Goblin Squad Member
|
I decided to create a new thread so we do not hijack the blog notification. The preceding posts can be found at the end of page one in the link above.
I don't think we need to evaluate what your typical adventuring party does in a computer roleplaying game. I cannot fathom the evil I must have committed over the last 25 years of gaming, all under the guise of being a hero vanquishing my foes.
If an Assassin accepts a contract to kill the Lord of a Neighbouring Hex, is this any different from a Paladin that massacres a tribe of Goblins because their lair was too close to his Cathedral? I would consider the Assassin to be the lesser of two evils.
I would agree in real life in the absence of absolute alignment, a relative one illustrated by your examples above is the only way good and evil can make sense. But in Golarion the forces of Good and Evil are personified by deities which have certain characteristics which can be qualified. Likewise, certain behaviours are prototypical along the various axis. Specifically, good and evil are characterized by:
Evil - Darkness, Death, Destruction, Evil, Knowledge, Madness, Magic, Strength, Trickery, War, Weather
Good - Air, Animal, Artifice, Charm, Community, Creation, Earth, Glory, Good, Healing, Law, Liberation, Luck, Plant, Protection, Sun, Travel
Quote above from here.
There is a clear distinction here, into which do you see assassins fitting? Personally, I see them falling under Darkness, Death, Trickery, War, and Strength...I cannot relate a single good domain (although I admit others might be able to, hard to deny the evil though). This said, I also acknowledge the existence of a struggle or war between the alignments. While good might destroy evil, and while destroying is evil, I think it can be looked at differently, in light of this war. Your example above about the paladin and goblins, goblins destroy and devour, your paladin protects the community. Only one can win out...either the goblins will destroy or the community will exist, both cannot be true. As such, the paladin is not destroying for the sake of destroying when he kills the goblins, he is destroying so his community can exist. The goblins destroy for the love of destruction.
Similarly, I admit I can envision a neutral assassin that might have been "made"...but most people in life become what they already are. If the thought of killing someone never even crosses your mind, you will not kill people. And if a certain behaviour gives someone pleasure, it will be reinforced and repeated. Therefore, assassins either exist because they really do not care one way or another, and hence it is just a job...in which case another job that would be just as lucrative should be able to form a suitable replacement when criminal behaviour makes life difficult, or the assassin likes what they do, which is why they do it...and they then fall into the domains of evil, like the goblins above.
Arguing that Assassins should not take alignment hits because it will make society like them less is on par to arguing con men should not take a reputation hit when they break a contract, because that will prevent them from being able to take further contracts, and continue playing a con man. This argument might work on Wall Street, but it is evident that GW is trying to facilitate a social order that allows people to trust others, allowing constructive communities to form. It is just as artificial as monitoring the economy...and we die hard "Sandbox Libertarians" might object, but I understand their reasoning...and I for one applaud their efforts.
(All of this aside, I do think they have hinted that there will be ways for assassins to "get away with murder".)
Goblinworks Founder
|
The alignment of an Assassin is irrelevant when discussing the absolutes of Good and Evil. Yes, in Golarion Good and Evil are absolute, if that is the case and Death, Knowledge, War and Strength are under the domain of Evil, then every man that wields a sword into battle is Evil no matter the cause are they not? Every Wizard that practices magic and seeks knowledge is evil?
The weather man is evil? what do you think of that Ollie?
"It's gon' rain!" Ollie Williams
:)
Fantasy roleplaying games have turned the once noble profession of assassination into a common hitman or thug. A Thug or Hitman that will kill the local shopkeep or blacksmith if the price is right. A true Assassin is merely a tradesman that is good at his trade, killing without being detected, with no motive other than doing the task that he is ordered to do. The Assassin is paid to take out high profile targets while in the service of their country, kingdom, church, council or guild. Whether they are paid by retainer or contract would depend on each individual tradesman. They might enjoy the thrill of the hunt, feel no emotion or are remorseful with every kill, that is what makes a person an individual. Most Assassinations throughout history have been politically or religiously affiliated, live in or among the people just like any tradesman. Your local Apothecary could be an assassin, as could the Butcher or the Barber, that is what makes the Assassin good at his trade, he doesn't make himself known like the common hitman.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm also on the side of assassinations not forcing an alignment change. How many awesome movies feature kind-hearted or likeable assassins? Grosse Point Blank, Leon: The Professional, that crappy Assassins movie with Antonio Banderez, The American, You Kill Me, etc etc.
Also, the very description of a class like the Inquisitor makes me think that the church might use an Inquisitor as an assassin. Hunting out and getting rid of threats to the church. Rogue sneak attack, as well. Is a rogue evil because he scouts ahead, sees a(n)(orc/ogre/evil humanoid) guard, and then knives him in the back? He didn't even get paid! I think there was a Forgotten Realms series of novels about a good aligned elven assassin who worked for the Harpers or something.
Not to mention the real world implications. I've got a friend from Boy Scouts who joined the Marines and became a scout sniper, and I know he's taken some interesting trips to various Central and South American countries for a few weeks at a time. Is he evil because his government wants to eliminate certain drug lords or other politically destabilizing warm bodies? This is true for a lot of various war-time assassins / black ops style missions where eliminating a high profile target is the objective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was curious what exactly a successful assassination attempt achieves?
Seeing as it leads to a character losing some artifacts and then bouncing back at the worst? Perhaps the art is to assassinate with most chance the target loses their corpse while the inventory is full? I wonder if that would be the objective of an assassination contract? Otherwise perhaps repeated assassination attempts to prevent that player moving around freely?
Not too sure how much utility you can get if the successful assassination is not permanent and therefore why a contract to assassinate could be very useful? Perhaps the future blog on this subject will expound on this.
As to the alignment shift, I suppose it's a murky world and as Blaeringr says it'll all go under the table for the real assassinations along with the double-crossings/raw deals risks and reprisals that that allows (where it belongs!)? :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason assassination is considered evil is because of the money. You are taking a life for no other reason than the fact that you are getting paid. Yes, Leon the Professional was evil (imo) if he killed people he did not know just to receive money.
Now, if it is wartime and you kill someone of the opposing force, and just happen to get paid for it, then I do not see a reason why that would be inherently evil. GW could put parameters into the game so that fulfilling assassination contracts again war-time opposing forces is not evil.
However I fully support the idea that killing another human(dwarf, elf, halfling, etc..) for nothing more than money, despite whether that human is good or evil, is an evil act.
If you are a Paladin killing an evil Wizard for the good of man-kind, then that is not evil, but you don't get paid for it.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Not to mention the real world implications. I've got a friend from Boy Scouts who joined the Marines and became a scout sniper, and I know he's taken some interesting trips to various Central and South American countries for a few weeks at a time. Is he evil because his government wants to eliminate certain drug lords or other politically destabilizing warm bodies? This is true for a lot of various war-time assassins / black ops style missions where eliminating a high profile target is the objective.
Your friend is a bounty hunter or soldier. He only takes contracts on criminals or wartime enemies.
If he were to accept contracts on CEOs and business competitors, he would become an assassin.
It's not the methods, it's the target. Open, terroristic, safe assassinations can be carried out by a brute squad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A soldier (like the scout sniper) does his job and gets paid the same whether he kills someone today or not. A professional assassin gets paid money for the act of killing.
In wartime, killing a high-ranking member of the other side is a legitimate mission or act. Putting out a contract on a high ranking opponent is not a legitimate tactic, at least not in my copy of The Law of Land Warfare.
