| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Aravine |
Posted - 09 Nov 2007 : 18:12:58
Why do they have to be nongood? what if they only accept assignments to kill evil people? and they would sacrifice themselves for the "common good"? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zanan |
Posted - 03 Oct 2008 : 09:34:01
The assassin in the DMG is the archetypical cold blooded killer-for-hire. That does not mean the "assassins" need to be like them and methinks there are half a dozen PrC about who are essentially variants of not-just-evil assassins. Obviously, anyone can be an "assassin" without the need of the PrC. The "death attack" is obviously a wicked tool, but not something that needs to define an "assassin". |
| Ardashir |
Posted - 02 Oct 2008 : 17:14:15
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Adventurers slaughter things left, right and center. Does that mean there can't be any good-aligned adventurers?
[/quote]
Adventurers slaughtering things left, right and center, for gold and glory and little else? No I would not call them "good".
[/quote]
I actually figured that most NPC adventurers are of CN, CE, and NE alignments. They're not out defending their homes or even someone else's home, they're out there robbing and plundering.
That doesn't meant that they have to be run as murderous psychos back in town, but if you go to the local ruin with them you'd better watch your back if you find the cache of spellgems first. "You distract yon paladin with thy charms, Deena, whilst Orgluk sneaks up behind him with his unholy mace..." |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 13 Nov 2007 : 21:48:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Even if you only off bad guys, murder is still murder -- and that's what assassins are all about.
I am sooo tired of seeing this discussion crop up year after year after year.... 
The official Party line in D&D is exactly as Wooly sez. There is even a section on the gods of Maztica, in that boxed set, which specifies that even though some of the deities do "good" things (such as bring rain, help mothers, etc.) because they demand human sacrifices, they are, by definition, capital-E "Evil."
I, however, don't follow the Party line, so there are non-Evil assassins in my campaign. Emphasis on the "my" part. According to the published rules, they would be Evil.
|
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 13 Nov 2007 : 15:44:16
Aravine, I recomend too that you take a look in the Assassinīs Handbook, of Green Ronin Publishing. Some factors:
- Assassin as a base class, with 2 prestige classes;
- Zeb Cook and Wolfgang Baur; 
- Steven Schend editing the tome;
- organizations, poisons, skills and feats;
Some other points:
- no good assassin - only evil and neutral ones;
- assassin with spell progression - I prefer more stealthy and killing blow stuff that spells...  |
| Aravine |
Posted - 13 Nov 2007 : 15:34:40
okay, okay. but I still think they need to redo or erase entirely the prestige class. |
| frapast1981 |
Posted - 12 Nov 2007 : 16:22:19
IMHO the difference is morality:
If you are GOOD then you try every possible (more or less pratical) way to solve a problem before drawing out you sword.
If you are NEUTRAL you may think that killing someone is the simplest way to achieve a greater good...but you are taking away a life just to make your life simpler.
If you are EVIL taking a life to accomplish something doesn't matter you so much (aside from a personal code of honor).
An Assasin si someone that is better suited at taking life away so....i think that he may be Neutral...but with some tendencies to Evil.
And i repeat myself but one of the prerequisite is "to kill someone only for the purpose to be accepted in the ranks". Killing someone only to gain admittance in a guild is something utterly evil. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Nov 2007 : 15:44:30
quote:
Originally posted by Chataro
The key word here is "murder". Murder is usually considered to be the unsanctioned taking of a life, not in self-defense or defense of a person/group/government.
I don't know how to quote so I must say the phrase above is from Wooly Rupert. Paladins in crusade or paladins trying to destroy a nearby peaceful goblin tribe are technically committing unsanctioned taking of a life, not in self defense of anything or anyone. You could argue that it is probable defense against a likely attack but even then, that would be unjust but strangely paladins don't seem to have any problems with that.
An assassin is usually taking money to end someone's life, usually by stealth and ambush. In most cases, it is against the law and/or moral values of the region they are in.
