I promised the rouge I would put this up but, what if a player where to become a modified prestige class- the Good Asssaisn. You know using powers to assasinate evil (CG). The revolutionary halfling who wanted this argues that every country has assasins to kill (bad)political leaders. (Im not 100% sure if its true) but what do you think?
For once, I hope it is the character becoming an assassin, not the player :-)
To my understanding, assassination is defined in the context of the game to be an evil act, circumstances notwithstanding. It includes poison use and sneaking upon a target, which in combination are the opposite of a fair fight.
(I don´t want a discussion about assassination in real life here, let´s stick to the game.)
The argument about government having (supposedly good) assassins to remove "bad" politicans is worth nothing to me. In your game world, you decide what goes and what not, and if you say, assassination is evil, then its evil, period. Even assassinating an evil politician is not a good act in my book, and using an evil act to fight evil does not make you good. I can only wonder that a revolutionary would even consider using the methods of the enemy.
So, no, no good assassins if you ask me.
(If the player even alluded to the real world, he should stop reading conspiration theories)
Oh, and Onrie: please try to proofread your posts - the mistakes make them more difficult to read, especially for non-native speakers like me.
Stefan
You can kill someone in self defense and still say you're a good guy.
But when you're hired to kill someone you don't know; That's not self defense. That's evil.
Ultradan
You can kill someone in self defense and still say you're a good guy.
But when you're hired to kill someone you don't know; That's not self defense. That's evil.
Ultradan
Thats also kind of what Paladins do.
In anycase there is precedent - as was pointed out already on this thread the Slayer of Domiel is a Good Assasin PRC. One of my favourite PRCs really - sadly none of my players are interested, they usually take 'Neutral Self Serving' as their Alighnment.
Remember the assassin in Serenity? That's how I would see the typical government assassin...highly skilled, slightly warped, and probably LN or LE.
I can't think of a CG character killing off enemies of any political organization...sounds neither chaotic, nor good...
On the other hand, I am down with a "Good" assassin. It just doesn't seem to make much sense for a CG halfling--but you know the circumstances better than I.
In anycase there is precedent - as was pointed out already on this thread the Slayer of Domiel is a Good Assasin PRC. One of my favourite PRCs really - sadly none of my players are interested, they usually take 'Neutral Self Serving' as their Alighnment.
Do note that, by classic definition (read: 1st & 2nd ed.), "neutral self-serving" is NE, not CN.
CN is waay overused to justify a character doing anything in their own selfish self-interest; selfishness and disinterest in how your actions affect others is Evil.
M
You know using powers to assasinate evil (CG). The revolutionary halfling who wanted this argues that every country has assasins to kill (bad)political leaders.
I'm pretty sure people who consider themselves on the side of good don't use anonymous murder as a method of defeating evil.
Maybe a good warrior could get away with this, eg ambush the evil overlord while he's travelling, kill him and leave a note saying "executed for injustice" or something. But he would have to have some way of infallibly knowing that he was right and that the guy he killed WAS evil, otherwise he's definitley not being good. Plus I can't see him breaking into someone's house and poisoning them or cutting their throat. the evil person would have to be confronted and given a chance to surrender for the act to be considered "good" IMHO. It's the method of killing more than the reason that makes assassination "evil."
So for me good assassination would be more like detect, confront, charge with crimes, give opportunity to surrender, if opportunity is not taken THEN resort to violence. Sounds like a paladin to me, as Jeremy pointed out.
Seems to me your player just wants to be able to do death attacks and sneak around while still being considered good, but it's the sneaking and the death attacks that are "evil" in D&D terms, not so much the killing. If it was me I'd say no.
Besides if the PC's assassination skills can only be used in the murder of the most evil beings, what is the character supposed to do in normal missions? He won't be the most effective character if he only uses his sneaky attacks on bad politicians. Unless it's just an excuse and once he has the skills he'll use them on everyone and everything he fights...
|
I don't know if I agree with you guys about the "no such thing as a good assassin thing". Sometimes a Good person has to take out an Evil person and if the Evil guy is uber-protected and slaying innocents left and right, then the weaker good guy should do anything in his power to stop the senseless murders. Walking up and saying "please surrender" only gets the good guy slain. How can the innocents be protected then? No, I think that if a situation is "Bad guy dies or a bunch more innocents die" then any means necessary to end the tyranny is acceptable. Good is good, not (in most cases) stupid. Self-sacrifice can be noble but if it leaves innocents to die then it was in vain.
as always IMO,
FH
You can kill someone in self defense and still say you're a good guy.
But when you're hired to kill someone you don't know; That's not self defense. That's evil.
Ultradan
Well said...I think one of the most important evil bell-ringers about the assassin prestige class is the prerequisite of having to join a guild and kill someone for nothing more than coin.
Killing for money is definately evil in my book.