I'd wonder about the "other politically destabilizing warm bodies". That can cover about anything, judging from Central American history.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason assassination is considered evil is because of the money. You are taking a life for no other reason than the fact that you are getting paid. Yes, Leon the Professional was evil (imo) if he killed people he did not know just to receive money.
Now, if it is wartime and you kill someone of the opposing force, and just happen to get paid for it, then I do not see a reason why that would be inherently evil. GW could put parameters into the game so that fulfilling assassination contracts again war-time opposing forces is not evil.
However I fully support the idea that killing another human(dwarf, elf, halfling, etc..) for nothing more than money, despite whether that human is good or evil, is an evil act.
If you are a Paladin killing an evil Wizard for the good of man-kind, then that is not evil, but you don't get paid for it.
And the soldiers who assassinated Bin Laden? They didn't get the 25 mil reward because it was their job, but it was technically an assassination. You are painting the word "assassination" with far too broad a brush. This is especially so because of the context of the game which is a setting of mostly lawless frontier. There are going to be many many many opportunities to enforce community desired law which are not actually laws in word. Without the ability to subdue other players and drag them off to jail, that amounts to pretty much just assassination.
Bounty hunting is only bounty hunting if there is a lawful bounty and is impotent against "crimes" committed in lawless areas. If you want any peace in those areas, you're going to have to rely on activities that technically fall under the definition of assassination.
Can we please have an end to all this mis-information about assassination. Clear up the distinction between assassination and banditry in your minds, people. It's a frackin epidemic of misconception here today...
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Relevant document, taken from the Jason Scott internet archive.
Background ( from CNN )
The following document is an instructional guide on assassination found among the CIA's training files for "Operation PB Success" -- the agency's covert 1954 operation that overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in June 1954. The CIA released it to the public on May 23, 1997, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Assassination was indeed a part of the CIA's plans in Guatemala. According to an internal CIA history, the agency drafted lists of Guatemalans "to eliminate immediately in event of [a] successful anti-communist coup." Planning for assassination included budgeting, training programs, creation of hit teams, drafting of target lists of persons, and transfer of armaments. The CIA history states that "until the day that Arbenz resigned in June 1954 the option of assassination was still being considered."
According to the official history, the assassination plans were never implemented. But names of the targeted individuals were deleted when he
documents were made public, making it impossible to verify that none of them were killed during or in the aftermath of the coup.
In the 1970s, revelations about CIA assassination plots led to strict prohibitions against U.S.-sponsored assassinations.
A STUDY OF ASSASSINATION
DEFINITION
Assassination is a term thought to be derived from "Hashish", a drug similar to marijuana, said to have been used by Hasan-Dan-Sabah to induce motivation in his followers, who were assigned to carry out political and other murders, usually at the cost of their lives.
It is here used to describe the planned killing of a person who is not under the legal jurisdiction of the killer, who is not physically in the hands of the killer, who has been selected by a resistance organization for death, and who has been selected by a resistance organization for death, and whose death provides positive advantages to that organization.
EMPLOYMENT
Assassination is an extreme measure not normally used in clandestine operations. It should be assumed that it will never be ordered or authorized by any U.S. Headquarters, though the latter may in rare instances agree to its execution by members of an associated foreign service. This reticence is partly due to the necessity for committing communications to paper. No assassination instructions should ever be written or recorded. Consequently, the decision to employ this technique must nearly always be reached in the field, at the area where the act will take place. Decision and instructions should be confined to an absolute minimum of persons. Ideally, only one person will be involved. No report may be made, but usually the act will be properly covered by normal news services, whose output is available to all concerned.
JUSTIFICATION
Murder is not morally justifiable. Self-defense may be argued if the victim has knowledge which may destroy the resistance organization if divulged. Assassination of persons responsible for atrocities or reprisals may be regarded as just punishment. Killing a political leader whose burgeoning career is a clear and present danger to the cause of freedom may be held necessary.
But assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it.
CLASSIFICATIONS
The techniques employed will vary according to whether the subject is unaware of his danger, aware but unguarded, or guarded. They will also be affected by whether or not the assassin is to be killed with the subject hereafter, assassinations in which the subject is unaware will be termed "simple"; those where the subject is aware but unguarded will be termed "chase"; those where the victim is guarded will be termed "guarded."
If the assassin is to die with the subject, the act will be called "lost." If the assassin is to escape, the adjective will be "safe." It should be noted that no compromises should exist here. The assassin must not fall alive into enemy hands.
A further type division is caused by the need to conceal the fact that the subject was actually the victim of assassination, rather than an accident or natural causes. If such concealment is desirable the operation will be called "secret"; if concealment is immaterial, the act will be called "open"; while if the assassination requires publicity to be effective it will be termed "terroristic."
Following these definitions, the assassination of Julius Caesar was safe, simple, and terroristic, while that of Huey Long was lost, guarded and open. Obviously, successful secret assassinations are not recorded as assassination at all. [illegible] of Thailand and Augustus Caesar may have been the victims of safe, guarded and secret assassination. Chase assassinations usually involve clandestine agents or members of criminal organizations.
THE ASSASSIN
In safe assassinations, the assassin needs the usual qualities of a clandestine agent. He should be determined, courageous, intelligent, resourceful, and physically active. If special equipment is to be used, such as firearms or drugs, it is clear that he must have outstanding skill with such equipment.
Except in terroristic assassinations, it is desirable that the assassin be transient in the area. He should have an absolute minimum of contact with the rest of the organization and his instructions should be given orally by one person only. His safe evacuation after the act is absolutely essential, but here again contact should be as limited as possible. It is preferable that the person issuing instructions also conduct any withdrawal or covering action which may be necessary.
In lost assassination, the assassin must be a fanatic of some sort. Politics, religion, and revenge are about the only feasible motives. Since a fanatic is unstable psychologically, he must be handled with extreme care. He must not know the identities of the other members of the organization, for although it is intended that he die in the act, something may go wrong. While the assassin of Trotsky has never revealed any significant information, it was unsound to depend on this when the act was planned.
PLANNING
When the decision to assassinate has been reached, the tactics of the operation must be planned, based upon an estimate of the situation similar to that used in military operations. The preliminary estimate will reveal gaps in information and possibly indicate a need for special equipment which must be procured or constructed. When all necessary data has been collected, an effective tactical plan can be prepared. All planning must be mental; no papers should ever contain
evidence of the operation.
In resistance situations, assassination may be used as a counter-reprisal. Since this requires advertising to be effective, the resistance organization must be in a position to warn high officials publicly that their lives will be the price of reprisal action against innocent people. Such a threat is of no value unless it can be carried out, so it may be necessary to plan the assassination of various responsible officers of the oppressive regime and hold such plans in readiness to be used only if provoked by excessive brutality. Such plans must be modified frequently to meet changes in the tactical situation.
TECHNIQUES
The essential point of assassination is the death of the subject. A human being may be killed in many ways but sureness is often overlooked by those who may be emotionally unstrung by the seriousness of this act they intend to commit. The specific technique employed will depend upon a large number of variables, but should be constant in one point: Death must be absolutely certain. The attempt on Hitler's life failed because the conspiracy did not give this matter proper attention.
