All soldiers (and anyone else who kills) ARE murderers and sinners. When God decreed that "thou shalt not kill" he didn't add the addendum "unless you're a soldier or other 'lawful authority'."
Also, he didn't specify what we could and could not kill, so we should all be vegetarians too.
:P
Untrue. Also, my ghost paladin would like to have a word with you.
Can we please leave real world religion out of this and stick with man's definition as opposed to "insert random deity's".
As far as classifying all soldiers as murderers is concerned if you check up on the definition of murder you'll find that it has the word unlawful attached to it. A soldier is a murderer only in the nation in which he committed the crime and, assuming that the death was in regards to his lawful duty as a citizen, merely a killer in his home nation. Murder is a legal term not a moral one.
All soldiers (and anyone else who kills) ARE murderers and sinners. When God decreed that "thou shalt not kill" he didn't add the addendum "unless you're a soldier or other 'lawful authority'."
Also, he didn't specify what we could and could not kill, so we should all be vegetarians too.
:P
Well, firstly, all undead are evil.Untrue. Also, my ghost paladin would like to have a word with you.
God never decreed that thou shalt not kill, he decreed that thou shalt not murder. Murder requires the killing to be unlawful. The bible did not introduce prohibitions on soldiery (quite the opposite, actually), and neither has the government, so no, not all soldiers are murderers.
I'm with you on this one, Mikaze-- I agree with the folks who say there should be alignment tendencies for the different races-- but not alignment absolutes for them (except in special cases, like certain outsiders)-- so I could definitely see non-evil Orc tribes out there, even in worlds where most Orcs are evil.Really hoping someone up there's in Team Non-Evil Orc Tribe. It'd be nice to come in from the cold one day.Wooo alignment arguments!
I'll leave this thread alone, save to say that many alignment-related issues are contentious topics even among the Paizo staff. :D
I haven't yet implemented this in any of my Golarion games, but in any homebrew world I've ever conceived, I take half-orcs and simply drop the 'half' part...
|
there is a reason that, despite being a celestial being, i converted over to Lamashtu. i was tired of turning the other cheek when everyone insulted my faith and was tired of pretending to be an airhead. you could say that "Mother" called me into her faith with a simple bribe of good food, a better medical plan, and no restriction on whom i harm. screw that warhammer the other angels wielded, a Falchion is much cooler. anybody else want to convert to Lamashtu?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, the difference between "murder" and "not murder" is whether it is sanctioned lawfully. Unfortunately, Law/Chaos has nothing to do with Good/Evil in D&D/PF.
According to the Law, Robin hood would be a dirty outlaw, and if he killed one of Prince John's soldiers or even Prince John himself, Robin Hood is classified as a murderer; whereas he has actually been used as the poster boy of Chaotic Good more often than any other character I can think of; because Prince John is a Lawful Evil Tyrant, which apparently makes Robin Hood's act of unlawful murder a Good thing or at least a Neutral thing.
If you were to shoot a tyrant in the face with a gun, you are a murderer. If you do it while in a military force, under somebody's command, you're a soldier. Supposedly because you did so lawfully it is justified. Who justified it? Your superiors? Your King? Your God? At what point is shooting this guy in the face different than murder? Is it circumstances? Is it because somebody else told you to? Is it because you had no choice but to pull that trigger, because the commander gave the word? What if you're a soldier willingly? That means you accepted that choice.
So in D&D, you can absolutely be a Murderer and be a Good character, because whether something is lawful has absolutely no hold on whether or not it's Good or Evil in D&D, but based on who it hurts and why. Killing, in D&D, is evil; except - apparently - when justified by killing someone doing evil things.
I guess if you wanted to think about it like a robot, there will always be heroes and villains. Heroes will slay those villains and then assume the position of those villains for slaying them, and then new heroes will rise to slay the newly evil villains, and the cycle shall continue.
Is killing Nazis evil?
What are these Nazis doing and why are you, or in this case I, killing them?
As far as classifying all soldiers as murderers is concerned if you check up on the definition of murder you'll find that it has the word unlawful attached to it. A soldier is a murderer only in the nation in which he committed the crime and, assuming that the death was in regards to his lawful duty as a citizen, merely a killer in his home nation. Murder is a legal term not a moral one.
Are you saying that the law of God is not just as valid as the laws of man?
God never decreed that thou shalt not kill, he decreed that thou shalt not murder.
Did he? I'll have to look that up in my bible. I've NEVER IN THE ENTIRETY OF MY LIFE heard of it stated as "thou shalt not 'murder'."
EDIT: Seems you're right. I recant my previous statements (which were largely in jest anyhow) and give thanks for the clarification.
Are you saying that the law of God is not just as valid as the laws of man?
Did he? I'll have to look that up in my bible. I've NEVER IN THE ENTIRETY OF MY LIFE heard of it stated as "thou shalt not 'murder'."
Absolutely not. Do not stick words in my mouth sir. I'm saying that the law of God applies to his believers, much like every soldier's nation gets to decide if his killing is murder or doing his duty. Since everyone gets to cite their own god in this particular situation and thereby allow any killing they do as doing their particular duty I'd rather leave them all out together and use only the laws of people that everyone can collectively point at.
In the bible it states thou shalt not kill; however, it also makes provisions for the act of lawful killing thereby allowing for the notion of murder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did he? I'll have to look that up in my bible. I've NEVER IN THE ENTIRETY OF MY LIFE heard of it stated as "thou shalt not 'murder'."In the bible it states thou shalt not kill; however, it also makes provisions for the act of lawful killing thereby allowing for the notion of murder.
It depends on the translation.
Most of the rabbis that I've heard talk about the ten commandments and the Torah, have said the most precise translation of the commandment is "Do not murder." And that murder is a distinct act from killing.
EDIT: To Ravingdork ~ all good
I've edited my above post. Wanted to make sure you saw it.
@Ravingdork. I had a feeling you were speaking in jest.