Now I have played good ex-assassin's before...reformed, tortured by their dark past and what-not. That is fun!
In anycase there is precedent - as was pointed out already on this thread the Slayer of Domiel is a Good Assasin PRC. One of my favourite PRCs really - sadly none of my players are interested, they usually take 'Neutral Self Serving' as their Alighnment.Do note that, by classic definition (read: 1st & 2nd ed.), "neutral self-serving" is NE, not CN.
CN is waay overused to justify a character doing anything in their own selfish self-interest; selfishness and disinterest in how your actions affect others is Evil.
M
Also well said!...
I agree. CN is the bane of my existence as DM. I have had more than a few players select it just so they can't be detected as evil by the paladin and then murder innocents cause it suited their fancy and served their needs. CN is very hard to play correctly in my opinion...and it usually just ends up being CE when I let someone play it.
In pure philosophical/theoretical terms, there are situations where the good of all is served best by assassination like FH says. However, the intense interest in death and pain that allows a character to learn the ways of the assassin's unique abilities requires an evil attitude. There may be about 1 truly good aligned assassin in the world, but like was previously mentioned what is your halfling PC to do with his death attack ability after the big bad villain is dead (who was the only person in the campaign that can be assassinated in good conscience for a good cause)? What I'm trying to say is that in practical terms, good assassins are just not a good idea.
TS
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Fake Healer here. Assassination is not necessarily killing for hire; it simply describes a more stealthy and sneaky way of killing than the goody-two-shoes paladin's method of man-to-man, honorable duel sort of killing. Healer is right that no matter how "good" or "noble" a city or government or organization may seem, it almost certainly has the need to remove an adversary in a manner that does not implicate itself as the aggressor. There is an alignment-defensible stance that when the greater good is served (the "dishonorable" assassination of a demon prince intent on sacrificing Pelor's high priests and lesser parishoners, for example) even an act as seemingly naughty as assassination is excusable. So, in conclusion, I'd suggest that the halfing be allowed to pursue his goals of assassination, in the form of a Slayer of Domiel if nothing else.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I'm with the Assassins are evil crowd. That said I have never condoned the Lawful Stupid view of Lawful Good (or any other good alignment). I can see where specific situations might call for a drastic solution
Sometimes a Good person has to take out an Evil person and if the Evil guy is uber-protected and slaying innocents left and right, then the weaker good guy should do anything in his power to stop the senseless murders. Walking up and saying "please surrender" only gets the good guy slain. How can the innocents be protected then? No, I think that if a situation is "Bad guy dies or a bunch more innocents die" then any means necessary to end the tyranny is acceptable. Good is good, not (in most cases) stupid. Self-sacrifice can be noble but if it leaves innocents to die then it was in vain.
That would be up to the DM to judge on a case-by-case basis, however while the ends might justify the means, Atonement would still be a requirement for those cases in my campaigns. Otherwise you are looking at an alignment shift.
By the same token I have made LE NPCs who serve LG deities and the higher good by doing the horrific to "bad" guys. These characters have no concept of alignment as it exists in game terms and certainly don’t think of themselves as evil, most are pillars of the community, earnest and loyal allies but their willingness to torture maim and assassinate enemies of “The Greater Good” make them evil.
I think this might be a closer answer to the "real world" example cited at the beginning of this thread.
The revolutionary halfling who wanted this argues that every country has assasins to kill (bad)political leaders.
The real world is full of gray areas that the nine alignments often fall short replicating.
well, it brings up the issue of poison, why is that considered evil to use? i can understand poisonin' some town well, and killin' off townfolk with it, but what about during combat?
well, to put it into a context- Say you've got a group of goblins you're killing. slashing at them with a sword until they stop coming. conisdered good. now, if you coat that same sword with poison and hack and slash until they stop coming, NOW you're evil.
i tend to remove alignment from my games, as it tends to detract from the story when the CN guy goes off on his own to do whatever it was that he wanted to do.
|
|
It would be OK if the assasin was not a killer but a banisher ... "killing" outsiders and sending them back to their plane or "killing" undead and putting them to rest etc (yeah I know - you can't sneak undead).
Also if you use the paralysis only death affect or made a knock out option instead of death that could be cool. poisons could be non-con damage only. I used to play a great shadowdancer/rogue/ranger in 3.0 that went for 2 sneak subdual-only every round he could. Man did we ARREST a heck of a lot of badies without killing!
But I think you want to make a good assasin that kills ... unless he's got some really special targets it's going to be very hard to justify. AND "for the good of the greater good" option stinks of Lawful~ in my book. Maybe "kill the oppressors" might be CN for the revolutionary. But a demon stalker is the closest I think you'll get to CG. Remember Nietzsche though ... "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." (Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil)
I don't know if there is much more I can add on this subject. You have to admit that the theives get the most bang for thier buck by striking an unaware foe, preferrably from somewhere the foe can't reach the thief. Does this make him evil? According to the PHB no, it only makes him Chaotic.