Techniques may be considered as follows:
1. Manual.
It is possible to kill a man with the bare hands, but very few are skillful enough to do it well. Even a highly trained Judo expert will hesitate to risk killing by hand unless he has absolutely no alternative. However, the simplest local tools are often much the most efficient means of assassination. A hammer, axe, wrench, screw driver, fire poker, kitchen knife, lamp stand, or anything hard, heavy and handy will suffice. A length of rope or wire or a belt will do if the assassin is strong and agile. All such improvised weapons have the important advantage of availability and apparent innocence. The obviously lethal machine gun failed to kill Trotsky where an item of sporting goods succeeded.
In all safe cases where the assassin may be subject to search, either before or after the act, specialized weapons should not be used. Even in the lost case, the assassin may accidentally be searched before the act and should not carry an incriminating device if any sort of lethal weapon can be improvised at or near the site. If the assassin normally carries weapons because of the nature of his job, it may still be desirable to improvise and implement at the scene to avoid disclosure of his identity.
2. Accidents.
For secret assassination, either simple or chase, the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated.
The most efficient accident, in simple assassination, is a fall of 75 feet or more onto a hard surface. Elevator shafts, stair wells, unscreened windows and bridges will serve. Bridge falls into water are not reliable. In simple cases a private meeting with the subject may be arranged at a properly-cased location. The act may be executed by sudden, vigorous [excised] of the ankles, tipping the subject over the edge. If the assassin immediately sets up an outcry, playing the "horrified witness", no alibi or surreptitious withdrawal is necessary. In chase cases it will usually be necessary to stun or drug the subject before dropping him. Care is required to insure that no wound or condition not attributable to the fall is discernible after death.
Falls into the sea or swiftly flowing rivers may suffice if the subject cannot swim. It will be more reliable if the assassin can arrange to attempt rescue, as he can thus be sure of the subject's death and at the same time establish a workable alibi.
If the subject's personal habits make it feasible, alcohol may be used [2 words excised] to prepare him for a contrived accident of any kind.
Falls before trains or subway cars are usually effective, but require exact timing and can seldom be free from unexpected observation.
Automobile accidents are a less satisfactory means of assassination. If the subject is deliberately run down, very exact timing is necessary and investigation is likely to be thorough. If the subject's car is tampered with, reliability is very low. The subject may be stunned or drugged and then placed in the car, but this is only reliable when the car can be run off a high cliff or into deep water without observation.
Arson can cause accidental death if the subject is drugged and left in a burning building. Reliability is not satisfactory unless the building is isolated and highly combustible.
3. Drugs.
In all types of assassination except terroristic, drugs can be very effective. If the assassin is trained as a doctor or nurse and the subject is under medical care, this is an easy and rare method. An overdose of morphine administered as a sedative will cause death without disturbance and is difficult to detect. The size of the dose will depend upon whether the subject has been using narcotics regularly. If not, two grains will suffice.
If the subject drinks heavily, morphine or a similar narcotic can be injected at the passing out stage, and the cause of death will often be held to be acute alcoholism.
Specific poisons, such as arsenic or strychine, are effective but their possession or procurement is incriminating, and accurate dosage is problematical. Poison was used unsuccessfully in the assassination of Rasputin and Kolohan, though the latter case is more accurately described as a murder.
4. Edge Weapons
Any locally obtained edge device may be successfully employed. A certain minimum of anatomical knowledge is needed for reliability.
Puncture wounds of the body cavity may not be reliable unless the heart is reached. The heart is protected by the rib cage and is not always easy to locate.
Abdominal wounds were once nearly always mortal, but modern medical treatment has made this no longer true.
Absolute reliability is obtained by severing the spinal cord in the cervical region. This can be done with the point of a knife or a light blow of an axe or hatchet.
Another reliable method is the severing of both jugular and carotid blood vessels on both sides of the windpipe.
If the subject has been rendered unconscious by other wounds or drugs, either of the above methods can be used to insure death.
5. Blunt Weapons
As with edge weapons, blunt weapons require some anatomical knowledge for effective use. Their main advantage is their universal availability. A hammer may be picked up almost anywhere in the world. Baseball and [illegible] bats are very widely distributed. Even a rock or a heavy stick will do, and nothing resembling a weapon need be procured, carried or subsequently disposed of.
Blows should be directed to the temple, the area just below and behind the ear, and the lower, rear portion of the skull. Of course, if the blow is very heavy, any portion of the upper skull will do. The lower frontal portion of the head, from the eyes to the throat, can withstand enormous blows without fatal consequences.
6. Firearms
Firearms are often used in assassination, often very ineffectively. The assassin usually has insufficient technical knowledge of the limitations of weapons, and expects more range, accuracy and killing power than can be provided with reliability. Since certainty of death is the major requirement, firearms should be used which can provide destructive power at least 100% in excess of that thought to be necessary, and ranges should be half that considered practical for the weapon.
Firearms have other drawbacks. Their possession is often incriminating. They may be difficult to obtain. They require a degree of experience from the user. They are [illegible]. Their lethality is consistently over-rated.
However, there are many cases in which firearms are probably more efficient than any other means. These cases usually involve distance between the assassin and the subject, or comparative physical weakness of the assassin, as with a woman.
(a) The precision rifle. In guarded assassination, a good hunting or target rifle should always be considered as a possibility. Absolute reliability can nearly always be achieved at a distance of one hundred yards. In ideal circumstances, the range may be extended to 250 yards. The rifle should be a well made bolt or falling block action type, handling a powerful long-range cartridge. The .300 F.A.B. Magnum is probably the best cartridge readily available. Other excellent calibers are .375 M.[illegible]. Magnum, .270 Winchester, .30 - 106 p.s., 8 x 60 MM Magnum, 9.3 x 62 kk and others of this type. These are preferable to ordinary military calibers, since ammunition available for them is usually of the expanding bullet type, whereas most ammunition for military rifles is full jacketed and hence not sufficiently lethal.
Military ammunition should not be altered by filing or drilling bullets, as this will adversely affect accuracy.
The rifle may be of the "bull gun" variety, with extra heavy barrel and set triggers, but in any case should be capable of maximum precision. Ideally, the weapon should be able to group in one inch at one hundred yards, but 2 1/2" groups are adequate. The sight should be telescopic, not only for accuracy, but because such a sight is much better in dim light or near darkness. As long as the bare outline of the target is discernable, a telescope sight will work, even if the rifle and shooter are in total darkness.
An expanding, hunting bullet of such calibers as described above will produce extravagant laceration and shock at short or mid-range. If a an is struck just once in the body cavity, his death is almost entirely certain.
Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great eliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be very high.
(b) The machine gun.
Machine guns may be used in most cases where the precision rifle is applicable. Usually, this will require the subversion of a unit of an official guard at a ceremony, though a skillful and determined team might conceivably dispose of a loyal gun crew without commotion and take over the gun at the critical time.
The area fire capacity of the machine gun should not be used to search out a concealed subject. This was tried with predictable lack of success on Trotsky. The automatic feature of the machine gun should rather be used to increase reliability by placing a 5 second burst on the subject. Even with full jacket ammunition, this will be absolute lethal is the burst pattern is no larger than a man. This can be accomplished at about 150 yards. In ideal circumstances, a properly padded and targeted machine gun can do it at 850 yards. The major difficulty is placing the first burst exactly on the target, as most machine gunners are trained to spot their fire on target by observation of strike. This will not do in assassination as the subject will not wait.
(c) The Submachine Gun.
This weapon, known as the "machine-pistol" by the Russians and Germans and "machine-carbine" by the British, is occasionally useful in assassination. Unlike the rifle and machine gun, this is a short range weapon and since it fires pistol ammunition, much less powerful. To be reliable, it should deliver at least 5 rounds into the subject's chest, though the .45 caliber U.S. weapons have a much larger margin of killing efficiency than the 9 mm European arms.