This above phrase is also from Mr Wooly Rupert.
And supposing the assassin in question lived in Zhentil Keep or Scornubel or any other equally corrupt place?
And how would anyone place Arilyn Moonblade, the famous half elven assassin?
By the way, personal opinion of mine is that assassin doesn't really means evil or good. It is simply a job just like rogue, fighter or wizards. Except stealth and a quick death is part of the job scope
1) How often do paladins encounter peaceful goblins? If a paladin did encounter truly peaceful goblins and killed them, then it would indeed be murder. And in a crusade, his foes are those who have been declared enemies of his faith. So that's not the same thing.
2) Corrupt places don't matter -- though the laws may often be dodged, there are still laws about the unsanctioned taking of a life. If you take a life, not in defense and not with legal sanction, then you are commiting murder.
3) Arilyn Moonblade was often called an assassin, but she was not truly an assassin. She gave her opponents a fair chance to defend themselves. That is not an assassin thing.
I'm truly bewildered as to how anyone can think cold-blooded murder is acceptable, or at the least, not evil.
Either way, I'm tired of arguing about it. I'm done with this thread. |
| Chataro |
Posted - 12 Nov 2007 : 14:19:11
The key word here is "murder". Murder is usually considered to be the unsanctioned taking of a life, not in self-defense or defense of a person/group/government.
I don't know how to quote so I must say the phrase above is from Wooly Rupert. Paladins in crusade or paladins trying to destroy a nearby peaceful goblin tribe are technically committing unsanctioned taking of a life, not in self defense of anything or anyone. You could argue that it is probable defense against a likely attack but even then, that would be unjust but strangely paladins don't seem to have any problems with that.
An assassin is usually taking money to end someone's life, usually by stealth and ambush. In most cases, it is against the law and/or moral values of the region they are in.
This above phrase is also from Mr Wooly Rupert.
And supposing the assassin in question lived in Zhentil Keep or Scornubel or any other equally corrupt place?
And how would anyone place Arilyn Moonblade, the famous half elven assassin?
By the way, personal opinion of mine is that assassin doesn't really means evil or good. It is simply a job just like rogue, fighter or wizards. Except stealth and a quick death is part of the job scope
|
| frapast1981 |
Posted - 12 Nov 2007 : 12:05:39
IMHO i think that the problem comes with the name. If you call the "Assasin"PrC as "Stealth Killer" it will sound less bad.
The alignment prerequisite is set to Evil because they decided that the "assassin" must commit a murder only to gain admittance.
It's possible to set the alignament to Neutral and change the admittance requirement (ex: you must kill a monster making use of your stealth ability, without being noticed).
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Nov 2007 : 20:49:53
quote:
Originally posted by khorne
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by dalor_darden
I don't think assassination is evil...it is a tool that can often lead to a greater good.
It doesn't matter what the ultimate goal is -- murder is still murder.
Adventurers slaughter things left, right and center. Does that mean there can't be any good-aligned adventurers?
The key word here is "murder". Murder is usually considered to be the unsanctioned taking of a life, not in self-defense or defense of a person/group/government.
An assassin is usually taking money to end someone's life, usually by stealth and ambush. In most cases, it is against the law and/or moral values of the region they are in.
That is not at all the same as what adventurers or paladins do. Killing does not necessarily equate to murder. |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 11 Nov 2007 : 14:10:49
The assassin role is a tricky one. Assassination, based in the wrong values (money, power, or any personal profit) is an evil thing. But assassination for a greater good is, IMO, a bad, but not exactly, evil thing - this fit with dalor and Aravine are talking...
And, in some cultures, and in some diferent ages, assassination was endorsed as something good. As dalor mentioned, we have "holy assassins" from the Arabia; in the crusades, a popeīs edict says that "kill a muslin" shorten the path of heaven to a christian; in american colonization, the native indians was slaughtered by english, spanish and portuguese good men. Those persons, the Hashishins, the crusaders, the european coloners, are considered heroes by their cultures - not evil people.