Now, an assasin is really just a thief who is reallllly good at what he/she does. Once again, the question is, does striking an unaware foe make you evil? See answer above.
I would say that the halfling could indeed take this Prestige Class mentioned by some of the others on this thread (I personally don't own a copy of Exaulted Deeds so I can't look it up). HOWEVER - Onrie, I would make sure to put up some pretty well defined boundaries on who the halfling can use these powers on.
I would run it similarly to a paladin where the PC has to be Absolutly sure that his/her target is evil. A case of mistaken or deliberate misuse of the power would be grounds for an alignment change.
Hope this helps! :-)
-Rath
Now I have played good ex-assassin's before...reformed, tortured by their dark past and what-not. That is fun!
That sounds very familar to David Gemmell's Waylander series, but yeah, i wanted to base a character off hime before, what a kick ass guy. Sweet read too, but that is another thread.
I would have to agree that being an assassin in the game requires an evil streak. However, I do also think that it is also just a point of view.I played a monk who we nick named assassin. As if there was ever a group of people that needed to be taken care of with little noise he was sent in. However, he was also lawful neutral and only did that when he had too. Anything to get the job done, within reason.
Though he would never kill a character in cold blood, he always made sure that they were aware of their impending doom. You know he had to stun them and then he would have to subdue them further, then kill them. It wasn't an unknown foe. It seems that this prestige class that is bouncing around in the other posts sounds good but then again I don't know what it is. But i am sure the people on these boards are not going to steer you wrong.
In the end though it is up to you as a DM to let him or not let him have the class. I guess you could always just disallow poision and only let him use his abilites against someone he knows is evil to the extreme.
JMO
Later
A.
While I can imagine kingdoms having assassins to take out leaders they dislike, I see this used much more by the evil kings. But I think this could be a possible choice left for a good king.
However, I don't think a good kingdom would have assassins ready to kill any evil leader that pops up. If only because it should only be used if all else failed and evil lords should not be showing up that often.
Also while I can imagine some good assassins that take out dictators, I don't think they would be incredibly useful against them. Since they should have the resources to defeat the assassin's abilities, armor of fortitification for death attack, delay poison for poison use.
I would have said that accepting money to kill someone is an evil act if it didn't have so often with adventurers.
Assasination is not inherently evil (my opinion). And as many have stated their are many circumstances where it is acceptable. The assasin prestige class is evil. For multiple reasons. You could make it good but not without altering the class.
Sure, in real life, good and evil changes depending on one's point of view. In reality, the enemy is ALWAYS evil (or wrong, or missguided).
But remember that this is a game, and alignment is used primarily as a guideline as to how a character (mostly NPCs) will react, and secondly it is used to help (magically) detect who is friend and who is foe.
So if this situation was in real life, to his clan the assasin would be considered good (and possibly even a hero). But to those outside the clan, he is definately evil. And in game terms, he would be evil also.
In my opinion, of course.
Ultradan
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Sure, in real life, good and evil changes depending on one's point of view. In reality, the enemy is ALWAYS evil (or wrong, or missguided).
But remember that this is a game, and alignment is used primarily as a guideline as to how a character (mostly NPCs) will react, and secondly it is used to help (magically) detect who is friend and who is foe.
So if this situation was in real life, to his clan the assasin would be considered good (and possibly even a hero). But to those outside the clan, he is definately evil. And in game terms, he would be evil also.
In my opinion, of course.
Ultradan
That's exactly true. In D&D alignment is how an uninvolved 3rd party would see your character's actions. It is a game mechanic not something the characters would ever really be aware of. When the rules determine good and evil it is in a strict black and white, while the characters will judge good and evil in shades of gray much the same as we do in real life.
Using the real life scenario: Kingdom A and B have been embroiled in conflict since before living memory. An Assassin from Kingdom A, kills the ruler of Kingdom B that has been raising an undead army and attacking Kingdom A. So this assassin is Good. His king sees him as a hero and the people rest peacefully knowing an evil necromancer has died at the hands of a hero.
But look at the situation from the perspective of Kingdom B. The conflicts and wars between these two nations have been going on for too long. As a benevolent ruler the King of Kingdom B decides that no more will the people of his kingdom die in this conflict and raises the corpses of soldiers from both sides to attack his enemy hoping that a enough damage to the other side will weaken their will to war. His people are grateful that no more sons and fathers will lose their lives and perhaps the war will conclude at long last. How then do you suppose they will react to the assassination of their hero?
They would call it an evil act.
The truth is both the assassin from Kingdom A and the King of B are defending what they see as the greater good but both are, in terms of black and white alignment, evil. An argument might be made that an assassin might be neutral but not good.
Sure, in real life, good and evil changes depending on one's point of view. In reality, the enemy is ALWAYS evil (or wrong, or missguided).