@chavamana. I was using a literal translation. I am aware of the connotation that is used to interpret the overall meaning of the phrase. However, taken in a vacuum as it was being used it states thou shalt not kill without exception and I absolutely refuse to get into a doctrine and or translation argument of real world religion in reference to alignment.
Anyone wants to fight over real world religion you are welcome at my house between 4 and 6 on sunday afternoons. I'll break out the wifflebats some vodka and my books.
An Assassin, in D&D / PF, kills for profit. Pure and simple. That he does so using sneaky and dishonorable means just puts the capital E on the "Evil" descriptor. I've never understood how people can justify stabbing people in the back or poison use as "not evil". It may be necessary, the ends may not be "evil", but the act certainly is.
Attaching evil or good qualities to an action in a vacuum is silly at best fanaticism at worst.
I would then go on to wager since you cannot understand that good can lack honor and that evil can be noble that you do not understand the alignment system as written.
D&D / PF is a game with moral absolutes (i.e. Devils, Demons, Angels, etc.) not modern moral relativism. You can, of course, play it how you want. I've played the game in all it's incarnations (since 1974, except 4E which I read and decided against and Basic because I was hip deep in AD&D). I'm quite familiar with the alignment system and how it's evolved over time. I'm familar with numerous other systems as well suggested along the way or used in other games. I don't agree with you (or you don't with me) therefore I'm wrong in your book. That's fine with me. I rendered an opinon based on my own experience and viewpoint. It's not the type of issue you can argue to a consensus solution. As I said, ymmv.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as we all enjoy getting together and warming our hands over a nice flame war, I'd like to request that people please play nice and attempt to leave real-world concerns like popular religions and the military out of it as much as possible. Those issues are best left to threads in the off-topic section (or better yet, somewhere else entirely, preferably in person where you can look the person you're debating with in the eye).
I think required alignments is an important discussion, but I suspect this will probably be the only warning, seeing as the thread's already been Godwined. :-P
D&D / PF is a game with moral absolutes (i.e. Devils, Demons, Angels, etc.) not modern moral relativism. You can, of course, play it how you want. I've played the game in all it's incarnations (since 1974, except 4E which I read and decided against and Basic because I was hip deep in AD&D). I'm quite familiar with the alignment system and how it's evolved over time. I'm familar with numerous other systems as well suggested along the way or used in other games. I don't agree with you (or you don't with me) therefore I'm wrong in your book. That's fine with me. I rendered an opinon based on my own experience and viewpoint. It's not the type of issue you can argue to a consensus solution. As I said, ymmv.
According to the definition of evil that you were using you defined an alchemist ability and a rogue ability as evil actions. Neither of these classes have evil prerequisites. Therefore your definition as per raw is incorrect. Therefore I conclude that you do not understand the alignment system. This is merely logic that is based entirely upon the book and has nothing to do with my personal opinion at all.
The alignment system that I read doesn't define either action as evil or even chaotic. Despite a very few exceptions most of which are clearly labeled with an evil descriptor most of the alignment system is perspective based except for in the cases of outsiders and a few other absolutes.
Edit for a direct reference: "While no real-world humans can say they’re entirely good or law-abiding, there exist creatures in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that are fundamentally good, evil, lawful, or chaotic, and some magic depends on judging a character by its alignment. Because game effects are associated with an ultimately subjective system, you should make sure your players understand your interpretation of alignment ahead of time." From the Gamemastery guide.
It states itself that the system is subjective except with the exclusion of particular cited actions and or creatures. Although you can of course play how you want to play and alter the raw to fit your needs and that is not incorrect.
Did he? I'll have to look that up in my bible. I've NEVER IN THE ENTIRETY OF MY LIFE heard of it stated as "thou shalt not 'murder'."In the bible it states thou shalt not kill; however, it also makes provisions for the act of lawful killing thereby allowing for the notion of murder.It depends on the translation.
Most of the rabbis that I've heard talk about the ten commandments and the Torah, have said the most precise translation of the commandment is "Do not murder." And that murder is a distinct act from killing.
I have also heard it this way. There is a time and a place for killing, though it's not always clear. It is my understanding that the difference between murdering and killing (where the Christian God is concerned) has to do with the intent behind the act.
Envy, avarice, wrath, stuff like that fuels murder. Self-preservation (or protection of innocent lives) and striking down those who blaspheme your deity are generally thought to be righteous motives for killing and should float in an RPG.
I can understand WHY the Assassin has evil as a requisite: it can be argued that most other class features that are useful in combat are learned as a result of necessity, for the adventurer to defend himself. The Assassin features are highly offensive in nature, however. I suppose the Ranger should have an evil alignment for their favored enemy, though? I would posit that if you are going to have to kill, knowing how to do so as quickly as possible (a death attack) is quite humane, and could possibly be seen as the least evil option.
EDIT: Sorry for the lack of cohesion in the last paragraph. Brain-vomit.
paladins being a paragon of law and good is a weak argument too.....none of the paladin abilities ties it to being lawgul.
good yes, but not law imo
The absolute adherance to a code (which is not your personal creation), no matter how tempting it would be to deviate or how much you might, personally want to is quite lawful.
no it isnt.
a code of honor/ conduct even if not your creation is not lawful in requirement..... but one or two or more could go on and on and on over this.
for instance a ce assassin may have no problems with killing men and women for money, revenge whatever. but said assassin may refuse to kill children and widows/widowers.
is he lawful for following his own code even if his code was created by an assassin that trained him and had the same code delt the same way?
Heh. Alignment arguments can continue endlessly, no doubt about that. I'd call your assassin LE. He's following an externally derived code. If it was a personal code I'd say it could be neutral on the Law to Chaos axis. Again, this could be argued forever. There's no way for us to share the experience and ideas that have cumulativly led us to our stands on the subject. Alignment is always a "ymmv" issue... imo :)
According to the definition of evil that you were using you defined an alchemist ability and a rogue ability as evil actions. Neither of these classes have evil prerequisites. Therefore your definition as per raw is incorrect. Therefore I conclude that you do not understand the alignment system. This is merely logic that is based entirely upon the book and has nothing to do with my personal opinion at all.