And the same goes with Slayers of Domiel, Cultists of the Shattered Peak, Cormyrean Highknights, and any murder-specialist that kill not for the murder, and not for personal profit, but that do this based in a true sense of "achieve a greater goal".
Yes, this donīt change the fact that the murder is a bad thing, this only change the perspective ...
Thatīs my two cents...  |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 11 Nov 2007 : 13:53:10
quote:
Originally posted by khorne
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by dalor_darden
I don't think assassination is evil...it is a tool that can often lead to a greater good.
It doesn't matter what the ultimate goal is -- murder is still murder.
Adventurers slaughter things left, right and center. Does that mean there can't be any good-aligned adventurers?
Adventurers slaughtering things left, right and center, for gold and glory and little else? No I would not call them "good". |
| khorne |
Posted - 11 Nov 2007 : 11:42:06
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by dalor_darden
I don't think assassination is evil...it is a tool that can often lead to a greater good.
It doesn't matter what the ultimate goal is -- murder is still murder.
Adventurers slaughter things left, right and center. Does that mean there can't be any good-aligned adventurers? |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 11 Nov 2007 : 08:43:28
The base problem is having a class Assassin in the first place, the PreReg is to murder someome (An Evil act).
The James Bond generally is not considered an Evil charater, some even consider him a chaotic good one. He clearly at times assassinates people for the greater good, though most of the time he kills just to save his own life or life of another.
In general what a charater is is the some of their actions, however the rule set require some to be the worst of their actions. All undead are evil (or at least detect to be) al Paladins are Lawful Good (even if they kill and/or rob a few things for the greater good).
Yes the ruleset of alignment has some problems, but the rule set mandating prusuing certain talents forces a character to be of limited alignment is worst. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 11 Nov 2007 : 08:18:57
quote:
Originally posted by Aravine
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
We are not talking about single acts here, we are talking about professional murderers. If someone specialised in killing people in their sleep or with poison I would never call it a good act. Nor would you call a fighter that always waited until victims were unarmed "good".
how many people will a paladin kill in his career? yhese are not single acts euther. they are proffesional killers too. sure they have healing spells. so do evil clerics. we are talking about murder, and murder is defined as one human killing another, particularly maliciously. if an assasin kills someone, but with no malice, is he any different than a fighter that coup-de-graces his opponent once he has defeated him? rogues specialize in hitting people when they are denied dexterity(sneak attack) is that evil or is that just someone using their abilities to the fullest extent? how about a ninja? they specialize in use of posion, but they can be good. ninja's are essentially a Asian mix of rogue and assasin.
I agree with the ninja thing. They should not be good. And if you had a paladin that was trained to kill people before they had a chance to defend themselves and, if possible, without anyone knowing, would you honestly call them paladins? An assassin kills on orders, they are no more good than a mercenary willing to work for anybody or a person that sees his cause as justifying any means. The fighter and thief examples you answer yourself, these are acts that are made in dangerous situations. A thief and a fighter could become assassins as well (not the class) by specializing in killing as you describe. That would not make them good either in my book. A character can use poison when needed and still be good, but if he tries to use poison in all combat (or preferably before) that is a different story.
This makes me remember why I hate alignments in the first place. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Nov 2007 : 00:25:37
A paladin is supposed to offer mercy if possible. |
| Brynweir |
Posted - 10 Nov 2007 : 23:28:33
I have to agree with Dalor Darden in a sense because I think that motivation plays a big role in defining what is evil.
If someone set fire to a farmer's fields with the intent of starving the farmer and his family that would be evil, even if the burn ended up being benefical and actually made the land more fertile.
Same with the assassin, paladine, rogue, etc. If they are killing this one single person in a true effort to help people, then I don't necessarily think that it is evil. Bad yes, but not evil.
