Why is being evil a requirement for an assassin?

[Neo2151]

thejeff wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

Any character that kills for profit is evil, regardless of class.

Going out to collect that bounty on gnoll scalps that was mentioned earlier? Well unless you find a bunch of already-dead gnolls, then you are doing evil.
Period.
The Assassin, by it's very nature, is guaranteed to be making a profit from killing (unless you're divorcing the class from it's typical association, in which case... er, why? Other classes will do what you want better, guaranteed). Therefore, the Assassin is required to be evil.

The seriously overplayed trope tends to be "Chaotic Neutral is a License to Kill without being evil." Except it's not. And players that think this way are bad.

Also, Good organizations do not support killing. There is no, "doing the dirty work for the good organization so they don't have to." If you're being paid by an organization to slay things, then that organization is not Good (yes, this includes real-world examples like the USA - deal with it.)

So for example, if you're paid by the village mayor to kill the orcs that have been raiding them, both you and the village are evil?

I'm generally down with the whole "murderhobos are evil" thing, but that's going further than I'd take it.

No, you're being paid to "defend and/or protect the town from the orc raiding parties."

(Unless the request is literally something like, "Hey, adventurers, there is a settlement of orcs up in them there hills that keep raiding our town. Go up there and slaughter the buggers for us? There's money in it for you." Yeah, that'd be evil.)

Killing can be a consequence without making you evil. When killing is the goal, you are evil.

[Milo v3]

Neo2151 wrote:

Name three.

Altair, Ezio, Desmond :P

[LazarX]

Most of the above examples aren't act of assasination. An assassin isn't someone hired to "kill the orcs raiding our town". That's any old adventurer or vigilante.

The assassin is the one hired to kill Joe the Baker and make sure that no incriminating witnesses are left behind. And he's doing it for no other reason than the pay envelope. If you're not willing to play a character that will execute that order without questions, save those of tactics. or logistics, you're not playing an assassin.

[ryric]

If the mission is "Go kill the peaceful orc settlement over yonder because we don't like them being our neighbors. Here's some cash," yeah, that's an evil mission. If it's "the orcs are raiding our village, here's some money to stop them," that's not evil - the players have choices about how they want to approach the problem. They very well may end up killing all the orcs but the subtle differences between the two missions are important.

The assassin PrC is based on the ideal of "here's some money. Go kill a target." Being willing to kill for cash no matter if the target is a crime lord, a just king, a random stranger in town, or an old sweet grandmother is what makes it evil.

Really if you want to do the morally dubious but somewhat principled killer a la James Bond I suggest the slayer base class. Assassin is for when you want to be the villain from the Serenity movie.

[thaX]

And there are other classes (As has been pointed out) that do a fair job at the skills, or even have better class abilities, than the current PrC that is named "Assassin." That the PrC have not been "beefed" up compared to the regular Core and succeeding classes is a factor in that.

"Mercenary" is different than "Assassin," though some of the social aspects that they share are not that different. I doubt PF would ever have a Mercenary class, it being a bit of a modern term, but some characters are the very model of what one is, even if they do not go so far down the dark side to actually be an Assassin.

[Neo2151]

Milo v3 wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

Name three.

Altair, Ezio, Desmond :P

Having a cause does not make you a good person. These three are no more goodly than The Operative from Serenity (he was killing for good too, right? ;P )

[thejeff]

Neo2151 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

Any character that kills for profit is evil, regardless of class.

Going out to collect that bounty on gnoll scalps that was mentioned earlier? Well unless you find a bunch of already-dead gnolls, then you are doing evil.
Period.
The Assassin, by it's very nature, is guaranteed to be making a profit from killing (unless you're divorcing the class from it's typical association, in which case... er, why? Other classes will do what you want better, guaranteed). Therefore, the Assassin is required to be evil.

The seriously overplayed trope tends to be "Chaotic Neutral is a License to Kill without being evil." Except it's not. And players that think this way are bad.