The assassination range of the sub-machine gun is point blank. While accurate single rounds can be delivered by sub-machine gunners at 50 yards or more, this is not certain enough for assassination. Under ordinary circumstances, the 5MG should be used as a fully automatic weapon. In the hands of a capable gunner, a high cyclic rate is a distinct advantage, as speed of execution is most desirable, particularly in the case of multiple subjects.
The sub-machine gun is especially adapted to indoor work when more than one subject is to be assassinated. An effective technique has been devised for the use of a pair of sub-machine gunners, by which a room containing as many as a dozen subjects can be "purifico" in about twenty seconds with little or no risk to the gunners. It is illustrated below.
While the U.S. sub-machine guns fire the most lethal cartridges, the higher cyclic rate of some foreign weapons enable the gunner to cover a target quicker with acceptable pattern density. The Bergmann Model 1934 is particularly good in this way. The Danish Madman? SMG has a moderately good cyclic rate and is admirably compact and concealable. The Russian SHG's have a good cyclic rate, but are handicapped by a small, light protective which requires more kits for equivalent killing effect.
(d) The Shotgun.
A large bore shotgun is a most effective killing instrument as long as the range is kept under ten yards. It should normally be used only on single targets as it cannot sustain fire successfully. The barrel may be "sawed" off for convenience, but this is not a significant factor in its killing performance. Its optimum range is just out of reach of the subject. 00 buckshot is considered the best shot size for a twelve gage gun, but anything from single balls to bird shot will do if the range is right. The assassin should aim for the solar plexus as the shot pattern is small at close range and can easily miss the head.
(e) The Pistol.
While the handgun is quite inefficient as a weapon of assassination, it is often used, partly because it is readily available and can be concealed on the person, and partly because its limitations are not widely appreciated. While many well known assassinations have been carried out with pistols (Lincoln, Harding, Ghandi), such attempts fail as often as they succeed, (Truman, Roosevelt, Churchill).
If a pistol is used, it should be as powerful as possible and fired from just beyond reach. The pistol and the shotgun are used in similar tactical situations, except that the shotgun is much more lethal and the pistol is much more easily concealed.
In the hands of an expert, a powerful pistol is quite deadly, but such experts are rare and not usually available for assassination missions.
.45 Colt, .44 Special, .455 Kly, .45 A.S.[illegible] (U.S. Service) and .357 Magnum are all efficient calibers. Less powerful rounds can suffice but are less reliable. Sub-power cartridges such as the .32s and .25s should be avoided.
In all cases, the subject should be hit solidly at least three times for complete reliability.
(f) Silent Firearms
The sound of the explosion of the proponent in a firearm can be effectively silenced by appropriate attachments. However, the sound of the projective passing through the air cannot, since this sound is generated outside the weapon. In cases where the velocity of the bullet greatly exceeds that of sound, the noise so generated is much louder than that of the explosion. Since all powerful rifles have muzzle velocities of over 2000 feet per second, they cannot be silenced.
Pistol bullets, on the other hand, usually travel slower than sound and the sound of their flight is negligible. Therefore, pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced. The user should not forget that the sound of the operation of a repeating action is considerable, and that the sound of bullet strike, particularly in bone is quite loud.
Silent firearms are only occasionally useful to the assassin, though they have been widely publicized in this connection. Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons, while with pistols, silent or otherwise, are most efficient just beyond arms length. The silent feature attempts to provide a degree of safety to the assassin, but mere possession of a silent firearm is likely to create enough hazard to counter the advantage of its silence. The silent pistol combines the disadvantages of any pistol with the added one of its obviously clandestine purpose.
A telescopically sighted, closed-action carbine shooting a low velocity bullet of great weight, and built for accuracy, could be very useful to an assassin in certain situations. At the time of writing, no such weapon is known to exist.
7. Explosives.
Bombs and demolition charges of various sorts have been used frequently in assassination. Such devices, in terroristic and open assassination, can provide safety and overcome guard barriers, but it is curious that bombs have often been the implement of lost assassinations.
The major factor which affects reliability is the use of explosives for assassination. The charge must be very large and the detonation must be controlled exactly as to time by the assassin who can observe the subject. A small or moderate explosive charge is highly unreliable as a cause of death, and time delay or booby-trap devices are extremely prone to kill the wrong man. In addition to the moral aspects of indiscriminate killing, the death of casual bystanders can often produce public reactions unfavorable to the cause for which the assassination is carried out.
Bombs or grenades should never be thrown at a subject. While this will always cause a commotion and may even result in the subject's death, it is sloppy, unreliable, and bad propaganda. The charge must be too small and the assassin is never sure of: (1) reaching his attack position, (2) placing the charge close enough to the target and (3) firing the charge at the right time.
Placing the charge surreptitiously in advance permits a charge of proper size to be employed, but requires accurate prediction of the subject's movements.
Ten pounds of high explosive should normally be regarded as a minimum, and this is explosive of fragmentation material. The latter can consist of any hard, [illegible] material as long as the fragments are large enough. Metal or rock fragments should be walnut-size rather than pen-size. If solid plates are used, to be ruptured by the explosion, cast iron, 1" thick, gives excellent fragmentation. Military or commercial high explosives are practical for use in assassination. Homemade or improvised explosives should be avoided. While possibly powerful, they tend to be dangerous and unreliable. Anti-personnel explosive missiles are excellent, provided the assassin has sufficient technical knowledge to fuse them properly. 81 or 82 mm mortar shells, or the 120 mm mortar shell, are particularly good. Anti-personnel shells for 85, 88, 90, 100 and 105 mm guns and howitzers are both large enough to be completely reliable and small enough to be carried by one man.
The charge should be so placed that the subject is not ever six feet from it at the moment of detonation.
A large, shaped charge with the [illegible] filled with iron fragments (such as 1" nuts and bolts) will fire a highly lethal shotgun-type [illegible] to 50 yards. This reaction has not been thoroughly tested, however, and an exact replica of the proposed device should be fired in advance to determine exact range, pattern-size, and penetration of fragments. Fragments should penetrate at least 1" of seasoned pine or equivalent for minimum reliability.
Any firing device may be used which permits exact control by the assassin. An ordinary commercial or military explorer is efficient, as long as it is rigged for instantaneous action with no time fuse in the system.
The wise [illegible] electric target can serve as the triggering device and provide exact timing from as far away as the assassin can reliably hit the target. This will avid the disadvantages of stringing wire between the proposed positions of the assassin and the subject, and also permit the assassin to fire the charge from a variety of possible positions.
The radio switch can be used to fire a charge, though its reliability is
somewhat lower and its procurement may not be easy.
EXAMPLES
([illegible] may be presented brief outlines, with critical evaluations of the following assassinations and attempts:
Marat
Hedrich
Lincoln
Hitler
Harding
Roosevelt
Grand Duke Sergei
Truman
Pirhivie
Mussolini
Archduke Francis Ferdinand
Benes
Rasputin
Aung Sang
Madero
[illegible]
Kirov
Abdullah
Huey Long
Ghandi
Alexander of Yugoslavia
Trotsky
CONFERENCE ROOM TECHNIQUE
-----------------------------
ascii conversion REMOVED DUE TO FORMATTING ISSUES
(1) Enters room quickly but quietly
(2) Stands in doorway
(2) Opens fire on first subject to react. Swings across group toward center of mass. Times burst to empty magazine at end of swing.