It is about choices. isn't it? The ability of a Rogue to flank and gain a damage advantage is not the same as stabbing some helpless mark in the back. I still tend to consider poison use "evil". Not a popular stance on that one I know. Just a leftover from the old days. In any event both those classes may be evil. This makes it a choice. PCs (and mortals in general) don't have predetermined alignments like outsiders. They are judged by their actions.
The alignment system that I read doesn't define either action as evil or even chaotic. Despite a very few exceptions most of which are clearly labeled with an evil descriptor most of the alignment system is perspective based except for in the cases of outsiders and a few other absolutes.
The alignment system you've read is a barebones construct that really requires interpretation and input to function. This wasn't a RAW discussion, was it? Given the amount of declarations about houseruling alignment I rather doubted that. In short, I've expressed my opinion about it, I'm not planning on changing yours. As always in an alignment discussion, ymmv.
The class assassin is under the assumption that you're a contracted killer. As for necromancy being evil that's because disturbing spirits is considered an evil act.
A soldier isn't there to kill. He's there to enforce the will of his nation using whatever level of force in necessary. Necessary. That's why you can be prosecuted for an unnecessary or improper use of force. That necessary use of force can range from a show of force to major battles that involve a lot of dying. Can you get away with evil acts in war? Yes. That doesn't mean you have to, or, obviously, should.Which is why soldiers train to kill people and wield weapons.
Applying force, as I noted above may include killing. Killing often involves weapons. The point is not that they are pacifists, but that ther are limits on the force they use.
A mercenary undertaking his task with cold, professional detachment, the assassin is equally adept at espionage, bounty hunting, and terrorism. At his core, an assassin is an artisan, and his medium is death. Trained in a variety of killing techniques, assassins are among the most feared classes.
Let's not also forget the word Assassin comes from an order of Muslims who killed crusaders. Not for money, or profit, but for war.
I hadn't really planned to drag too much rl into this but the Assassin were a religiously motivated order of killers. They killed other Moslems too. They acted on the orders of the Grandfather of Assassins in the fortress mountain of Alamut iirc. It's been a while since I read up on them. They were essentially religious terrorists. They would have considered themselves holy warriors I'd guess. The D&D / PF variety seem to be a bit more commercial. If your game involves assassins with other motivations than gp a difference in alignments might make a great deal of sense. In my game they originated as a resistance movement to invaders and slowly changed into a commercial enterprise.
[quote-"r_chance"]
Pure and simple. That he does so using sneaky and dishonorable means just puts the capital E on the "Evil" descriptor. I've never understood how people can justify stabbing people in the back or poison use as "not evil". It may be necessary, the ends may not be "evil", but the act certainly is.
Alignment: Due to its necessary selfishness and callous indifference toward taking lives, the assassin class attracts those with evil alignments more than any others. Because the profession requires a degree of self-discipline, chaotic characters are ill suited to becoming these shadowy killers. Neutral characters sometimes become assassins, frequently thinking of themselves as simple professionals performing a job, yet the nature of their duties inevitably pushes them toward an evil alignment.
Which the nature of their duties include killing, espionage, and potentially bounty hunting. It notes "duties". An assassin is your average adventurer.
There's a lot of range in the duties you've noted. In my own post I noted the possibility of Assassins alignment drifting over time into non-evil territory. I like these things to happen in-game myself. It makes for dramatic RP. Ymmv.
As for "murderer" that says it all. You've killed unlawfully and without moral justification. Not a soldier (unless they break the rules) but *could* be an Assassin.
Unlawful has nothing to do with good and evil. Moral justification is also difficult to ascertain. Does a soldier have a moral right to kill someone because he is ordered to do so? Does having a choice change whether it is evil or not? Hm?
Note the "moral justification" mentioned. Or the lack thereof. The legality of something can have a lot to do with good and evil, depending on your laws of course. You can certainly argue that the law has nothing to do with "good" (or evil). Depends on the laws I'd say. In any event most people are enjoined to obey the law and not doing so is considered "wrong".
Chosing a certain character path brings an alignment restriction with it. You could be a Paladin or an Assassin. Whether you stay with that alignment depends on your actions in game. You could be a Neutral Evil Assassin who slowly drifts into a non-evil alignment or has a crisis of conscious and decides to change. That type of thing should happen in-game, not off stage. That type of drama deserves to be on stage and part of the game, not assumed to have happened where it can't be played out and seen. Too much happens in "backstory" these days. I prefer my players do it in game, and as a player I prefer it that way too. Ymmv.
And you can - legally - be a Paladin Assassin. Just means you've had a brush with the dark side. You can qualify and enter the Assassin class and then go to the Paladin class legally, within the rules, and continue to use your assassin class features after your alignment becomes Lawful Good.
EDIT: In fact, you only need to be Evil as far as the first level. Once you have attained 1 level of the Assassin class, you can continue to gain levels in it regardless of your alignment.
Unless your Paladin-Assassin violates the Paladins code. As i mentioned above, I have no problem with shifting alignments (or the consequences of them) over time. I just prefer they happen in game rather than in back-story or that they are part of a campaign with varying classes etc.
|
EDIT: Seems you're right. I recant my previous statements (which were largely in jest anyhow) and give thanks for the clarification.
I didn't think your original post was clear enough in being largely in jest, but I did see the "smiley" and the comment about vegetarianism, so I kind'a thought that was the intent.
However, this post does much to clarify, so, recantation accepted and felt offense forgiven. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Assassin class is evil because it uses unspoken necromancy to bind the souls thus making kills absolute and impeding resurrection. The first killing to get into the prestige class is where one first learns the powers of nonmagical necromancy. And as we all know, all necromancy is evil @_@
Applying force, as I noted above may include killing. Killing often involves weapons. The point is not that they are pacifists, but that ther are limits on the force they use.