Also, Good organizations do not support killing. There is no, "doing the dirty work for the good organization so they don't have to." If you're being paid by an organization to slay things, then that organization is not Good (yes, this includes real-world examples like the USA - deal with it.)

So for example, if you're paid by the village mayor to kill the orcs that have been raiding them, both you and the village are evil?

I'm generally down with the whole "murderhobos are evil" thing, but that's going further than I'd take it.

No, you're being paid to "defend and/or protect the town from the orc raiding parties."

(Unless the request is literally something like, "Hey, adventurers, there is a settlement of orcs up in them there hills that keep raiding our town. Go up there and slaughter the buggers for us? There's money in it for you." Yeah, that'd be evil.)

Killing can be a consequence without making you evil. When killing is the goal, you are evil.

Nearly ever adventure I've seen has had you going after the source of the raids to put a stop to them, not just defending the village when they come.

How about "Go kill the dragon that's been burning villages throughout the barony"? Evil because you're being sent/paid to kill?

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Neo2151 wrote:

Any character that kills for profit is evil, regardless of class.

Going out to collect that bounty on gnoll scalps that was mentioned earlier? Well unless you find a bunch of already-dead gnolls, then you are doing evil.
Period.
The Assassin, by it's very nature, is guaranteed to be making a profit from killing (unless you're divorcing the class from it's typical association, in which case... er, why? Other classes will do what you want better, guaranteed). Therefore, the Assassin is required to be evil.

The seriously overplayed trope tends to be "Chaotic Neutral is a License to Kill without being evil." Except it's not. And players that think this way are bad.

Also, Good organizations do not support killing. There is no, "doing the dirty work for the good organization so they don't have to." If you're being paid by an organization to slay things, then that organization is not Good (yes, this includes real-world examples like the USA - deal with it.)

So for example, if you're paid by the village mayor to kill the orcs that have been raiding them, both you and the village are evil?

I'm generally down with the whole "murderhobos are evil" thing, but that's going further than I'd take it.

No, you're being paid to "defend and/or protect the town from the orc raiding parties."

(Unless the request is literally something like, "Hey, adventurers, there is a settlement of orcs up in them there hills that keep raiding our town. Go up there and slaughter the buggers for us? There's money in it for you." Yeah, that'd be evil.)

Killing can be a consequence without making you evil. When killing is the goal, you are evil.

Nearly ever adventure I've seen has had you going after the source of the raids to put a stop to them, not just defending the village when they come.

How about "Go kill the dragon that's been burning villages throughout the barony"? Evil because you're being sent/paid to kill?

When something is designated as a "monster", it means that it does not get all of the considerations that are given to those considered "people".

[Envall]

If the mission is based on revenge, "Attack these orcs because they attacked us", then it is a neutral act to do so.

[ryric]

thejeff wrote:

Nearly ever adventure I've seen has had you going after the source of the raids to put a stop to them, not just defending the village when they come.

How about "Go kill the dragon that's been burning villages throughout the barony"? Evil because you're being sent/paid to kill?

"Put a stop to" is different than "kill."

If you're not getting paid unless the dragon is dead dead dead, even if the burnings stop, then yes, that's an evil quest. What if you get to the dragon's lair and it's a dominated brass dragon who has no control over its actions? Not only is killing it evil, but it doesn't even truly solve the problem! The being truly responsible is still at large.

A neutral baron might very well hire you to "go kill the dragon." If the party is good, they should be clear on his actual goal - is it just to stop the pillaging, or is it revenge? A lawful evil group would go kill the dragon, present the baron with its head, and then come back to get hired again when the next dominated monster shows up and starts wreaking havoc.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

Most of the above examples aren't act of assasination. An assassin isn't someone hired to "kill the orcs raiding our town". That's any old adventurer or vigilante.