(1) Covers group to prevent individual dangerous reactions, if necessary, fires individual bursts of 3 rounds.
(2) Finishes burst. Commands "Shift." Drops back thru [sic] door. Replaces empty magazine. Covers corridor.
(1) On command "shift", opens fire on opposite side of target, swings one burst across group.
(1) Finishes burst. Commands "shift". Drops back thru [sic] door. Replaces magazine. Covers corridor.
(2) On command, "shift", re-enters room. Covers group: kills survivors with two-round bursts. Leaves propaganda.
(2) Leaves room. Commands "GO". Covers rear with nearly full magazine.
(1) On command "GO", leads withdrawal, covering front with full magazine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PS again, I don't oppose the concept that assassination is generally evil, but that it's automatically criminal. This is absurd in a region as lawless as is being discussed, not to mention we're talking a means of enforcement and political advancement.
Lawful Evil, with slight leaning to lawful neutral, is, in my opinion, the most consistent fit for acts of assassination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's only illegal if done in a region with relevant laws. Explain how it's illegal when done in the vast lawless frontiers,
Assassins who run around killing people inside lawful NPC settlements deserve the Darwin award, I agree. So can we please move the conversation beyond those strict parameters and into the other 99% of the game? Hmm?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I touched on this a bit in the other thread, but I really think this gets into a situation where a deterministic mechanical system is really incapable of rendering morale judgements that even thinking individuals who are capable of consider all the nuances of a situation often disagree upon. It also really depends upon how one defines an "Assasin".
To use a rather extreme example...lets consider the case of Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, who was the German Officer responsible for the assasination attempt on Hitler in WWII.
Most people, consider the attempt as an "assasination attempt" by the common definition of such, therefore making von Stauffenberg an "assasin" by the common definition of the word. The attempt was inarguably "criminal" by German law at the time (it was "High Treason") and even generaly considered "criminal" by internationaly accepted Rules of War. Yet very few people today would consider it an "Evil" act by the commonly accepted definition. Von Stauffenbergs stated motivation for the act was that he belived it neccesary in order to prevent the slaughter of millions of innocent people. Hardly something anyone would consider "Evil".
In game terms, I think there may be a case for accepting of a contract (i.e. taking money) to kill someone without "just cause" to generaly be considered "Evil"..... but I don't think mechanicaly thier is any rationale for imposing the alignment shift on the completion of the contract....as killing someone without "just cause" in the absense of a contract also would be considered "evil" and potentialy even more so. So there is no reason to impose the alignment shift on anything but the act of killing.
Is the dark priest who kills an innocent because he thinks it will please Asmodeus and accepts no monetary reward for doing so, in any way less "Evil" (in PFO terms) then an assasin who accepts a contract for killing a Barbarian Chieften in order to make money to feed the assasins family?
The assasin may, indeed be "evil" for doing so...but I don't see any reason why they would get more of an "alignment" shift then the dark priest in question?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Explain how it's illegal when done in the vast lawless frontiers,
The "lawless" frontier is not totally lawless. If there are men and women who hold their word as their bond, there is law. Which is sort of the foundation of the entire contracts thread.
As I said in the other thread, GW may just choose to put a damper on killing-for-hire if they think that a lot of it isn't good for the game. This is as simple as saying "In the River Kingdoms, murder for hire is seen as a evil and criminal act. Honest folk do their own killing." If someone completes an above-board hit mission, they are marked as part of the criminal element, with a negative reputation and consequences (I think the other side of the contract should also take a tend-towards-evil hit). The killer knows the penalties when he takes the contract, and there will be people who will do such missions because that's the role they play.
I think there is still plenty of room for killers who are less thuggish and more cunning to operate in the shadows, but not with the protection of the legal system to uphold their contracts. The "honest folk" of the River Kingdoms know this, too - they just don't talk about it when they work with the shadows.
And @GrumpyMel: yes, I'll bet the game also has alignment shifting mechanisms for other acts, so those evil priests can keep their alignments snuggled into whatever dark corner they choose. Contracts are just the first one we see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman your response explains ties to an informal "criminal" tag: an important distinction in a game where the formal "criminal" tag, which will be enforced on murderers in lawful areas but not on those in lawless areas, plays such a key role in controlling griefing.
And "honest" travelling merchants "doing their own killing"? Against a gang of bandits? You really can't see any holes in that concept? Tell me you can or I'm gonna start laying them out for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And the soldiers who assassinated Bin Laden? They didn't get the 25 mil reward because it was their job, but it was technically an assassination. You are painting the word "assassination" with far too broad a brush... ...Can we please have an end to all this mis-information about assassination. Clear up the distinction between assassination and banditry in your minds, people. It's a frackin epidemic of misconception here today...
Im sorry, what is the misconception?
Im painting the word assassination with a fairly thin brush, you must have misconceived what I was saying. Law has little to do with assassination, and I agree with your latter comments that this discussion should have little to do with law, and more to do with morals.
But I fail to see how what I said is a misconception? All I said was that when you kill another sentient being for profit, then it is an evil act. GW wants to make 'bounty hunting' non-evil because the bounty is on someone who has already committed murder. That still doesn't make killing someone alright, and the only reason GW does not make 'bounty hunting' illegal as well is because there is no other options for punishing players (currently) besides killing them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr I'm merely explaining that GW can, by fiat, determine what the people of the River Kingdoms believe. Or what they say they believe - people generally are hypocrites. So yes, the honest folk of the River Kingdoms might say that it's up to the merchants and his guards to get that wagon through the pass. It's not honest to hire some killer-man to go after the bandit chief. wink-wink, nudge-nudge. And they look down on the killer-man *they* hired. That's how people are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassination is frequently a means of upholding law. It historically has more to do with law than otherwise. And your brush is broader than you think.
In the game setting being discussed in particular, assassination will play a role of enforcing law in lawless areas where bounties are irrelevant. GW has made it clear bounty hunting only works for the people killing others in lawful areas. The killers will quickly learn to just wait for them to leave those small regions into the other 99% of the game. Who's going to uphold law there? Someone kills you in the wilds, bounties won't be an option. The only way to punish them is assassination.
Again, I stand by my comment that you still hold to some misconceptions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman and that is more an issue of good/evil, not the issue of "criminal" acts. If we're going to discuss good/evil, let's discuss that. If lawful/"criminal", then let's discuss that. Hopping back and forth as if you were discussing one when you actually were talking about how there really is law in the lawless frontier is not an effective way of going about saying what you mean.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's pretty simple in the mechanics they put fourth in the blog. If someone kills you, you put a bounty on their head and the people who kill the bounty aren't criminals. They're just bounty hunters.
An assassination contract works exactly like a bounty, except there's no initial crime against you. Since there's no punishment attached to the killing, it's an assassination and therefore an evil act.
There's no need to bring in Bin Ladin, conversations about what is really evil, or whatever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty simple in the mechanics they put fourth in the blog. If someone kills you, you put a bounty on their head and the people who kill the bounty aren't criminals. They're just bounty hunters.
You missed an important point: if someone kills you in a lawful area. If they kill you elsewhere (aka 99% of the game) then there's no option to place a bounty. And yes, like you said, that was pretty clear in the blog. Not stopping a lot of misinformation though.
Quote from the blog:
Pathfinder Online's bounty system is a lot more selective. When you are murdered—that is, killed unlawfully—you will have the option to place a bounty on your killer's head.and also:
Bounties can only be issued when a character unlawfully kills another. Killing an opponent as a part of a declared war, or in an area that does not have laws against murder, will not trigger the bounty system.