I imagine that most murderers are willing to limit the force they use to kill their victims. If stabbing someone will suffice, why nuke the building with 'em in it, right?
In fact, Assassins by their nature in the mechanics are a class about restrained force. They are built to be capable of avoiding anyone except their target, then with a precision strike, kill their foe and then leave. They do so without fireballs, or slaughtering the minions of said target.
Incidentally, assassins may also chose to paralyze their victims rather than killing them, with a Death Attack. At which point they can grab their victim, add them to their load, and then Hide in Plain sight, while the mooks are wondering where "da boss" went, while the "Assassin" is turning the mark over to the "proper authorities". It did afterall mention bounty hunters.
Not buying this notion of applied force. Being a soldier doesn't exempt you from morality. Do I think all soldiers are evil? No. I really don't. Do I think that it is possible to commit murder as part of being a soldier? Sure do. It happens all the time. It has happened throughout history. The only difference between murder and justified killing is whose side you are on.
If you have a war between faction A and faction B, and faction A kills members of faction B, faction B will see faction A as murdering their people, and the reverse will be true. Both sides will see killing the other as a justifiable act of service, and it may be seen as honorable, commendable, good, and sanctioned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Assassin class is evil because it uses unspoken necromancy to bind the souls thus making kills absolute and impeding resurrection. The first killing to get into the prestige class is where one first learns the powers of nonmagical necromancy. And as we all know, all necromancy is evil @_@
The sarcasm in your post is hilarious. :P
|
As a written concept, the in-game Assassin class is "A remorseless murderer who kills for money and the sheer thrill of death-dealing" according to the PRD. I do think this PRC probably needs a name change to reflect its actual conceptual intent, which is more akin to a straight up sadistic hitman than the broader (and much less alignment-defined) idea of an 'assassin'.
That said, I don't have a huge problem with idiosyncratic or limiting requirements for PRCS. They're supposed to feel exclusive and flavorful, not broad and bland like core classes IMO.
It is about choices. isn't it? The ability of a Rogue to flank and gain a damage advantage is not the same as stabbing some helpless mark in the back. I still tend to consider poison use "evil". Not a popular stance on that one I know. Just a leftover from the old days. In any event both those classes may be evil. This makes it a choice. PCs (and mortals in general) don't have predetermined alignments like outsiders. They are judged by their actions.The alignment system you've read is a barebones construct that really requires interpretation and input to function. This wasn't a RAW discussion, was it? Given the amount of declarations about houseruling alignment I rather doubted that. In short, I've expressed my opinion about it, I'm not planning on changing yours. As always in an alignment discussion, ymmv.
The discussion was about whys of alignment requirements. Your response was the act itself is evil. When I reply stating that assuming an act in a vacuum to be evil you cite that the game in discussion is a game of moral absolutes whereas I address the rule book to point out that your game and the book disagree which you then refute with the notion that the alignment section is inadequate and that it requires interpretation to be functional particularly your interpretation that an act is evil.
At the risk of repeating myself I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say "Attaching evil or good qualities to an action in a vacuum is silly at best fanaticism at worst."
When you cite the nature of the game to support your evidence make sure you clarify that its your game only and not the one everyone else is playing.
Considering that the discussion is/was about why are there alignment restrictions in raw I'm going to go out on a limb here and say yes we are discussing raw or at least the logic behind raw.
I'm not trying to change yours merely I'm pointing out that yours imo is silly and does not correlate with raw when you seemingly use raw to justify it.
The only logical reason that I can find for the assassin to be evil is flavor. The only "evil" act that he has is the requirement that he must kill someone for no other reason than to be an assassin. That removes any concept that I can see from my view for justifying the act at least if you consider the act of becoming an assassin merely as a desire to be one and to not have a justifiable reason behind it.
It makes sense as far as a rule of symmetry goes. Divine casters share evil and good prcs. Arcane have demoniac, diabolist, and souldrinker. Stealth based get Assassin. My question is where is my heavy melee evil based prc?
I'm going to play a bard necromancer assassin that's lawful good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to play a bard necromancer assassin that's lawful good.
Use perform pantomime for bardic performance so you don't blow your stealth.
Yes the mime killer who creates skeletons from the goblins' corpses to build the children a new orphanage and then makes the children laugh with his imaginary wall shtick.
Mm... Avoiding all the potential fuel I can add to the fire on the whole alignment bonfire war, I offer my following post.
As stated before by many, including myself, the only logcial reason the Assassin PRC is evil is because of the fluff of it. It definitely needs a renaming. Though to be honest if I want to play assassins I attempt to get my DM to let me employ my Assassin Power Class pamphlet.
As far as I'm concerned, the required alignments and restrictions are too restrictive as is. When I DM, Barbarians are re-named to Berserkers, and given "Any Non-Good", Monks are changed to "Any Non-Chaotic", and Paladins are re-tooled with class features to fit "Deity's Alignment". Makes for a lot less head aches, since I have an altered alignment system in my games that I enforce, with little graph charts for each character, and the players NEVER get to know their alignment except at character creation, and with certain magic effects...
In terms of PRCs... I typically ask the player if they're going for fluff or mechanics. If they're going for fluff, then the restrictions and requirements stand. If, on the other hand, they are going for mechanics, I'm willing to work with them to re-fluff the class, and fix a few requirements here and there.
This all stemming from my belief that Class, in any way shape or form, is a more an abstract generic grab-bag of abilities that were grouped together and given a name. I don't know about you but I can't see characters in game going "Hiya, I'm bob, I'm a fighter!" "Oh hi Bob! I'm Joe, I'm a rogue. This is my buddy Timmy, a Warrior (He's an NPC!)".... Could you? This, for me, is a teeth gnasher like no other. My group did it ALL the time (they have a firm belief that classes are like job titles).
That's why I'm chaotic neutral. I can do whatever I want.
Applying force, as I noted above may include killing. Killing often involves weapons. The point is not that they are pacifists, but that ther are limits on the force they use.