The assassin is the one hired to kill Joe the Baker and make sure that no incriminating witnesses are left behind. And he's doing it for no other reason than the pay envelope. If you're not willing to play a character that will execute that order without questions, save those of tactics. or logistics, you're not playing an assassin.

Historically and even in popular culture, "assassin" is more often used for political killings. As such, while assassins are usually paid (just like soldiers and guards and all the rest), they're not always strictly mercenary and can be motivated by loyalty or patriotism or religious fervor or many other things. And they can question those orders, just like any other employee. Even a soldier can question orders, to varying degrees at various levels of the organization.

The designers of the Assassin class picked one specific type of assassin flavor and tied the class to that. That's very much away from the current standard of class design - which is more of a set of abilities, maybe with a default flavor, but which you can adapt as you please.

[Aelryinth]

Slayers of Domiel is a 3e prestige class with assassination abilities, and it's an Exalted Class.

Killing isn't evil. Killing is inherently neutral. The reasons WHY you are doing the killing are the important thing. Killing is just a weapon for your moral decisions to affect the world with.

The Assassin class is very specifically someone who will kill anyone for money. That's the reason. That's completely amoral and deliberately throwing away any sanctity of life.

Killing on behalf of God, Queen, and Country, or for the cause of liberty and freedom, are totally different mindsets. Those people aren't motivated by the money, they are motivated by the desire to do the right thing and put down a threat to the ideals they hold dear.

Vlad Tepes, while probably not Good, certainly isn't Evil. He'd fit the TN alignment almost perfectly, far more concerned with friends and family then laws and politics and money.

Saying that Good can't go in and cut the head off the snake using stealth is playing Stupid Good. Good would far rather do that then see its people chewed up on a battlefield.

==Aelryinth

[Chengar Qordath]

thaX wrote:

"Mercenary" is different than "Assassin," though some of the social aspects that they share are not that different. I doubt PF would ever have a Mercenary class, it being a bit of a modern term, but some characters are the very model of what one is, even if they do not go so far down the dark side to actually be an Assassin.

Mercenaries were quite back in the middle ages, you know...

I suspect the main reason there's no mercenary class is because being a mercenary is about your profession/mindset, not having a specific and thematically connected set of skills.

[Tacticslion]

wraithstrike wrote:

noble peasant wrote:

Oh yeah forgot about the kill a random dude thing. I suppose this PrC does have a sort of evil fluff written into it. I was just wondering why the evil had to be interwoven into the class as nothing it is mechanically capable of is inherently evil. I'm sure someone would love to get their assassin's creed on. I am aware that their are others ways to do this but this PrC provides death attack like 4 lvls early.

That assassin PrC suck at its job. The rogue and slayer especially are better assassins. There are a few thread on this issue that go into detail on it.

Gamerskum wrote:

Master Spy is pretty much the same prestige class with out the evil fluff and most of the same abilities.

Chengar Qordath wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Guru-Meditation wrote:

Because Paizo hates Prestige Classes and wants you to take Archetypes.

/sarcasm off.

You may be speaking more truthfully than you think . . .

Paizo did not really make PrC's weaker, they just make the game less dippable, since in 3.5 people would take classes just for mechanical reasons and dip 3 to 4 classes. They also don't front load classes as much.

The idea of a PrC was not to just get be a stronger class, but a more focused class. However many did have special abilities that were stronger than a normal class. Many of them are still playable, but they are not just a power grab anymore, which is not really a bad thing. There is no reason why they would really care if you played a PrC. They could have just stopped making them altogether really. People would have complained, but I don't think it would have mattered much if they had waited until 3 or 4 years to say "no more PrC's".

While I agree in general, the Assassin is the one PrC that outright got nerfed; replacing spellcasting with a couple minor skill bonuses and making it harder to raise people they kill.

On the broader topic, I think a lot of it is down to legacy issues and the fact that the "good" assassin has only recently picked up a lot of popularity as a character type in fantasy circles (which I suspect one can largely attribute to stealth-based games in the vein of Assassin's Creed and Dishonored). And all things considered, I think the Slayer fills that niche just fine, and with much better mechanics than the Assassin.