But remember that this is a game, and alignment is used primarily as a guideline as to how a character (mostly NPCs) will react, and secondly it is used to help (magically) detect who is friend and who is foe.
So if this situation was in real life, to his clan the assasin would be considered good (and possibly even a hero). But to those outside the clan, he is definately evil. And in game terms, he would be evil also.
In my opinion, of course.
Ultradan
I think that this depends on you gaming style. I also think that It would depend of how the character is played. If he is working for an organization that is telling him (Or Her) who to kill with our doing their own research, I wouldn't call that a 'Good' Assassin. But if they are doing their own research and killing people who by their deaths or removal from power would improve the society as a whole, then you could maintain a chaotic good alignment.
Judging alignment by how many people you have killed is a little absurde. ALL PC are mass murderes! I decided to keep track of the body count of just my characer in our las AoW session (Three faces of Evil). Now just for the record my numbers were high because the rest of my team were three newbies, but I had 38 kills. There aren't many serial killers that kill this many people in a lifetime.
Something else to consider is that fact that PC are not good law abiding citizens...They're Vigilanties. They, by their own moral code believe that the local authorities are unable or unwilling to do what is nessassary. It really is an arogant mind set when you come to think about it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone is torturing, maiming, and killing children in a bizarre attempt to siphon the life force from them to hisself. He is living in a huge castle and surrounded by an army of minions who are the most elite force of guards in the area. Only an army of huge size stands a chance of a frontal assault on the madman. Enter stage left: Good assassin and crew. They sneak into the madman's bedchamber, assasinate, kill, slay, whatever you wish to call it, all the guards protecting this slime-bucket (who all know what is going on with the children) and kill this bastard in his sleep.
Where is the evil act? If killing the guards or madman can be considered evil because they didn't have a straight-up fight, than every single person who hits someone who is flat-footed is evil. If 1 good goblin is in your campaign world then slaying 20 goblins without capturing, detecting evil and trying to reform them is an evil act. The madman above was killing children. I don't care how he is killed, but it is in no way an evil act to kill an evil person, commiting evil acts, by ANY means possible. A good rogue could never exist in most worlds of the above posters because they sneak attack people and don't give them a chance to fight fair. This is ridiculous, killing an evil person commiting evil acts is a good act unless innocents die without a choice to achieve the act. It doesn't matter if you call it a strategic ambush, sneak attack or assassination. I think the idea of Good Assassins in D&D is a good one. If he/she accidentally kills the wrong person, it depends on the situation but, why would he need an immediate alignment change? Why an atonement? Does he kill for his God? If not then he doesn't need to atone, just feel extemely guilty and try to make some kind of restitution. If he feels no remorse, or expresses none, then by all means change his alignment to Neutral. Soldiers and civilians are killed by friendly fire alot, it doesn't mean the shooter is/was evil, and while that act will have a profound impact on the shooters life it does not suddenly change him to evil.
as always, IMO
FH
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note too that there is a difference between a single act of necessity and a lifestyle of killing from stealth. How many evildoers really need assassinating? The prestige class assumes regular employment of the assassins skill set.
I don't necessarily agree with this statement, on the regular use of the skillset. It can be true, yes. But I can also see it being the case where someone has gone through extensive training and preparation for such a role, without making active use of the skills on a regular basis. Such a person would likely have limited advancement in the PrC, but it doesn't have to be put to regular use in it's full array of abilities.
To toss out a couple of examples:
A group of individuals are hired to go to a location and kill everyone living there. They are told the residents are evil, go there and slaughter them. Does this make them evil?
A group of individuals are hired to retrieve an item held by someone else. They are told this item is stolen, the current owner of the item refuses to hand it over. They kill them and take the item. Is this an evil act?
In both cases, someone is essentially being hired to kill someone else. By stealth or not, it is still murder for hire and it is how many groups of adventurers make their livings.
How many times has a party of adventurers came across a sleeping enemy and killed them while they were helpless, or nearly so? A sleeping giant, ogre, dragon, etc. In this case, how often do they have undeniable proof that their victim is irredeemably evil?
Another point, though not as directly related to the issue. Many cultures, especially primitive ones, make use of poisons in some form or other. Jungle tribesmen use blowguns with either a lethal poison, or a sedative in order to hunt. By D&D terms, would this make them evil? They may not have the technology or the resources to make sophisticated weapons, they hunt their prey using what resources they have. There is no distinction between using poison on animals, vermin, or on monsters and people in the D&D universe. So by that definition, the equivalent to an exterminator putting out poison to kill the rats infesting a farmers barn is performing an inheritly evil act.