I imagine that most murderers are willing to limit the force they use to kill their victims. If stabbing someone will suffice, why nuke the building with 'em in it, right?
And murderers aren't going to be arrested if they limit their kills to a single knife thrust? That's disturbing :) A soldier kills or doesn't depending on the rules. It has to be "justified" by the situation.
In fact, Assassins by their nature in the mechanics are a class about restrained force. They are built to be capable of avoiding anyone except their target, then with a precision strike, kill their foe and then leave. They do so without fireballs, or slaughtering the minions of said target.
I'd say Assassin's are about the application of force to individuals. A contract is a contract after all. Why waste the effort to kill if you're not being paid for it? In any event, the stealth and precision of the Assassin is as much a matter of escape / survival as ethics.
Incidentally, assassins may also chose to paralyze their victims rather than killing them, with a Death Attack. At which point they can grab their victim, add them to their load, and then Hide in Plain sight, while the mooks are wondering where "da boss" went, while the "Assassin" is turning the mark over to the "proper authorities". It did afterall mention bounty hunters.
As long as the contract calls for a live target, why not.
Not buying this notion of applied force. Being a soldier doesn't exempt you from morality. Do I think all soldiers are evil? No. I really don't. Do I think that it is possible to commit murder as part of being a soldier? Sure do. It happens all the time. It has happened throughout history. The only difference between murder and justified killing is whose side you are on.
No one is "exempt" from morality. If it's "murder" (not justified by your orders and whatever rules you're operating under) you aren't doing it as part of "being a soldier". See the Nuremburg Trials or My Lai for that.
If you have a war between faction A and faction B, and faction A kills members of faction B, faction B will see faction A as murdering their people, and the reverse will be true. Both sides will see killing the other as a justifiable act of service, and it may be seen as honorable, commendable, good, and sanctioned.
War is between nations or, in feudal times, nobles. If both sides are playing by the same rules then no one is calling it murder except in emotional venting. If someone has violated those rules, then it could be murder. We could split hairs all night. Without basic definitions and agreements on them it's a waste. But, it's an interesting waste :)
The discussion was about whys of alignment requirements. Your response was the act itself is evil. When I reply stating that assuming an act in a vacuum to be evil you cite that the game in discussion is a game of moral absolutes whereas I address the rule book to point out that your game and the book disagree which you then refute with the notion that the alignment section is inadequate and that it requires interpretation to be functional particularly your interpretation that an act is evil.
Yes, some actions are evil. In a vacuum or anywhere else (in the game anyway). For example, casting spells with the "evil" descriptor is, by RAW, an evil act. An absolute. No regard for circumstances or opinions. I don't see a place in the book saying I am wrong, or right, about which acts or class features are "evil" or not. There are very few instances of such explicit notation. As I pointed out it's why the game requires a GM and interpretation.
At the risk of repeating myself I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say "Attaching evil or good qualities to an action in a vacuum is silly at best fanaticism at worst."
It's your limb and your opinion. Feel free.
When you cite the nature of the game to support your evidence make sure you clarify that its your game only and not the one everyone else is playing.
I'm sure there are differences between the games we play, regardless of the rules used. I doubt you are playing "the game that everyone else is playing" either.
Considering that the discussion is/was about why are there alignment restrictions in raw I'm going to go out on a limb here and say yes we are discussing raw or at least the logic behind raw.I'm not trying to change yours merely I'm pointing out that yours imo is silly and does not correlate with raw when you seemingly use raw to justify it.
The discussion has involved RAW, houserules and RAI for pretty much everything after the first post. And if you're asking "why", as the OP did, there is a rule and decrying it's existence (alignment restrictions) you have pretty much stepped out of RAW territory. As I've said, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. Just offering an opinion / interpretation. Alignment discussions are probably the least likely to be "solved" amicably. Generally, I'll offer my take and that's about it. Ymmv as always.
...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is a very large box that you choose your character to play in. It kills me every time I see "would a CG character do this" or "I can't do that I'm LG" your alignment does not dictate your actions it is a foundation of who you are.
alignment is not black and white:
Being good does not mean you must give money to beggars or help everyone you see.
An evil character can be a good and caring husband/wife/ parent
Being neutral does not mean you don't care if an innocent is wrongfully found guilty
And murderers aren't going to be arrested if they limit their kills to a single knife thrust? That's disturbing :) A soldier kills or doesn't depending on the rules. It has to be "justified" by the situation.
Applying force, as I noted above may include killing. Killing often involves weapons. The point is not that they are pacifists, but that ther are limits on the force they use.
I imagine that most murderers are willing to limit the force they use to kill their victims. If stabbing someone will suffice, why nuke the building with 'em in it, right?
Hello...lawful/chaotic here. Of course they will be arrested. Unless it's a lawless area, in which case they might not be. Who knows. Either way they murdered somebody. Or are you suggesting that murder is purely within the means of the law, and that if there is no law, then there is no murder? Well again, that's a law/chaos deal, and in that case it would be "not murder" to stab somebody; soldier or not.
I'd say Assassin's are about the application of force to individuals. A contract is a contract after all. Why waste the effort to kill if you're not being paid for it? In any event, the stealth and precision of the Assassin is as much a matter of escape / survival as ethics.
In fact, Assassins by their nature in the mechanics are a class about restrained force. They are built to be capable of avoiding anyone except their target, then with a precision strike, kill their foe and then leave. They do so without fireballs, or slaughtering the minions of said target.
You say this, but it doesn't match up. There's nothing that says the assassin cannot have certain ethics. The very definition of Lawful Evil describes characters that have moral quirks such as not being willing to harm the innocent. Maybe the assassin considers everyone except his mark an innocent by default.
You are adding stuff that isn't there by default. You can't say that the assassin avoids killing because it's not profitable, or because it's survival worthy, because that's all circumstantial and based on the character's personality - not a class.
As long as the contract calls for a live target, why not.