'TOZ' wrote:

What does it matter? The prestige class kinda sucks.

Here is an analysis that I'd made, previously.

noble peasant wrote:

Assassins never HAVE to commit murder. (I am not talking about the PrC explicitly that says you have to but more as a statement on assassins in general as I am advocating this stipulation be removed) Murder is an unjustified killing. No one ever said assassins have to take every job, or even have to work as a killer for hire. An assassin could very well work exclusively for a single good aligned body. I don't see why people wouldn't want obviously evil forces taken care of, perhaps there is a stronghold dastardly villains that seems to be a little to much for a frontal assault? Thus rendering the paladins useless. In comes the assassin, stabbing douche bags in the back. Stereotypical assassin? No. But a guy sneaking around back stabbing and cutting throats sounds like an assassin to me.

Bam and bam.

[Petty Alchemy]

There's a difference between "Go kill this [sentient being] which comes every month to demand tribute in gold and servants" and "Go kill this [sentient being], I'm tired of seeing their ugly face."

[kyrt-ryder]

wraithstrike wrote:

The answer is because an assassin kills not for an ideal or any good reason. They will kill you for money alone

That's neutral in my book. It's not killing for pleasure, nor out of envy or hatred. It's just a business transaction. [Then again I've been told my mentality leans a little evil myself so who bloody knows.]

Edit for clarity: think of the Assassin like a weapon. He's neither good nor evil, he's just a tool [perhaps in more ways than one :P]

[Aelryinth]

Then hiring the assassin to kill someone whose face you didn't like would be evil, and the assassin knowing he's being hired for literally no reason at all is an evil sociopath, because he just doesn't care.

A weapon has no choice in how it is used. An assassin has made the choice to not care, and to kill without caring.

There's a major difference there.

You're aware that 'it's just a business transaction' and 'I'm just following orders' are INFAMOUS justifications for people trying to shift the blame for immoral actions, right? It's all part of that slippery slope leading down to Hell.

==Aelryinth

[Petty Alchemy]

Aelryinth wrote:

Then hiring the assassin to kill someone whose face you didn't like would be evil, and the assassin knowing he's being hired for literally no reason at all is an evil sociopath, because he just doesn't care.

A weapon has no choice in how it is used. An assassin has made the choice to not care, and to kill without caring.

There's a major difference there.

==Aelryinth

Was about to post this, but got ninja'd.

The difference between a blade and the man wielding it is that the man has a choice.

Edit: The choice can be complicated by other reasons, ex. not following orders would result in your execution, or your family is being held hostage. But if it's just a business transaction...

[Atarlost]

Because "Crusader good. Muslim bad. Except Saladin because he's a nob and being a nob transcends being an Mohamedian infidel."

Assassin isn't about killing for hire. Never has been outside the delusions of the ignorant. It's about killing for politics. Gavrilo Princip wasn't paid. He didn't kill someone for the sole purpose of becoming an assassin. He became an assassin in order to kill someone for a political cause. Serbian self-determination isn't even a particularly bad cause.

That's what assassination always has been. Kill the leaders of the crusader states. Kill the tyrant. Kill the enemy general. It's always about the politics not money. That's what makes an assassin an assassin not a simple hit man.

[Aelryinth]

You're confusing 'assassin the ACT' with 'assassin the PrC'. Kindly keep them separate.

And it's not politics, it's money. In the end, politics is nothing but the movement of money with a face in front of it. Spending money on an assassin to secure money via politics or business is an old-and time-honored method of getting and staying wealthy.

Which doesn't make it NOT an evil deed.

==Aelryinth

[wraithstrike]

Neo2151 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

LazarX wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I understand that in real life someone can be an assassin for their government, and kill for reasons other than "just money" but the specific assassin class which is evil, is not the same as an assassin(the profession) even though I don't think many of them will normally be good either.