Just a few things to ponder. Pardon my spelling, it's past my bedtime and all that fun stuff. (YAY for night shift work)
It strikes me as a little odd that it is more acceptable and 'good' to assault the fortress of an evil lord, kill virtually everyone living there in order to remove the threat of said lord. Whereas a single person (Or small group) using stealth to gain entry, slip past the guards and servants and remove the evil lord without harming or killing anyone else (Or perhaps a very small number of people) is the more 'evil' of these two acts. Makes for an interesting take on morality in my opinion.
Hmmm....a good assasin? This is a tough question indeed. Yes, golem did have it right that the class was evil because of thier abilities and some of the spells they have. ls This is because a lot of it tends to be EVIL. I also concure that assasins do not have to be evil. I think you can have a good assasin who slays evil characters, monsters, etc. Paladins do the same thing only with heavy armor but w/o poisen and sneaking. I would bve interested in a good aligned assasin but many things would have to change about the class. I dont even like some...well most...aspects of the Book of Exalted Deeds.
P.S. Blubbernaught put it very well.
I promised the rouge I would put this up but, what if a player where to become a modified prestige class- the Good Asssaisn. You know using powers to assasinate evil (CG). The revolutionary halfling who wanted this argues that every country has assasins to kill (bad)political leaders. (Im not 100% sure if its true) but what do you think?
The "revolutionary halfling's" reasoning is flawed (as D&D alignment is not subjective, it is irrelevant whether "every country has assasins" or not), but there is no game-mechanical reason why a character class with the abilities of the Assassin prestige class has to be Evil. The Assassin class has that as a prerequisite, but it is purely a flavor issue. Poison use is not inherently Evil. Killing by surprise/stealth is not inherently Evil. Premeditated murder is not inherently Evil. Context is everything when you are discussing alignment.
All that being said, a Good Assassin should be a Very Rare thing indeed. And quite frankly, I suspect it is a role that is far beyond your "revolutionary halfling's" level of sophistication. But what harm will it do to let him play one?
I'm pretty sure people who consider themselves on the side of good don't use anonymous murder as a method of defeating evil.... But he would have to have some way of infallibly knowing that he was right and that the guy he killed WAS evil, otherwise he's definitley not being good. Plus I can't see him breaking into someone's house and poisoning them or cutting their throat. the evil person would have to be confronted and given a chance to surrender for the act to be considered "good" IMHO. It's the method of killing more than the reason that makes assassination "evil."
How about destrying two entire cities in fire and brimstone? Maybe wiping out all life as we know it in a flood?
Here's why I bring these up as examples... and it's one of the biggest conflicts in alignment that there is IMHO:
Elyssium, Celestia, and thier inhabitants of Celestials, Angels, Devas, etc. are all counterparts of Judeo-Christian Heaven / Angels theology (as in... if you're trying to get a new player to understand what they're dealing with, you're likely to say "Think like Heaven and these are angels.")
The problem is, these are all good aligned (as they would be in the mythology they are based on), yet Arch-Angles acted like god's hitmen on a GRAND scale in bible mythology.
So, we came up with a different alignement term: Rigid Lawful Good. This goes beyond normal lawful good and even beyond the code of most Paladins (though Paladins are the most likely PC class to have this alignment). Rigid Lawful Good will do what most could consider extremely evil acts because they are necessary for the greater good or whatever the big picutre goal is, and will do it without blinking an eye.
Someone earlier brought up the Serenity assassin. This is a perfect example. He can't be considered evil in my opinion becuase NOTHING he does is for selfish motives. You even get the idea that he feels bad about many of the things he's doing, and wishes it wasn't necessary. EVERYTHING he does is because he deeply and devoutly believes he is helping to make the world a better place... he's helping to build a perfect society, even if he will have no place in it. He also rigidly holds to what his place is in the heirarchy of the Alliance... he doesn't even know what the secret is he's charged with protecting, he just knows that it's imperative to the ideal he has devoted his life to that it BE protected. And finally, once he learns the truth and that his ideal doesn't and will never exist, he simply walks away.
He acts throughout the story as any good soldier of Celestia or Elyssium would... and becomes a fallen angel at the end.
Wow – only in a game world can such a surreal discussion be held.
In real life killing is pretty frowned upon. Murder for hire is the phrase that best describes the assassin. The justness of an act of murder is what is at question here.
In real life this is not a very clear line. We in the west might think that the assassination of Osama is justified but certain Muslim elements in the Middle East would view it as murder. Is it right? Is it wrong? Well, real life doesn’t have alignments. D&D does and it puts a bit of a cork on the moral discussion surrounding a game where 90% of what the players engage in is the slaughter of their enemies (i.e. it’s O.K. to go and kill that tribe of Bugbears because they’re evil – it says so in their alignment stat. Besides, Bugbears often raid caravans and rob farmers – never mind that they were raised like idiots and happen to be starving because they don’t know how plant a field).
In D&D, murder of one’s enemies seems to be justified so long as the enemy is evil. So, from my perspective, what does it matter if the PC plays an assassin or not. The argument is one that critiques the delivery system when death is the package. Who care’s?
