that would suffice.

What does it mean to look "down the barrel" of a kobolds crossbow? He won't think twice of killing you. Should you return the favor? I think this is what separates good from evil. It is assumed that Good characters have weighed the moral risks and will act according to a manner of factors including upbringing, life experience, belief, philosophies etc. So it would not be out of character for our character to hack down the kobold before he can get his shot off. Now, what if the kobold asked them politely "what are you doingin my home? Could you please leave?" what would a good character do then? But using the definition above we assume that the kobold being evil has not weighed the moral risks and probably will open fire.

And I think that is what alignment is all about. It is not somthing that states what a character can and cannot do. It is somthing that essesntially talks about the character's reasoning for thier actions.

Re-reading the alignment section in the PHB, I think it is good to keep in mind that the descriptions of the alignments found in the section "The Nine Alignmnets" are actually descriptions that depict "a typical character for that alignment." The actual "definitions of the elements of the alignment are under the "Good vs. Evil" and the "Law vs. Chaos" sections.

Aaron.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

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?

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

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.

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.

An assassin can choose not to be an assassin; a gun cannot choose not to be a gun. Just because an assassin lets themselves be used like an inert weapon, doesn't make them morally neutral!

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

On assassin vs. ordinary adventurer:

Assassins have to be evil because their standards of destruction are the most extreme. An adventurer only has to drive off or subdue monsters to be successful. Killing is the only measure of an assassin's success. They're evil because their whole function allows neither mercy nor flexibility in action.

If an adventurer wounds an enemy and it runs away, the adventurer can pick up the treasure and go home, job well done.

If an assassin wounds a target and it runs away, the assassin must hunt it down and make absolutely sure that it is dead.

That's the difference IMHO.

 

[noretoc]

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?

You don't have to bond with evil to learn how to kill. You have to become evil to take the prestige class Assassin. The class which is for an evil player. If you want to give death attack to another class, then fine. The person dosen't have to be evil. You are looking at it the wrong way. You are not applying for the abilities. You are trying out for the whole pakage. The pakage is for evil people who like to kill. If you want the abilities but don;t want to be evil, use them for another class. Give death attack to ... sniper, or special agent of the king, or what have you. The assassin is specific for what it is. Assassins are evil. That is what the class is for.

 

[Darkness]

Regarding the assassin:

1. The class is an example for an organizational prestige class; further, you can (and, in fact, should) modify all prestige classes to better fit them into your own campaign world. This goes especially for flavor things like what organization (if any) a certain prestige class belongs to, flavor restrictions, etc.
2. Alignment: "evil" is a flavor restriction (i.e., not needed for game balance).

Therefore, it's no problem at all to file off the serial numbers, require other (or no) flavor restrictions, and use that new class (whether you call it "assassin" or "special op" or "pressure point mystic" or whatever) in your campaign world.

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.

What alignment would you say James Bond is, BTW?