And in most of those real life cases, government assassins are just as evil as the ones in game.

In real life, yes.

But we're not playing real life, we're playing genre fiction. Good assassins are pretty common in fiction, fantasy or otherwise.

Name three.

I think he is using "assassin" in this case as "those with a special skill set", not as "murder for hire mercenary". Many times the two are one in the same, so people should probably be specific about which definition they are using to avoid confusion.

[Aelryinth]

In the spec ops world, the word is 'operator'.

==Aelryinth

[Tacticslion]

wraithstrike wrote:

I think he is using "assassin" in this case as "those with a special skill set", not as "murder for hire mercenary". Many times the two are one in the same, so it people should probably be specific about which definition they are using to avoid confusion.

LIAM NEESON!

[thejeff]

Aelryinth wrote:

You're confusing 'assassin the ACT' with 'assassin the PrC'. Kindly keep them separate.

And it's not politics, it's money. In the end, politics is nothing but the movement of money with a face in front of it. Spending money on an assassin to secure money via politics or business is an old-and time-honored method of getting and staying wealthy.

Which doesn't make it NOT an evil deed.

Well yes, but that's tautological. Assassin the PrC has to be evil because that's a requirement for the PrC.

And by the rest of your argument, soldiers are also evil. They're paid to kill people for politics, which is just money, therefore evil.

[kyrt-ryder]

Aelryinth wrote:

Then hiring the assassin to kill someone whose face you didn't like would be evil, and the assassin knowing he's being hired for literally no reason at all is an evil sociopath, because he just doesn't care.

While I have no interest in Assassin as a career due to the risks involved... I suppose that would make me a sociopath as well. Everything lives and everything dies, the only people it really matters to are those with a personal connection to the deceased [similar to with pets, or the destruction of a precious heirloom.]

Quote:

A weapon has no choice in how it is used. An assassin has made the choice to not care, and to kill without caring.

Your point?

Quote:

There's a major difference there.

You're aware that 'it's just a business transaction' and 'I'm just following orders' are INFAMOUS justifications for people trying to shift the blame for immoral actions, right? It's all part of that slippery slope leading down to Hell.

That's relative to one's religious beliefs. There are religions where killing many innocent people results in great rewards in heaven.

When one puts themselves into the position of taking orders, they aren't responsible for the results. They are guilty of performing them and if there are laws against said actions they will be punished accordingly if caught. Guilt [having done an action] is separate from responsibility [having chosen the action.] The one giving the orders should, by all rights, receive the greater punishment than the one who pulled the trigger.

I hold to my position that killing for pay is neutral [neither good nor evil.] The Evil one is the one calling the shots.

[Otherwhere]

Just switch "Murderer" for "Assassin" and I think you have your answer.

"Hey! Can't I play a Neutral or Good Murderer?"

Uh - no.

[kyrt-ryder]

See, I don't see 'murder' in and of itself as evil. If that were the case then any animal that kills for sport [such as chimpanzees, dolphins and some muskids] would be evil.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Soldiers aren't paid to kill people. They're paid to neutralize threats, which means they can take prisoners. If you shoot at them first then yes, they'll kill you back, but that's still strictly neutral.

The hierarchy goes:
Good killing: someone who refuses to reform given a death sentence (and some people would probably debate this).
Neutral killing: someone who's actively trying to kill you killed in self-defense. If they stop fighting, throw down their weapons, and surrender then this becomes murder (Evil).
Evil killing: someone killed preemptively because they might be a threat. This also covers all killing for money, because you're killing someone that is in no way a threat to you because someone else is paying you.

If you're going to try to argue that's not evil, maybe don't use an example that's listed in the description of what an evil alignment is.

Good Versus Evil wrote:

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 deity or master.

Bolding mine.