I also think that when the wizard or other "evil" character gets assassinated they had to see it coming. I don't necessarily think that "evil" people set out to be evil, but they know from how others react that they are not wanted and that they might be killed, just like the adventurer knows she might die in a sword fight or ambush. She doesn't expect it, but she knows it is a real possibility.
I don't see a good person committing outright murder, however, so I see why the alignment specs.
As for the Paladine or fighter attacking people with a chance to defend themselves, just because a person is armed doesn't mean they can actually defend themselves. |
| Aravine |
Posted - 10 Nov 2007 : 21:18:04
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
We are not talking about single acts here, we are talking about professional murderers. If someone specialised in killing people in their sleep or with poison I would never call it a good act. Nor would you call a fighter that always waited until victims were unarmed "good".
how many people will a paladin kill in his career? yhese are not single acts euther. they are proffesional killers too. sure they have healing spells. so do evil clerics. we are talking about murder, and murder is defined as one human killing another, particularly maliciously. if an assasin kills someone, but with no malice, is he any different than a fighter that coup-de-graces his opponent once he has defeated him? rogues specialize in hitting people when they are denied dexterity(sneak attack) is that evil or is that just someone using their abilities to the fullest extent? how about a ninja? they specialize in use of posion, but they can be good. ninja's are essentially a Asian mix of rogue and assasin. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 10 Nov 2007 : 20:23:34
This is a really old debate in D&D...and one of the original reasons the Assassin Class was removed in the transition between 1st Edition and 2nd.
It boils down to how you define your moral compass. If anyone feels that assassins are evil, then there will be no swaying of that persons view.
Personally, I don't see assassination as evil...but that is my opinion. The simple killing process is not, to me, what defines if it is an evil action...but instead the motivation behind that particular killing.
If someone like Artemis kills only for money...then yes, that is evil to me.
If instead a man sneaks into the castle of a wizard bent on conquering a nation to do whatever (they may or may not be evil) because that small man knows his people can't prevail on the battlefield against an aggressor...I don't consider that man evil; but instead doing what he must to make sure his people survive.
So, if you consider army snipers killing leaders of an enemy as "evil" because they are shooting unarmed "businessmen" then I guess they are evil. To me though, they are soldiers...just like the rogue that dips an arrow in a potent poison and shoots an enemy general to throw that generals army into dissaray before the rogues own general attacks with his army.
Killing is killing...but to truly classify the death itself as simply evil because it was done by use of stealth is another matter entirely.
Personally, I don't think assassins as a class should ONLY be evil...but then I think the class itself is flawed by use of spells and its very definition.
That is only MY opinion though. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 10 Nov 2007 : 20:10:44
We are not talking about single acts here, we are talking about professional murderers. If someone specialised in killing people in their sleep or with poison I would never call it a good act. Nor would you call a fighter that always waited until victims were unarmed "good". |
| Aravine |
Posted - 10 Nov 2007 : 19:52:22
okay, if someone was killing everyone, went to sleep and assasin killed him that is an evil act? Wooly, i am sorry but by saying murder is still murder you are condeming Paladins that kill people, even though they are considered crusaders for justice. ninja, which where used essentialy for assasinations only have the restriction that they have to be lawful. things can not be so black and white as that. what is the difference between a rougue sneak attacking someone that does not know they are there, and that sneak attack killing that person, and an assassin killing a person, say an evil person? there is very little difference if someone is not "called" to the life of a paladin, but instead fits the rogue class and decides to assainate people that threaten the lives of innocents. why can't they get the assains benfits. th DA defines murder as one human killing another. fighters are also murederers. there is no black and white way to look at assasination |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Nov 2007 : 14:43:56
quote:
Originally posted by Chataro
I do wonder why bands of adventurers who band together to kill liches are considered heroes though. Many novels have the main character living in a town who is currently being besieged by armies of monster led by a wizard and the heroes sneak in to kill the wizards. You wouldn't call them assassin, would you?