So prattle on all you want about how the simple folk out in the lawless areas have notions of "law" deep down in their tender little hearts, the blogs have already made it clear that is not relevant in determining what defines "murder".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr - There are 3 axes in this idea-space. Law-Chaos, Good-Evil, and Lawful-Criminal. The last one might be more of a toggle, not-criminal and criminal. Some might say the first should be Order-Chaos, but old ways die hard.
In the contracts post, GW said that assassination contracts are bound to all three axes, though they didn't use my words. Failure to complete a contact tends towards chaos. Killing for gold tends toward evil. Being known to killing for gold makes one criminal. Talking about all three axes isn't intended to be hopping around, it just means that some things happen on more than one axis.
The idea of there being law in the lawless frontier might seem to be a philosophical one, but it is the foundation of the entire contracts system. Contracts will apply, even outside the NPC high security areas. How are those contracts enforced? By the will (and coding) of GW. Who determines what the morals and ethics of the River Kingdoms are? That's set by the will and coding of GW.
If they think it is for the good of the game, then GW can decide that the people of the River Kingdoms view known assassins as criminal, that's all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Trust. That's about it. But again, righteous is not a matter of law.
@Urman a fascinating discussion, but irrelevant. They have defined "murder" and "unlawful" killing, and those definitions are in contrast with their new stance on assassinations that occur outside of lawful settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's pretty simple in the mechanics they put fourth in the blog. If someone kills you, you put a bounty on their head and the people who kill the bounty aren't criminals. They're just bounty hunters.
An assassination contract works exactly like a bounty, except there's no initial crime against you. Since there's no punishment attached to the killing, it's an assassination and therefore an evil act.
There's no need to bring in Bin Ladin, conversations about what is really evil, or whatever.
I generaly agree, I just don't see the need to differentiate the alignment shift between the presence or absence of a "contract". It's the act of "unlawfull killing" that would generaly be considered "evil", the presence/absence of a contract strikes me as pretty much a null operater in that equation.
- Murdering somebody because you recieved a contract to do so is "evil" and theretore should evoke an alignment shift if PFO introduces an alignment system.
- Murdering somebody because you can loot some of thier gear and make a proffit is "evil" and therefore should evoke an alignment shift.
- Murdering somebody because you don't like the color of thier eyes is "evil" and therefore should evoke an alignment shift.
- Murdering some-one because you enjoy seeing blood is "evil" and should invoke an alignment shift.
- Murdering some-one because you believe it will please the head of lettuce you are worshiping as a diety is "evil" and should invoke an alignment shift.
Note the pattern here? It's the murder (i.e. unlawfull killing) that is the "evil" act....no reason to apply the presence or absence of an "Assasination Contract" as a differentiator in that regard.
A "Bounty Hunting" contract however is not an "evil" act because the target is a "murder" and is therefore considered lawfull/justified killing.... the same would hold true for killing a bandit who attacked you FIRST while you are out in the Wild. Again, it's not really the presence/absence of the contract that's the pivital issue at stake, it's the targets status as being "hostile" because of some action they had taken prior to you killing them.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
So, you can't put a bounty on someone for the game-equivalent of hearsay. How would you justify a righteous killing just because someone says they were wronged?
Make a settlement and create laws prohibiting heresy. Then heretics are also criminals, and you can put bounties on criminals.
Expect opposition to you outlawing heresy. "You have what you hold."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, you can't put a bounty on someone for the game-equivalent of hearsay. How would you justify a righteous killing just because someone says they were wronged?Make a settlement and create laws prohibiting heresy. Then heretics are also criminals, and you can put bounties on criminals.
Expect opposition to you outlawing heresy. "You have what you hold."
Hearsay=/=heresy. Get on the same page. Thanks.
And GW has only said anything about the "criminal" tag being placed on murderers. They have given no indication that players will be able to designate that tag for other reasons in their settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, you can't put a bounty on someone for the game-equivalent of hearsay. How would you justify a righteous killing just because someone says they were wronged?Make a settlement and create laws prohibiting heresy. Then heretics are also criminals, and you can put bounties on criminals.
Expect opposition to you outlawing heresy. "You have what you hold."
Hear-Say, not heresy.
The game has a kind of clairvoyance when you do crime near a settlement. Guards are dispatched immediately, etc. So when you're outside of these zones, in game terms, you only have your word that someone killed you. So it's like court where hear-say doesn't have credibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Note the pattern here? It's the murder (i.e. unlawfull killing) that is the "evil" act....no reason to apply the presence or absence of an "Assasination Contract" as a differentiator in that regard
Personally, I agree. It would be a big change from what we've been told to date, but it some ways I'd prefer that killing other PCs without consequence be a little harder.
For example, I'd think that companies and settlements (but not parties) should be able to enter a state of conflict with other companies and settlements. Killing during a state of conflict would be legit. Killing outside of a state of conflict would not be legit. Companies and settlements could also kill to defend their territory; for a settlement that might be a hex or a number of hexes.
But like I said, that would be a big change from what we've been told; I don't see it happening. Instead, I expect to see GW expand upon previous work and further explain what actions will cause Law/Chaos, Good/Evil, and Legal/Criminal movements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the town: murder is mechanically impossible. Can't kill others.
Near the town: the closer you are, the more quickly guards will respond with retribution. You will be flagged as a "criminal".
Outside of those boundaries: no holds barred and no accountability except what players decide to enforce. Unless there's a piece of paper attached...that is unless of course the blog isn't worded how they meant it. We still need clarification on this, the the wording as is in the blog is baffling. If they actually said what they mean, then that's taking away from players ability to self-police these lawless areas, and a big plus for griefers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the Blog topic:
I am very interested in the Assassination rules as well. I would love to play out an assassin as that means you have an ever evolving challenge... other players. If, however, being an Assassin means I suddenly cannot go anywhere or purchase from anyone this is bad.
Why is it evil for me to kill someone who has wronged another for instance? I think that not all contracts are evil (an assassin could easily take bounty contracts as well) and I definitely do not think all of them warrant criminal status. Especially outside the borders of a settlement.
I think this is a bounty hunter, not an assassin. Bounty hunters can be secretive and dress like ninjas too.
I would love to see assassins have contracts with thieves guilds to make use of the ambush features for hideouts. If the target tries to quick travel through you can engage them suddenly. Maybe you can pay some thieves to hold them down!
Over all, I am almost at the point of exploding and asking what else i can do to help!
...and thieves are criminals, so doing their dirty work would be criminal.
The definition of an Assassin: One who murders by surprise attack, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a prominent person
Even if you kill mercifully, you are still destroying something (lack of DP aside). I don't understand why a murderer, albeit a skilled one, is concerned about becoming evil. Seems to me to come with the turf...by definition.
Even if you kill mercifully, you are still destroying something (lack of DP aside). I don't understand why a murderer, albeit a skilled one, is concerned about becoming evil. Seems to me to come with the turf...by definition.
Even if you kill mercifully, you are still destroying something (lack of DP aside). I don't understand why a murderer, albeit a skilled one, is concerned about becoming evil. Seems to me to come with the turf...by definition.
EDIT: Oh, and I just realized there is and should be a deference between alignment and reputation...especially when alignment is absolutes like in Golarion (personified by deities). But, this argument is nullified by a few well placed "glasses of alignment detection" on our super marshals.