As for the list of good assassins, the opening of the first Assassin's Creed game is Altair losing all his gear for reckless disregard of the code and hubris. Ezio was just on a giant revenge rampage. When Desmond assumes they're the good guys Shaun reminds him "but we still kill people to achieve our goals". So... not that good.

[kyrt-ryder]

I see. So we need to retroactively re-align certain animal species. Got it.

[Petty Alchemy]

Soldiers kill soldiers. Soldiers that kill unresisting civilians are probably evil.

[kyrt-ryder]

Petty Alchemy wrote:

Soldiers kill soldiers. Soldiers that kill unresisting civilians are probably evil.

But what about soldiers who kill civilians wearing bombs, or civilians who seem like they're wearing bombs and are approaching and don't understand English [when the soldiers don't have someone who knows the native tongue.]

[Otherwhere]

Core RB, Prestige Classes wrote:

Assassin: A remorseless murderer who kills for money and the sheer thrill of death-dealing.

Whatever your personal feelings about murder, this explains in part why your alignment had to be evil to qualify for the PrC. (Just like a Paladin had to be "Lawful/Good" to become a Paladin.)

The other part is the "Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin." Which was quoted very early on in this thread.

Between those two, I think MOST people would agree: yeah, you're Evil.

[wraithstrike]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

See, I don't see 'murder' in and of itself as evil. If that were the case then any animal that kills for sport [such as chimpanzees, dolphins and some muskids] would be evil.

Murder is an unlawful killing. Animals don't have laws. If you were to saying "killing" is not always evil that would be different. Murder does not apply to nonsentient beings, so even a dog in a city that kills someone did not "murder" them.

[kyrt-ryder]

Otherwhere wrote:

Core RB, Prestige Classes wrote:

Assassin: A remorseless murderer who kills for money and the sheer thrill of death-dealing.

Whatever your personal feelings about murder, this explains in part why your alignment had to be evil to qualify for the PrC. (Just like a Paladin had to be "Lawful/Good" to become a Paladin.)

See... that 'thrill of death-dealing' part makes absolutely no sense to me. A professional assassin should be largely emotionless, cold and precise. If he's getting a headrush he's not very professional.

Quote:

The other part is the "Special: The character must kill someone for no other reason than to become an assassin." Which was quoted very early on in this thread.

Also stupid. What kind of organization is dumb enough to force one of its prospective members to risk incarceration [or worse] for zero profit? That's ridiculous.

Quote:

Between those two, I think MOST people would agree: yeah, you're Evil.

I agree. I just feel those two don't actually describe an assassin, they're stupid.

[kyrt-ryder]

wraithstrike wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

See, I don't see 'murder' in and of itself as evil. If that were the case then any animal that kills for sport [such as chimpanzees, dolphins and some muskids] would be evil.

Murder is an unlawful killing. Animals don't have laws. If you were to saying "killing" is not always evil that would be different. Murder does not apply to nonsentient beings, so even a dog in a city that kills someone did not "murder" them.

Exactly, Murder is non-lawful. It's also non-evil [incidentally it's also non-good.]

[Petty Alchemy]

Civilians wearing bombs are combatants.

Soldiers killing someone they believe to be a combatant (but actually isn't) is a tragedy, but an action made in self-defense (or defense of others).

[wraithstrike]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

See, I don't see 'murder' in and of itself as evil. If that were the case then any animal that kills for sport [such as chimpanzees, dolphins and some muskids] would be evil.

Murder is an unlawful killing. Animals don't have laws. If you were to saying "killing" is not always evil that would be different. Murder does not apply to nonsentient beings, so even a dog in a city that kills someone did not "murder" them.

Exactly, Murder is non-lawful. It's also non-evil [incidentally it's also non-good.]

You are either being difficult on purpose or not getting what I am saying.

Murder is evil. Basically if you have the ability to know right from wrong*, and you wrongly kill someone that is an evil act. If you kill them purely for profit, it is murder. If you kill them to protect yourself, then it is not murder. Please don't try to twist any words. It never helps anything.