Nope, because that is in defense of others. An assassin is usually murdering someone purely for money, and it's often someone who is not prepared to defend themselves. |
| Chosen of Moradin |
Posted - 10 Nov 2007 : 13:00:49
Aravine, if you want to create a good assassin, take a look in the Slayers of Domiel, in the Book of Exalted Deeds. This PrC fill the role described by dalor_draden very well.
Another example of "not exactly bad" assassins are the Cultists of the Shattered Peak, that use his abilities to mantain the secrets of old Netheril well buried. |
| Chataro |
Posted - 10 Nov 2007 : 11:28:09
I do wonder why bands of adventurers who band together to kill liches are considered heroes though. Many novels have the main character living in a town who is currently being besieged by armies of monster led by a wizard and the heroes sneak in to kill the wizards. You wouldn't call them assassin, would you? |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 09 Nov 2007 : 20:39:41
I still do not think they have to be of evil alignment. Neutral alignments (LN, TN, CN) can commit acts both considered good and evil, since they are not swayed by moral compunctions. In fact, LN is a great alignment for a government assassin. |
| AlorinDawn |
Posted - 09 Nov 2007 : 20:03:19
quote:
Originally posted by dalor_darden
I don't think assassination is evil...it is a tool that can often lead to a greater good.
My opinion is different having been in the Army though...snipers assassinate all the time; but of course that is war most say.
A party of adventurers is nothing more than a gang of crude assassins really...speaking strictly in D&D terms now. Of course, they could be called "Crusaders" right? Going into a lair and killing a dragon because it is taking cows and costing farmers their virgin daughters and all that.
The Hashishin of the ancient Arabic civilization were religious soldiers...and that is where the word assassin comes from. They were more like "Holy Slayers" however...if they were killed on their mission they went to heaven. Kind of like the Black Flame Zealots of Kossuth.
I'm firmly of the opinion that things need to be kept black and white in D&D though...so yeah, I suppose Assassins should never be considered "good"...but you could have Holy Slayers that operated on a divine mandate against the forces of evil. These folks could be Paladin-like in that if they used their ability to Death Attack someone that wasn't evil, they would lose their power or whatever.
Just a thought....
While I understand what you are saying, the assassin isn't doing the "big picture". They are committing murder, which is an evil act.
You can dress killing up in all the holy titles and causes that you want, but in the end, you're still doing the same deed the other guy does in the name of some belief you have.
Evil is as evil does.
Speaking of assassins, the reworked assiassin class as a 20 lvl class in Kobold Quarterly #2 is nicely done IMO.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Nov 2007 : 20:02:10
quote:
Originally posted by dalor_darden
I don't think assassination is evil...it is a tool that can often lead to a greater good.
It doesn't matter what the ultimate goal is -- murder is still murder. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 09 Nov 2007 : 19:56:39
I don't think assassination is evil...it is a tool that can often lead to a greater good.
My opinion is different having been in the Army though...snipers assassinate all the time; but of course that is war most say.
A party of adventurers is nothing more than a gang of crude assassins really...speaking strictly in D&D terms now. Of course, they could be called "Crusaders" right? Going into a lair and killing a dragon because it is taking cows and costing farmers their virgin daughters and all that.
The Hashishin of the ancient Arabic civilization were religious soldiers...and that is where the word assassin comes from. They were more like "Holy Slayers" however...if they were killed on their mission they went to heaven. Kind of like the Black Flame Zealots of Kossuth.
I'm firmly of the opinion that things need to be kept black and white in D&D though...so yeah, I suppose Assassins should never be considered "good"...but you could have Holy Slayers that operated on a divine mandate against the forces of evil. These folks could be Paladin-like in that if they used their ability to Death Attack someone that wasn't evil, they would lose their power or whatever.
Just a thought.... |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 09 Nov 2007 : 19:14:39
Assassins are murderers and sneak killers. It is hard to see them being "good" in any way or form. At least for me. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 09 Nov 2007 : 18:25:09
I still give my players the choice to be non-good opposed to only evil (which is what the prerequisites in the DMG require). |
|
|