If you want to run a really interesting campaign get rid of alignment and play all enemies as real entities not just an example paradigm. Are they evil? Are they good? Is an encounter with an ogre a foregone conclusion or can it become an ally? It’s a game where murder is the not the automatic response to opposition. When players do kill someone or something don’t make it Run of the Mill – describe the look in their eyes as their life leeks away; put in a child witness; ask them what they do with the body and their blood soaked cloths when the deed is done. Now, ask that player if they want to play a PC who’s primary specialty is the murder of other sentient life forms and ask her/him if they think that they can play a “good” assassin.
It’s a matter of context. Personally I don’t use alignment and I like to play realistic gritty games that have consequences. If you’re not into that kind of thing and you play monsters and opponents as static archetypes where evil is evil and good is good than I think you can find any old argument to justify a “good” assassin. It reminds me a bit of Star Trek. They can do anything so long as they realign the main deflector dish and adjust the shield harmonics. This is a fine style of play too. The goal is to have fun and not get too caught up in the morality of character choice. Why throw obstacles at a player who thinks it would be fun to play an assassin. However, if you ARE a group of players who concerns yourself with moral issues, realistic role-play, and all that… Then I say, realistically, NO! There’s simply no way to play a “good” assassin. I would still allow it as a DM but I would really focus on the consequences of the player’s actions and the reactions of other PC’s and NPC’s. Most players won’t go that route due the sheer difficulty of being a heinous criminal in a law abiding generally moral society (unless you’re the King or something – lots of historical tragedy on that note) never mind the guilt trip.
Anyway, that’s my two cents on this fascinating grey area.
Cheers,
C.
Thanks for the postings all:) It seems from everyones two cents that I should look up the BoED but then others say I should go ahead and allow or disallow it. I guess it just all comes down to my judjment as a DM. I might change it a tiny bit to make it less disputably evil.
|
|
I like to think about Terry Pratchets definition of evil ... treating other poeple as if they were objects (gross paraphrase) ... with that in mind the greys of good and evil that one gets in Ebberon start to come out for me ... but I always had a problem with;
1)cast know alignment 2)stab the evil things 3)rinse 4)repeat
only targeting the worst of the worst I think is either going to be VERY 2D or very limiting or you'll start to slip in who you judge to be evil (qv Nietzsche)
I promised the rouge I would put this up but, what if a player where to become a modified prestige class- the Good Asssaisn. You know using powers to assasinate evil (CG). The revolutionary halfling who wanted this argues that every country has assasins to kill (bad)political leaders. (Im not 100% sure if its true) but what do you think?
I think you might want to check out the Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy (the movies I haven't read the Cold War books they are based off of).
As for Chaotic Good - I'd say just make sure he plays Chaotic Good. He's probably a bit of a cheeky rake, who helps old ladies across the street and flirts with women too tall for him, but is near-mercilessly when it comes to tyrants or bullies.
As for Book of Exalted Deeds, save yourself a headache and don't allow the book to enter your game, unless everyone is playing an evil or morally gray character in which case use it to make your "bad guys" up. There is even a good version of the spell mind rape - hi, allow me to rewrite your brain (Book of Vile Darkness). The only change to the spell was its name....
GGG
Ranks right up there with Military Intelligence.
At best an assassin in the hire of a "good" government (yeah, whatever) should be lawful neutral, going strictly by the alignment structure of D and D. Murder, by definition, is evil.
Heroes are not necessarily "good." Robin Hood was a thief and murderer. King Arthur and his knights were the nobility (and how were the serfs treated back then?). Heroes do what they must, not what is good. How about the Inquisition?
Real world religion has no place in D and D. Flame War aside, Christian beliefs do not make an All-powerful being "good." As if such a being would relegate Itself to such human standards of philosophy.
The stars are almost right. Then you will realize that your human standards are meaningless, and more importantly, wrong. Mwahahahahahaha. Man shall be as the Great Old Ones...
You could be an assasin for a good government without yourself being good.
Tell him to go vigilante.
Also, I ran into this concept a few years back. A sect of lawful neutral assasins fight to preserve the balance between good and evil. If evil grows to strong, they "cut off the serpents head." If good is becoming to powerfull, they do the same.
I don't think poison should be evil. It's not lawful, in terms of alignment, and it's certainly dishonourable, but hitting someone with a poisoned sword isn't any more evil than hitting them with a magic sword.
I think the reason that people think of poison as evil is that in real life, weapon poison would probably be lethal and fast-acting in order to kill a person. It's a pre-meditated, saying in advance, "Whoever it is I fight next, I don't care who they are or why I'm fighting them, but I want them dead."
In D&D, poisons tend to have a weakening affect instead, perhaps like tear gas. Poisons are not lethal unless they act on Constitution. If Strength damage poison is evil, then Ray of Enfeeblement should be evil too!