I understand that you can rightfully kill someone and it can still be lawfully wrong. For the sake of these discussions and for when I said "unlawful" in my previous post the assumption was that "unlawful" was also a "morally/ethically" wrongful murder. I mean objectively wrong, as in I am murdering/killing you for my own personal benefit, such as world domination or I want more monies.

I can't list every possible example so I won't try, but hopefully my point is clear. If you have any questions feel free to ask.

**Before it comes up I know animals can recognize wrong actions to a certain extent in real life.

[thejeff]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Petty Alchemy wrote:

Soldiers kill soldiers. Soldiers that kill unresisting civilians are probably evil.

But what about soldiers who kill civilians wearing bombs, or civilians who seem like they're wearing bombs and are approaching and don't understand English [when the soldiers don't have someone who knows the native tongue.]

Soldiers go where they are told and kill the people they are told to kill. They take prisoners when they're told to do so. They kill at least other soldiers for political reasons, which according to Aelryinth are always motivated by money and thus evil.

In this day and age, they drop bombs on targets that have been given to them. In older days they tended to loot and pillage as they went, at least to supply food.

But, I didn't intend to bring up modern wars here. I'm talking historically and in general. If assassins are always evil even when killing political (and military?) targets under orders given for political reasons, then soldiers are also evil when they kill under orders for political reasons.

To take the extreme example, would an assassin sneaking into Berlin on Churchill's orders and killing Hitler be more of an evil deed than butchering tens of thousands of soldiers in a nice clean war?
Obviously there are many cases where it isn't that clean and simple, but this is a fantasy game. It tends to be much more black and white than the real world. Assassinating the warlord who's managed to unite the orc tribes isn't more evil than openly fighting your way through the hordes to get to him.

[wraithstrike]

Basically do I consider fantasy character X as good or evil for doing ____?<--simple and often accurate comparison

Movies often have simplistic rules on who is the bad or good guy, and so do many games.

[Envall]

This Assassin class requires you to be selfish in refusing to acknowledge other people's right to live.

In context of Pathfinder, there are no Assassins who have never killed an innocent person. Neutral to-be Assassins are hinted to start this way, and then eventually decay to Evil by killing an innocent. While this is a major case of rules railroading you towards certain path, it is avoiding the issue if you try to rationalize assassinations with all the grey moral zone stuff.

It is good to remember that moral relativism does not actually exist in Golarion. There actually is an universal, absolute moral law in Heaven. Just ask the Archons.

[LazarX]

Aelryinth wrote:

Vlad Tepes, while probably not Good, certainly isn't Evil. He'd fit the TN alignment almost perfectly, far more concerned with friends and family then laws and politics and money.

You might want to read his history again. Vlad Tepes' greatest enemy was his brother.

[Aelryinth]

thejeff wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

You're confusing 'assassin the ACT' with 'assassin the PrC'. Kindly keep them separate.

And it's not politics, it's money. In the end, politics is nothing but the movement of money with a face in front of it. Spending money on an assassin to secure money via politics or business is an old-and time-honored method of getting and staying wealthy.

Which doesn't make it NOT an evil deed.

Well yes, but that's tautological. Assassin the PrC has to be evil because that's a requirement for the PrC.

And by the rest of your argument, soldiers are also evil. They're paid to kill people for politics, which is just money, therefore evil.

That's not tautological, that's a requirement. Taut means its a loop. You have to be evil to take the Assassin PrC. Therefore, all Assassins the PrC are Evil, or they don't qualify to be assassins anymore.