That being said the Great Legionnaires are very, very, very, evil clan.
We intend to kill, but only those who harm the weak and innocent.
We intend to destroy, but only that which is owned by our enemies.
We intend to cause suffering, but only to give consequence to the deeds of the wicked.
And we intend to do great amounts of all three. By the same token your military chorus is evil too. Will they not kill, destroy, and cause suffering?
Does a paladin who aims only to expel evil and promote justice not kill, destroy, and cause suffering?
Personally I HIGHLY prefer my definition of good and evil:
Good is expending effort or making sacrifices for the benefit of others, especially if it sees no personal reward.
Evil is causing harm to others for selfish gains or the benefit of evil cause, deity, or ideology. Such as the worship of Asmodeus or the membership of a murderous brotherhood.
I would agree with Malarious. The assassination of an evil adviser of the king that his evil plans do not come to fruition and the kingdom and the land continue to enjoy peace is not only an act I wouldn't consider evil, but an act I would consider GOOD if not for the fact they were accepting payment. Chaotic? Very. Yes very chaotic. It's a decidedly chaotic good act.
That being said it's an order I would sign with as little regret as an order to assist that same kingdoms guards defending against a bandit raid or hunt down a wanted serial killer. There is a reason we are neutral good and not lawful good.
I decided to create a new thread so we do not hijack the blog notification. The preceding posts can be found at the end of page one in the link above.
I don't think we need to evaluate what your typical adventuring party does in a computer roleplaying game. I cannot fathom the evil I must have committed over the last 25 years of gaming, all under the guise of being a hero vanquishing my foes.
If an Assassin accepts a contract to kill the Lord of a Neighbouring Hex, is this any different from a Paladin that massacres a tribe of Goblins because their lair was too close to his Cathedral? I would consider the Assassin to be the lesser of two evils.
I would agree in real life in the absence of absolute alignment, a relative one illustrated by your examples above is the only way good and evil can make sense. But in Golarion the forces of Good and Evil are personified by deities which have certain characteristics which can be qualified. Likewise, certain behaviours are prototypical along the various axis. Specifically, good and evil are characterized by:
Evil - Darkness, Death, Destruction, Evil, Knowledge, Madness, Magic, Strength, Trickery, War, Weather
Good - Air, Animal, Artifice, Charm, Community, Creation, Earth, Glory, Good, Healing, Law, Liberation, Luck, Plant, Protection, Sun, Travel
Quote above from here.
There is a clear distinction here, into which do you see assassins fitting? Personally, I see them falling under Darkness, Death, Trickery, War, and Strength...I cannot relate a single good domain (although I admit others might be able to, hard to deny the evil though). This said, I also acknowledge the existence of a struggle or war between the alignments. While good might destroy evil, and while destroying is evil, I think it can be looked at differently, in light of this war. Your example above about the paladin and goblins, goblins destroy and devour, your paladin protects the community. Only one can win out...either the goblins will destroy or the community will exist, both cannot be true. As such, the paladin is not destroying for the sake of destroying when he kills the goblins, he is destroying so his community can exist. The goblins destroy for the love of destruction.
In the case of killing one who is a menace to others, even if if they have broken no laws I would associate it with:
Community, Good, and Liberation.
Which would you associate a Chaotic-Good Barbarian with?
Similarly, I admit I can envision a neutral assassin that might have been "made"...but most people in life become what they already are. If the thought of killing someone never even crosses your mind, you will not kill people. And if a certain behaviour gives someone pleasure, it will be reinforced and repeated. Therefore, assassins either exist because they really do not care one way or another, and hence it is just a job...in which case another job that would be just as lucrative should be able to form a suitable replacement when criminal behaviour makes life difficult, or the assassin likes what they do, which is why they do it...and they then fall into the domains of evil, like the goblins above.
I can envision a chaotic good assassin living in a land where the law is turned against it's own people. That they kill corrupt officials to end their tyranny and strike fear of the light into the heart of people who know no consequences to their evil deeds under the law. Should their aim be to bring, peace, justice, and freedom to those oppressed by this tyrannical government then they are not evil, and are not neutral, but they are good.
Arguing that Assassins should not take alignment hits because it will make society like them less is on par to arguing con men should not take a reputation hit when they break a contract, because that will prevent them from being able to take further contracts, and continue playing a con man. This argument might work on Wall Street, but it is evident that GW is trying to facilitate a social order that allows people to trust others, allowing constructive communities to form. It is just as artificial as monitoring the economy...and we die hard "Sandbox Libertarians" might object, but I understand their reasoning...and I for one applaud their efforts.
(All of this aside, I do think they have hinted that there will be ways for assassins to "get away with murder".)
They should take an alignment hit based on the action they took. Assassinating an evil target if paid is neutral, assassinating an evil target if unpaid, is good, And assassinating an neutral or good target is always evil. And assassinations period, are always chaotic. Every single time.
For a lawful good player, if the encounter a corrupt official working toward a plot that ends in the mass murder of innocent people, they might confront them and attempt to convince them to stop. If that fails they may look for incriminating evidence on that person, or challenge them to a duel. If that fails they may beg the king to remove that person from their position. And if all lawful options are exhausted, then they will still continue to try them, or do nothing.
A chaotic good player might falsify evidence against this person, or kidnap them. But if all else fails, they will assassinate them.
A neutral good player would try the lawful options of looking for incriminating evidence, or trying to persuade them to give up their evil ways first. But if all else fails, we will use chaotic options, including assassination.
On a personal note not related to the official alignment system. I believe that if you have the ability and opportunity to save lives, but you don't take it. That their blood is on your hands. I would rather have the blood of one evil man directly on my hands when I cut his throat then the blood of his countless victims indirectly when I kill them through my inaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassination is frequently a means of upholding law. It historically has more to do with law than otherwise. And your brush is broader than you think.
In the game setting being discussed in particular, assassination will play a role of enforcing law in lawless areas where bounties are irrelevant. GW has made it clear bounty hunting only works for the people killing others in lawful areas. The killers will quickly learn to just wait for them to leave those small regions into the other 99% of the game. Who's going to uphold law there? Someone kills you in the wilds, bounties won't be an option. The only way to punish them is assassination.
Again, I stand by my comment that you still hold to some misconceptions.
Ok, now that you explain yourself I understand what misconception you were talking about. But once again, my argument was never for or against lawfulness. I was arguing morality.
(To me) It doesn't matter where the assassination occurs; whether in a lawful or lawless area, killing for money is still evil. Now if you want to say that the assassination was not done for money, but just as a means to uphold the "law" (even in a lawless area were assassination is the only means of law), then I would argue that it is then not an assassination, at least not in this game's terms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But you discuss the difference between bounty hunting and assassination. And given the parameters they have given us, the only solid difference that always applies is law, not morality.
Your approach makes sense in a world where law is omni present, but that is not the case for PFO. And "killing for money", in lawful or lawless areas is what bounty hunters, law enforcement guards, and mercenaries all do. So you need to find a different scope in which to discuss the points you're trying to make.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If assassination doesn't provide some advantage to the contractor, it won't be offered as a contract. That, and
Assassinations themselves require a whole dev blog to discuss, and most of the ideas we have for them are still very formative.
lead me to believe that "Assassination contracts" will have some dimension beyond "I will pay you coin if you kill this person."
I will be sorely disappointed if we can't use at least two of the classifications described by the CIA: The target knows that someone is trying to kill him, and you must make it appear that he died of something other than assassination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But you discuss the difference between bounty hunting and assassination. And given the parameters they have given us, the only solid difference that always applies is law, not morality.