Incidentally, assassins may also chose to paralyze their victims rather than killing them, with a Death Attack. At which point they can grab their victim, add them to their load, and then Hide in Plain sight, while the mooks are wondering where "da boss" went, while the "Assassin" is turning the mark over to the "proper authorities". It did afterall mention bounty hunters.
Which again, brings us back around to soldiers. If the orders are to kill someone, you kill them. If the orders are to bring them in alive, bring them in alive. There is no difference. An assassin is just another type of soldier or adventurer. He's a guy, and he kills people, if it's part of his job.
No one is "exempt" from morality. If it's "murder" (not justified by your orders and whatever rules you're operating under) you aren't doing it as part of "being a soldier". See the Nuremburg Trials or My Lai for that.
Aha! Again, whatever rules you're operating under implies law versus chaos. If you are breaking the rules, you might be tried for murder. Otherwise, no difference.
I'll put it like this. Some badguy is rustling the women and raping the cattle, and somebody comes up and shoots him out of the goodness of common western decency. He's a hero. He's also, a murderer, because he wasn't wearing a badge, and he didn't give him a trial, etc. He was outside the law. He might be Chaotic Good, but by the law, the rules, what you are saying makes a difference between murder and not murder, has no bearing on good/evil in D&D/PF.
Not even laws can agree on what murder is. Different areas of the United States can't even agree on what is self defense, what is acceptable defense of your person and property, and so forth. Some might tell you that if you fire a gun twice in self defense, it's not self-defense on the 2nd shot. Others might be fine with letting you mow down anyone on your front lawn with a turret and be A-Ok!
War is between nations or, in feudal times, nobles. If both sides are playing by the same rules then no one is calling it murder except in emotional venting. If someone has violated those rules, then it could be murder. We could split hairs all night. Without basic definitions and agreements on them it's a waste. But, it's an interesting waste :)
Exactly! :P
Yes, some actions are evil. In a vacuum or anywhere else (in the game anyway). For example, casting spells with the "evil" descriptor is, by RAW, an evil act. An absolute. No regard for circumstances or opinions. I don't see a place in the book saying I am wrong, or right, about which acts or class features are "evil" or not. There are very few instances of such explicit notation. As I pointed out it's why the game requires a GM and interpretation.
Some creatures, some spells, and some actions none of which include poison use or knifing people from behind. There are actions that are specifically called out as evil acts everything else is open to intent at least according to the book. Do you feel that the book needed for you to add some?
I'm pretty sure the majority aren't ruling poison use as an evil act.
As fun as it is trying to pin down what evidence you are or not using for what you are or not try trying to claim I'm curious about what your overall point is other than you think some acts are evil whether or not the game states as much because you feel it is so?
Edit: And out of morbid curiosity how do you know about every assassin's particular code of ethics? You seem to be determining intent based upon character fluff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not buying this notion of applied force. Being a soldier doesn't exempt you from morality. Do I think all soldiers are evil? No. I really don't. Do I think that it is possible to commit murder as part of being a soldier? Sure do. It happens all the time. It has happened throughout history. The only difference between murder and justified killing is whose side you are on.If you have a war between faction A and faction B, and faction A kills members of faction B, faction B will see faction A as murdering their people, and the reverse will be true. Both sides will see killing the other as a justifiable act of service, and it may be seen as honorable, commendable, good, and sanctioned.
Not buying this post of yours, Ashiel-- not these two paragraphs of it anyway. 1. Yes, Soldiers occasionally commit murder-- usually it's called a "war crime" if it's something that happens on the battlefield. If it's against civilians in peace-time, it's a criminal act, same as it is when civilians do it to other civilians.
You are, however, UTTERLY WRONG about "the only difference between murder and justified killing is whose side you are on." And, as with a few other statements on here-- it's sufficiently ignorant that it crosses the lines into thoroughly insulting.
Frankly, if you have a war between faction A and faction B-- actually, let's just use a real-world example, to be really clear: World War 2-- Europe, Western Front. Most of us, including the modern Germans, believe that the Nazi leadership was utterly wrong, and agree with many of the charges, verdicts, and sentences handed down at the Nurnberg Warcrimes trials following World War 2. However-- most of the ordinary Germans fighting as members of the Wehrmacht were NOT war criminals, were never considered to be war criminals, did not commit war crimes... and they didn't see American and British Soldiers as war criminals either. Not during the fighting, and not after the fighting. If captured, they were treated, properly, as P.O.W.'s. Not criminals. Not murderers. I suppose there are a few nations and/or groups that deny these understandings, but I do not accept (not even as a "difference of opinion", not on this issue) their philosophy/version of morality covering conduct in war.
If in time of war, Soldiers on both sides are fighting for their own countries, for what they see as defense of their homelands, and they are fighting honorably and in accordance with the laws of war, soldiers on the other side may still try to kill them, may not be happy when some of their comrades get killed by the other side... but still acknowledge that it's a war-- and as such, morally and legally, it's justifiable homicide so long as the person you're killing is still an active, armed combatant-- NOT murder. Even if it's someone on the other side doing it to your fellow Soldiers.
It only changes to murder if a Soldier is deliberately going around killing non-combatants (whether civilians caught in the war zone, wounded Soldiers of either side who are unable to continue fighting, or Soldiers who are unarmed AND have already surrendered and are under friendly control). There are standards that are obligatory on everyone who participates as a combatant in warfare, regardless of whose side he or she is on (yours, theirs, some third party side...)-- and if those standards are broken-- then you have a war-criminal, who may have committed murder rather than lawful, justifiable killing as a combatant.
Being a Soldier does not exempt you from morality-- which is why there are generally considered to be moral as well as legal reasons for following the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and other treaties laying down the "Laws of War" (not to mention general philosophies regarding acceptable and unacceptable conduct in time of armed conflict).