I would consider poison use evil only under certain circumstances. One, if it's a poison which deliberately causes pain. Two, if it causes ability drain, which is permanent and causes undue suffering for the rest of the creature's life. Three, if it deals Constitution damage, and is employed such that it is likely to kill whoever it is used against, regardless of circumstances.
If you want to run a really interesting campaign get rid of alignment and play all enemies as real entities not just an example paradigm. Are they evil? Are they good? Is an encounter with an ogre a foregone conclusion or can it become an ally? It’s a game where murder is the not the automatic response to opposition. When players do kill someone or something don’t make it Run of the Mill – describe the look in their eyes as their life leeks away; put in a child witness; ask them what they do with the body and their blood soaked cloths when the deed is done. Now, ask that player if they want to play a PC who’s primary specialty is the murder of other sentient life forms and ask her/him if they think that they can play a “good” assassin.
It’s a matter of context. Personally I don’t use alignment and I like to play realistic gritty...
Wow that was really well said Cernunos... exactly what I wish I'd said in fact! I don't use alignment either so everyone in my campaign (PC's and NPCs) behaves according to their experiences and their personal goals. Recently one of the players decided he wanted to be an assassin because his PC is a rogue/sorceror who uses ambush to destroy his enemies. But when he saw the requirement "must kill someone for the sole purpose of joining the assassins" he decided he didn't want to be an assassin anymore. He realized that the assassin class is not a set of skills so that you can sneak attack better, it's an archetype designed to represent those people in the world who care so little for the lives of others that they deliberately make their living as murderers no questions asked. That's what an assassin IS, once you take away abstract alignment, and that's what an assassin is meant to be anyway.
But you are right, if you do use algnment it should be possible to justify any act as good or evil simply by applying subjective judgements to the situation.
Someone trained to defeat evil using stealth techniques and ambush is not an assassin, in D&D terms. They are potentially a unique and much more interesting character, which perhaps would be better represented by a different PrC or even multiclassing. But the assassin PrC is clearly meant to represent a hired remorseless killer who will murder a child or an evil dictator equally easily if the pay is good. The "evil" pre-req is a definite hint that this is what a character with the assassin PrC is meant to be.
This whole good/evil thing is very nebulous; it is up to the gm to determine game tone and decide the boundries of good and evil; think about what pc's do; generally break into someones home, kill them; take there stuff; and attach some fluff rational to it; this makes a great adventurus game, but can you say this is any different in form than murder or assassination; are not d&d modules full of villages or groups that hire the pc's to more or less kill some problem group. Seems to me that if a good guy kills a evil guy then that is good and if an evil guy kills a good guy then that is evil. Tags of such things need to be both straight forward and simple or you will get into long, lengthy discussions with your players best reserved for non playing times.
Well, there is clearly lots of room for debate on the issues in this thread. I would like to point out, though, that assassination is frequently not a very effective tactic for purging the world (or your corner of it from evil). If you take out the bad guy, he's probably got lots of lieutenants who will squabble for a while, sort out their pecking order, and then be back in business. You might get a temporary advantage which allows you to make headway against evil, but you won't get rid of it. Even Sauron's destruction in LoTR is not the end of evil, but a temporary victory, bought at great price. And if the agents of good had taken an ends justify the means approach, the victory would have been even more short-lived, because the "good" leaders would already have been corrupted before they won.
Your chaotic good "assassin" is probably something approximating what we call "terrorists" (if we are on the side of law and order) or "freedom fighters" (if we are sympathetic with those oppressed by law and order). In my book, if he specializes in stealthy killing enough to get an assassin's death attack, he has a strong chance of being slowly corrupted by his work. Of course there is a chance of a regular warrior in the cause of good runs this risk to some extent, too.
Anyway--not all of us run campaigns where all people do is "kill the bad guys and swipe their stuff." There are all kinds of ways to run a campaign that discourage outright murdering and plunder.
Wow, do you guys ever get out of the house? Only a few minutes ago the film "Munich" lost at the Academy Awards. Now tell me, would there not be many people who would see the men portraied in that film as heroic and good?
The late-KGB, the CIA, Mossad, MI6 and so many 'spy' organizations have people in their employment that 'clean-up' when conventional channels are not available. In most cases, these men and women are doing what has to be done for the 'greater good' of their homelands. They many not have a Good alignment in game terms, but Evil does not apply either.
As someone mentioned earlier, in Joss Wedon's amazing film Serenity (go rent it tonight!), The Operative knew that what he did was evil, but he beileved that the ends justified the means. A little twisted, but not evil.
Oh, and yes, there is actually a base class for someone whom wishes to be a non-Evil Assassin can take: the Ninja. The Samurai were the Emperor's elite, public warriors. While the Ninja was his swift, dark shadow.