Your approach makes sense in a world where law is omni present, but that is not the case for PFO. And "killing for money", in lawful or lawless areas is what bounty hunters, law enforcement guards, and mercenaries all do. So you need to find a different scope in which to discuss the points you're trying to make.
Bounty hunters arrest people, as do law enforcement, if at all possible. Now in this game were arrest are non-existent then it is understandable that Bounty Hunting would not be an evil act since it is the only form of retribution against someone who has already committed a crime. Remember, assassination contract will be taken out against people who did not kill the person offering the contract, otherwise the person would be offering a bounty.
As far as mercenaries go... as I stated in my first post, killing during wartime is a less-evil act, since there is a good chance you are killing in defense of something. Therefore most mercenaries are not considered evil. If they are hired to take out a defenseless village however, then yes, they would be.
So no, my scope is fine. The only reason bounty hunters and law enforcers fall into the same category as assassins in this game is because of the lack of the ability to arrest people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will be sorely disappointed if we can't use at least two of the classifications described by the CIA: The target knows that someone is trying to kill him, and you must make it appear that he died of something other than assassination.
For the sake of assassins in the game I hope they make it possible to perform an assassination without getting tagged as a criminal. That way people can have fun using their skills to get away with it. Still evil though...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, I think what's happening here is that GW in thier blogs is doing a bit of conflating "Alignment" which logicaly would be applied Universaly with "Legality" which logicaly would be applied Jurisdictionaly.
For example: Bob and Joe are out in the middle of the wilderness somewhere. Bob kills Joe for no reason. In a game setting with Cosmology that features absolute morality (i.e. "Good" and "Evil" exist as palpable forces with Dieties aligned to each), this would be considered an ACT which was "Evil" in terms of Alignment. In the sense that most people commonly accept the term, Bob would be defined as a "murderer". However, according to the previous blog entry, Bob is NOT a "criminal" in the legal sense as no entity has legal jurisdiction over the unclaimed territory where the act was performed.
The critical question here, is Joe able to put a "Bounty" on Bob for killing him? According to the previous Blog entry, the answer would be "No", since no legal authority had jurisidction over the territory where the murder took place.
If that's the case, then Joe's only recourse would be to put out an "Assasination Contract" against Bob (or to kill Bob himself or have a freind do it). In this case, it doesn't seem to make sense that Joe would suffer an alignment shift for killing Bob or that a player who fulfilled a contract and helped Joe get revenge against Bob should be subject to an alignment shift for doing so. In that case, the only practical difference between that and a "Bounty" is that it occured 2.5 feet outside the legal boundaries of the Kingdom of Nod. Hardly something that one would think matters to the Cosmos, Morality and the primal forces of "Good" and "Evil".
What I'm wondering is, if the most recent blog entry implies a change in that? Can you place a "Bounty" on an individual that killed you outside the legal jurisdiction of some lawfull authority? That's the only case under which I can see it making sense for imposing "Alignment" shifts towards "Evil" for "Assasination Contracts". Because then the type of contract would be dependant upon whether the target had "wronged" someone in the moral/cosmological sense...not just the legal one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassination contracts will also be taken out against griefers who avoid lawful areas. Griefers against whom bounty hunters ARE NOT AN OPTION. Bounties can only be issued when a kill is made in a lawful area and outside of a declared war.
Just got jumped by a bunch of bandits? They're plaguing your trade routes? Want to hire a bounty hunter to punish those bandits? Too bad, so sad.
You don't see that your scope is not fine because you continue to miss the difference between lawful and non lawful areas as described in the blogs.
You can't arrest people who commit attack others as bandits outside of lawful areas. So just as you justify the need for a bounty hunter to kill, so the same justification fits an assassination contract.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassination is frequently a means of upholding law. It historically has more to do with law than otherwise. And your brush is broader than you think.
In the game setting being discussed in particular, assassination will play a role of enforcing law in lawless areas where bounties are irrelevant. GW has made it clear bounty hunting only works for the people killing others in lawful areas. The killers will quickly learn to just wait for them to leave those small regions into the other 99% of the game. Who's going to uphold law there? Someone kills you in the wilds, bounties won't be an option. The only way to punish them is assassination.
Again, I stand by my comment that you still hold to some misconceptions.
I would say anytime someone is hunting people down and killing/capturing them for a lawful government inside that government's territory or in neutral/lawless territory they are a bounty hunter.
Once they are hunting people down in an area where they either are/are protected by the law, forcing the hunter to evade authorities, they change from a bounty hunter to an assassin. Even if the contract is from a lawful government of another region.
Bounty Hunters don't care if a hundred people see them kill their mark because they have legal authority to do what they do. Whether or not it is moral is irrelevant.
Assassins are known to operate in shadow and secrecy because what they do is illegal and neither they nor their employers want to make it a public spectacle.
That is the defining difference between a bounty hunter and an assassin.
Bounty Hunters are lawful or neutral. Assassins are chaotic.
Both can be good, neutral, or evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel I don't think there is a change implied. (I think) you can put out an assassination contract on the guy who killed you, but not a bounty, since he killed you legitimately.
So yes, there will still be some need to hold my nose and put out assassination contracts on people I can't otherwise touch. And those who take such contracts will expect to be well paid if they are going to gain a criminal flag.
Writing that, I wonder if part of GW's intent is to keep the price high.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You don't see that your scope is not fine because you continue to miss the difference between lawful and non lawful areas as described in the blogs.
You can't arrest people who commit attack others as bandits outside of lawful areas. So just as you justify the need for a bounty hunter to kill, so the same justification fits an assassination contract.
Just got jumped by a bunch of bandits?
Well they probably killed you, so you can use a bounty...
They're plaguing your trade routes?
Contract for guards...
Want to hire a bounty hunter to punish those bandits?
Yes, I would rather GW widen the parameters for hiring bounty hunter than make assassination the one-stop-fix-it-shop. Allow bounties to be put on people who steal your shipments, or on people who even only attacked you and didnt kill you. That way the line between protection, defense, and safety, is not blurred with greed, murder, and attacking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Remember, assassination contract will be taken out against people who did not kill the person offering the contract, otherwise the person would be offering a bounty.
This, I think is where the disconnect lies. Accourding to the initial Blog post about Bounties. A Bounty is ONLY available if the killing occurs within the LEGAL JURISDICTION of a settlement that has laws against murder.
If it occurs somewhere else, like in the Wilderness. Then you can NOT place a Bounty on them. So if someone is killed 2 feet outside of a settlements legal boundary, the only option against the killer would be an "Assasination Contract" not a "Bounty".
Now, if they have REVISED the Bounty system otherwise, what you are saing would make sense. However, they haven't provided any information that the Bounty system has been revised.
That's the difficulty here....Bounties deal with Legal Jurisdictions... Alignment/Morality deals with Universaly applied principles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say anytime someone is hunting people down and killing/capturing them for a lawful government inside that government's territory or in neutral/lawless territory they are a bounty hunter.
You would say that. The blog has said otherwise.
Assassins operate in shadows because what they do is distasteful, but often legal. More importantly was the fact that anonymity prevented reprisal. That has a lot more to do with it than your presumptions about legality.
The biggest example in history: feudal Japan's ninja clans. Assassins. Legal. Not bounty hunters.
Bin Laden was "assassinated" not bounty hunted. There was a bounty on his head, but in the end it was an assassination.