If you do not or cannot understand the difference between acceptable and unacceptable conduct (in a moral sense, not just legal) in the context of military operations in armed conflicts, perhaps you should lay off any mention of military/war-related examples. If you can understand these principles-- try to be more careful about paying attention to them. Otherwise, by calling everything entirely "relative", and stating that the only difference between a 'murderer' and a justified killer depends on whose side you are on, you are by extension implying that every combat veteran out there who's ever had to pull the trigger on an enemy can be properly regarded as a murderer-- which is a damned offensive thing to imply.
|
|
Which again, brings us back around to soldiers. If the orders are to kill someone, you kill them. If the orders are to bring them in alive, bring them in alive. There is no difference. An assassin is just another type of soldier or adventurer. He's a guy, and he kills people, if it's part of his job.
Not exactly. See-- Soldiers are obligated to disobey unlawful orders. Soldiers are expected to maintain situational awareness, and to keep in mind that as representatives (even minor ones) of their nation, they have to maintain standards of conduct and respect for the Laws of War. One of the things settled at Nurnberg (not for the first time-- but it's been a firmly established point ever since), was the legal principle that "just following orders" is not a valid excuse for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity (as a moral principle-- most people have agreed about that for at least a few centuries).
Assassins, as in the class, and criminal hitmen, do not necessarily have any such moral concerns or compunctions against breaking the law. So, there is a lot of difference-- and once again, you are being deliberately obtuse to the point of insulting anyone who's been a Soldier.
I'll put it like this. Some badguy is rustling the women and raping the cattle, and somebody comes up and shoots him out of the goodness of common western decency. He's a hero. He's also, a murderer, because he wasn't wearing a badge, and he didn't give him a trial, etc. He was outside the law. He might be Chaotic Good, but by the law, the rules, what you are saying makes a difference between murder and not murder, has no bearing on good/evil in D&D/PF.Not even laws can agree on what murder is. Different areas of the United States can't even agree on what is self defense, what is acceptable defense of your person and property, and so forth. Some might tell you that if you fire a gun twice in self defense, it's not self-defense on the 2nd shot. Others might be fine with letting you mow down anyone on your front lawn with a turret and be A-Ok!
I'm generally more concerned with morality than legal issues, particularly since we're talking about alignment and the game, not U.S. Law vs. Law in various nations of Golarion. However, take your Western example above-- if shooting the S.O.B. was the only way (or even, the only way without causing even more damage directly or indirectly) to stop him-- it's justifiable homicide-- morally, by reason of defense of others (legally, would probably meet the same standard for "justifiable homicide", while we're at it). The Law has quite a bit to say about rules for determining when it's self-defense, when it falls under other 'reasonable' circumstances, and when it's just a crime (also, when it's considered a particularly heinous crime). Many of these are to some extent based on commonly accepted, rationally-discussable, somewhat (but since we're dealing with human beings, not entirely) objective, ethical standards.
Yeah, the law's very confusing and mucked up by lots of lawyers. That does not change the fact that these things, while they may not be strictly "either/or" (black and white, etc.), are also still NOT one indistinguishable shade of grey.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not exactly. See-- Soldiers are obligated to disobey unlawful orders. Soldiers are expected to maintain situational awareness, and to keep in mind that as representatives (even minor ones) of their nation, they have to maintain standards of conduct and respect for the Laws of War.
One of the things settled at Nurnberg (not for the first time-- but it's been a firmly established point ever since), was the legal principle that "just following orders" is not a valid excuse for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity (as a moral principle-- most people have agreed about that for at least a few centuries).
Stop right here, and read this back to yourself. This is a condition of law vs chaos. Which is what I said. D&D does not care whether something is lawful or unlawful when determining if it is good or evil. Law does not equal good.
That's my point. "Murder" is based on law. The difference between killing for one reason and killing for another is circumstances. One man's killing is another man's murder. That's my point. Murder requires it to be based off lawful.
You're getting lost at "soldier" and "murder", because we don't see combat scenarios and war as murder, or we'd like to not see so. I wouldn't want to say that my grandfather "murdered" people when he was fighting in the war. I would never even begin to say he was an evil man. Even the "good guys" have carpet bombed civilians in World War II while striking at the enemy, and we call such things "casualties of war" and "collateral damage" and so forth. In the end, we are justifying it by our code of laws. What is considered lawful in war.
To argue that the Assassin class is evil because of unlawful killings is foolish. The class doesn't require you to be "non-lawful". In fact, an assassin is perfectly capable of working for the established law, within the accepted confines of the established order of honor. An elite assassin for a King who takes out terrorist leaders who target the King's people, is exactly the same.
Read what I'm saying, and really read it. I'm not saying soldiers are Evil. I'm pointing out the logical problem with "MURDER" as the catalyst. I'm pointing out that assassins by their fluff and their class features aren't really standing out as particularly devious or heinous. The majority of the things that assassins are described as doing in their fluff is standard adventuring fare. It even lists bounty hunting and espionage for goodness sakes. :o
There's nothing mechanically that reflects this "evil" either. And "unlawful" does not equate to evil in D&D/Pathfinder. Hence, it's not because of some semantic difference between "killing" and "murder" based on some established rules or order.
You're smart Finn K. Read the meaning with the words.
EDIT: Also, for the record, our modern rules do not apply to all soldiers now or throughout history. It would be nice if they did. I'm aware that we play by nicer rules than some others. However, there have been military forces that didn't play by those rules, and that didn't have those lawful conventions, and that punished insubordination instead of demanded it when morality was threatened by orders.
EDIT 2: On a side note, that would mean that in D&D, the guys who do play by the rules and trying to be the good guys from a morality standpoint are more likely drawn to Lawful Good.
In fact, that's probably the fastest route from a character development outlook that an assassin might take on his trip from any-evil to lawful-good. Again, this is not a question of whether or not the killings are lawful or not. There are other things in D&D that determine if a killing is a good, neutral, or evil act, other than law.
|
Has anyone here ever played any Elder Scrolls games? The setting contains a guild of assassins called the Dark Brotherhood. They do indeed take contracts and will kill people if you pay them, but really they're not so much a mercenary company as they are a cult to a goddess of death. They're absolutely obsessed with spilling blood and ending lives. The whole "kill for money" thing is more a side effect of the fact that they're the only ones who are crazy-nutso in love with killing so much they're willing to do it for a living.