I think the issue is that the "task" of assassination is not necessarily evil - depends on motivation circumstances etc. Nor is the role of assassin necessarily evil (though clearly this is open to debate) especially in a game where Lawful Good people kill other sentients to take their stuff.
The "class" assassin however has as a prerequisite an evil alignment - whether you want that to be because they draw on dark forces to gain their abilities, or just chalk it up to some perception of the writer as to the nature of the class.
As DM it is your job to rule, and determine how it would impact he balance of your game.
If it were my game (and its not) I would would rule thhat a good character could not pursue the "class". If they wanted to take on the "task" of assassination I would allow that depending on the circumstances. But I never much liked the class I think rogue is better and more fun.
|
|
I think the issue is that the "task" of assassination is not necessarily evil - depends on motivation circumstances etc. Nor is the role of assassin necessarily evil (though clearly this is open to debate) especially in a game where Lawful Good people kill other sentients to take their stuff.
The "class" assassin however has as a prerequisite an evil alignment - whether you want that to be because they draw on dark forces to gain their abilities, or just chalk it up to some perception of the writer as to the nature of the class.
As DM it is your job to rule, and determine how it would impact he balance of your game.
If it were my game (and its not) I would would rule thhat a good character could not pursue the "class". If they wanted to take on the "task" of assassination I would allow that depending on the circumstances. But I never much liked the class I think rogue is better and more fun.
Agreed, but the poster was talking about a PrC that was an assasin with a good alignment from some supplement book, not the Assassin class in the Corebooks.
FH
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
As someone mentioned earlier, in Joss Wedon's amazing film Serenity (go rent it tonight!), The Operative knew that what he did was evil, but he beileved that the ends justified the means. A little twisted, but not evil.
No matter what your beliefs may be regarding your actions, You are what you do. "The Operative knew what he did was evil" ergo he was evil. The rest is self deception.
"Every country has assassings to kill bad political leaders"
You mean in the real world? In the real world there is also no alignment. I hesitate to say that the special ops soldiers who do take care of assassinations and such, wouldn't be classified as "good". They are most likely following orders as they have been conditioned to do without hesitation.
As for the general idea of your post, bad spelling aside, your player is looking for justification to play a good assassin. By the WAR, a good rogue (rouge is the pink stuff women put on their cheeks) cannot take the Assassin Prestige Class.
I would ask the question, why does the rogue wish to enter the Assassin class in the first place? If it further's the character concept and the player can give a strong case to why a 'good; organization would employ his skills, I may give it to hiom, but it wouldn't be the Assassin PrC. If he is just looking for a cool power or two offered by the class, there are other ways to get those.
Director of Narrative
|
Stop. Please, just stop.
Every alignment discussion goes way too far and goes on for way too long. Nothing is being said hasn't already been said a million times around gaming tables. I bet if you ran a search of all the D&D type boards alignment would show up on a majority of posts. Everytime it's been discussed here the thread always runs over 50 posts. (last time it was poison use) Maybe it's just that I've been playing this game for 20 years, it's the most hotly debated topic and I'm tired of it.
Alignment is not a set of shackles, but rather a set of guidlines. Of all versions of this game 3.0 and 3.5 make alignment even easier to work with. Anyone remember how much of a pain in the butt it was when your DM shifted your alignment in 1st or 2nd ed? Now in 3.0/3.5 you can just drift without penalty.
Removing alignment from your game doesn't make (good/evil) actions or intentions go away. You just don't pay attention to them. And if that's your thing - go with it. Just don't be surprised when a player that uses Detect Evil/Good or Know Alignment gets frustrated with your ambivalent responses and realizes he's wasted a spell slot.
The original poster asked about a good assassin. The next post suggested Slayer of Domiel (-2 sp)from the BoED. The PrC has a LG requirement, so a CG character could not take it. Also, it is a pretty case-specific PrC, so it has its limits there. Third, there are few DMs that allow/like that book anyway. So, original poster - buy/borrow the book, talk to your DM or just play a rogue. (I agree with a poster from above that rogue is more effective than an assassin anyway.)
Sorry for all of this, I guess it would've been more suited to the rant thread.
hehe I love this thread; it very much illustrates the problem that players and gms have in this game. The fact that we have this discussion really means that WOC needs to work on this area in the game as it is so very nebulous; granted they did inprove from the original D&D books which had alignment descriptions so whacked that nobody understood them in specific terms; for more than a decade I just took the principaled, unpricipled ect alignments from *ahem* Paladium and placed the D*D names to them and used those to graph players alignements; they understood it; I understood it; very little missunderstanding or questions about what was good or evil in game terms.
Well, considering everything that was said on the topic, I told the PC Renmus... nothing! I was out sick today! Hahahahaha, what good luck. Anyway, everything considered, I think I will let him be a limited (modified) assassin. Oh well, keep the posts coming this is a tight spot for DM's and I still am on a mission to make the longest single alignment thread:)