And no, 'by my argument' has nothing to do with soldiers. Soldiers aren't paid to kill anybody for money. They are paid to defend their societies and contest with other soldiers on the field of battle. They don't take money from Joe to kill his wife, and then from his wife to kill Joe, too.
War is inherently neutral in that it oppresses all sides equally, and the clash of arms over territory is a completely natural function for all living things. Soldiering is all wound up with duty, loyalty, god, country, ethics and whatnot.
Assassination is get paid to kill specific people, not the enemy combatants who are also trying to kill you.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

thejeff wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Petty Alchemy wrote:

Soldiers kill soldiers. Soldiers that kill unresisting civilians are probably evil.

But what about soldiers who kill civilians wearing bombs, or civilians who seem like they're wearing bombs and are approaching and don't understand English [when the soldiers don't have someone who knows the native tongue.]

Soldiers go where they are told and kill the people they are told to kill. They take prisoners when they're told to do so. They kill at least other soldiers for political reasons, which according to Aelryinth are always motivated by money and thus evil.

In this day and age, they drop bombs on targets that have been given to them. In older days they tended to loot and pillage as they went, at least to supply food.

But, I didn't intend to bring up modern wars here. I'm talking historically and in general. If assassins are always evil even when killing political (and military?) targets under orders given for political reasons, then soldiers are also evil when they kill under orders for political reasons.

To take the extreme example, would an assassin sneaking into Berlin on Churchill's orders and killing Hitler be more of an evil deed than butchering tens of thousands of soldiers in a nice clean war?
Obviously there are many cases where it isn't that clean and simple, but this is a fantasy game. It tends to be much more black and white than the real world. Assassinating the warlord who's managed to unite the orc tribes isn't more evil than openly fighting your way through the hordes to get to him.

Wow, hyperbole much?

Since when is being about money always evil? I never said that. Everyone works for money. Does that mean working is now evil, too, by YOUR definition?

And there you go mixing Assassin the prc with assassins the job again. You really need to learn to divide the two, because you're mixing them in your head and drawing all sorts of exaggerated conclusions because of it.

==Aelryinth

[Aelryinth]

LazarX wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

Vlad Tepes, while probably not Good, certainly isn't Evil. He'd fit the TN alignment almost perfectly, far more concerned with friends and family then laws and politics and money.

You might want to read his history again. Vlad Tepes' greatest enemy was his brother.

Whiiiiich changes what about his greatest concerns being friends and family, as opposed to god and/or country, laws or traditions?

==Aelryinth

[kyrt-ryder]

I rest my case the Assassin class is written horribly but under that garbage write-up it should be evil.

EDIT: I'm actually not seeing his quote on Archives of Nethys [currently AFB]... did the guy I quoted in my link accurately describe the Assassin class's flavor text?

EDIT 2: Looking at the PRD, I see his quote about 'the sheer thrill of death-dealing' only in the Prestige Class List, not the Class itself. Due to the stupidity of such a statement for a professional assassin, I'm going to assume that list was compiled by someone other than the person who did the Assassin write-up and consider it invalid.

[thejeff]

Aelryinth wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

You're confusing 'assassin the ACT' with 'assassin the PrC'. Kindly keep them separate.

And it's not politics, it's money. In the end, politics is nothing but the movement of money with a face in front of it. Spending money on an assassin to secure money via politics or business is an old-and time-honored method of getting and staying wealthy.

Which doesn't make it NOT an evil deed.

Well yes, but that's tautological. Assassin the PrC has to be evil because that's a requirement for the PrC.

And by the rest of your argument, soldiers are also evil. They're paid to kill people for politics, which is just money, therefore evil.

That's not tautological, that's a requirement. Taut means its a loop. You have to be evil to take the Assassin PrC. Therefore, all Assassins the PrC are Evil, or they don't qualify to be assassins anymore.

There's your circle. But whatever, I'll drop the semantics. The question of the thread is "Why is being evil a requirement for an assassin?" "Because you have to be evil to take the Assassin PrC" is not an answer.

Which is why we're talking about assassin the job, not just Assassin the PrC.

[nighttree]

Because the "baseline" morality bar is set such that killing other sentient beings for money/employment is evil.

[Liz Courts]

Locking thread.