That's what I feel the Assassin PrC is all about. It's not about having a job that involves killing people, it's about looking in the mirror and taking pride in being able to say "I'm a murderer." It's about feeling that exhilarating rush every time you manage to snuff out a target in one blow. It's about perfecting your craft as a labor of love, just as the painter spends hours at his easel getting that last brush stroke just right or the dancer spends weeks practicing every move of a performance she'll only give once. It's about loving to kill not as one loves a secret lover, with a bittersweet mixture of delight and shame in an act you wouldn't dare commit in the daylight, but as a priest loves his god, with unshakable faith and determination. That what epic fantasy really means when it says "assassin".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone here ever played any Elder Scrolls games? The setting contains a guild of assassins called the Dark Brotherhood. They do indeed take contracts and will kill people if you pay them, but really they're not so much a mercenary company as they are a cult to a goddess of death. They're absolutely obsessed with spilling blood and ending lives. The whole "kill for money" thing is more a side effect of the fact that they're the only ones who are crazy-nutso in love with killing so much they're willing to do it for a living.
That's what I feel the Assassin PrC is all about. It's not about having a job that involves killing people, it's about looking in the mirror and taking pride in being able to say "I'm a murderer." It's about feeling that exhilarating rush every time you manage to snuff out a target in one blow. It's about perfecting your craft as a labor of love, just as the painter spends hours at his easel getting that last brush stroke just right or the dancer spends weeks practicing every move of a performance she'll only give once. It's about loving to kill not as one loves a secret lover, with a bittersweet mixture of delight and shame in an act you wouldn't dare commit in the daylight, but as a priest loves his god, with unshakable faith and determination. That what epic fantasy really means when it says "assassin".
Epic fantasy is on the line. She says "We have more than one possibility for a character concept here, don't sell it short".
@Silent Saturn. I can go along with some assassins following that train of thought, but in applying that much characterization to a simple little prc you're going well above and beyond the role of class as it is usually applied in pathfinder and it isn't stated as such in the rules. If anything it states that assassin is unemotional the exact opposite of what you are portraying. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that it wouldn't be true in all cases or even most cases.
I wouldn't compare the assassin prc to the Dark brotherhood. I'd rather compare them to, if using elder scrolls games, the Morag Tong who celebrate murder, but more often than not their killings are legal and not necessarily evil. It would be akin to forcing all spy masters to be psychos with a severe case of identity crisis.
Edit: @Ashiel You win the golden rock of awesomeness for the most awesome retort today. Mad props.
|
|
Stop right here, and read this back to yourself. This is a condition of law vs chaos. Which is what I said. D&D does not care whether something is lawful or unlawful when determining if it is good or evil. Law does not equal good.That's my point. "Murder" is based on law. The difference between killing for one reason and killing for another is circumstances. One man's killing is another man's murder. That's my point. Murder requires it to be based off lawful.
If that's what you meant all along, you should have said so from the beginning. Granted, your second post has more room for that interpretation. The first post I responded to-- I'd appreciate it in future if you made your meaning much more clear. You make a blanket statement like "the only difference between justifiable killing and murder is whose side you're on" and that faction A/faction B example-- which stretches to ignore things that professional soldiers have believed throughout history (because as far back as the War between Greeks and Persians, and the Peloponnesian Wars, all the way to the present, professional soldiers have had respect for the professionals on the other side and have not regarded them as murderers unless other circumstances beyond being on opposite sides were involved)-- yes, I'm smart, I can read, and I can reasonably draw very negative conclusions about what you've written that you may not have intended.
I will say, as a former professional soldier, that we don't just justify our actions and conduct in war by our own code of laws-- it's by agreed upon international codes of law, and much more important for the professional's sanity, on a considerable amount of philosophical thought regarding "just war theory". I also do not agree with your point that "one man's killing is another man's murder" (sometimes that may be true, but not always)-- while I don't believe entirely in absolutes, I think both morality and matters of law/chaos are a little bit more objective than your arguments suggest. If the only justifications for what we do and do not permit in warfare were based entirely on laws, but not on more vague and extremely important questions like "are we doing the right thing?", most Soldiers who have participated in wars would not be able to live with themselves-- and the ones who could, would be extremely frightening individuals whose only restraint would be the potential inconvenience of being caught.
Your points on assassins are largely ones I agree with. I would (again) suggest you be a little more careful with your words when you step over into matters of war and morality among soldiers, especially when you're using them in examples to liken Soldier's actions to those of mere "killers for hire". Be very careful to ensure you're not sending out unintended meanings when discussing such potentially sensitive issues.
Most of us, including the modern Germans, believe that the Nazi leadership was utterly wrong, and agree with many of the charges, verdicts, and sentences handed down at the Nurnberg Warcrimes trials following World War 2.
Well of course we do. We won the war.
I have a historian friend who believes without a doubt that, had Germany won the war, we would all likely be LOYAL Nazi spinoffs now.
He's very probably right.
Nurture > Nature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finn is it possible that you're jumping on a intent that isn't there because of your history as a soldier?
Edit: You seem to be looking at how the soldiers determine the lawfulness of their actions as opposed to the populace.
I don't think Ashiel is trying to rag on soldiers here.
The question of whether or not murder is killing is solely bound up in whether or not the killing is lawful. Therefore as logic attests might in this case makes right or rather law.
As far as the question of whether or not soldiers who do actions that are commonly considered atrocities for no reason other than they were told to do so can live with themselves one has to consider the nazi soldier, or the aztec warrior, or insert various soldier throughout history who did fantastically vicious actions for no reason other than his patron nation thought it was right. Heck see the crusades they were on a war from god and sacked everything they could get their hands on.