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.
Not just in the blog. I have stated the same repeatedly in this and the other thread on the topic. I'm getting really close to violating forum rules about personal attacks.
I'm going to take a breather. Too much illiteracy in the air.
Oops! I just did it. Oh well, time to go cool my head off.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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.
Speaking only in general terms, and not referencing any particular political issue, I would say that a targeted attack against an enemy leader as part of a declared war is different from any act which is always evil or illegal.
That said, complicated justifications are typically chaotic, while simple rules that are easily followed are lawful.
Goblinworks Founder
|
Speaking only in general terms, and not referencing any particular political issue, I would say that a targeted attack against an enemy leader as part of a declared war is different from any act which is always evil or illegal.
That said, complicated justifications are typically chaotic, while simple rules that are easily followed are lawful.
Speaking only in General terms. A team that infiltrates a foreign country and Assassinates a high profile villain on the order of their employer is both lawful and chaotic. They were following the orders of their employer without question, a lawful act, yet they were breaking international law by infiltrating foreign borders and committing a murder.
1. It was an Assassination but the killers were not necessarily evil2. It was against international law but the team was following orders absolute.
Like I mentioned in my first post in this thread. Most of this thread has digressed into a discussion on the common hitman, not an assassin.
An Assassin is typically under permanent employ of a government, organisation, religious order or guild. They are professional, lawful and indiscriminate about the absolutes of good vs evil.
A Hit man is typically a criminal motivated by money, or just enjoys the act of killing and figures they can make money from something they enjoy.
Assassins are a rare occurance.
Hitmen are an everyday occurance.
|
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.
Not just in the blog. I have stated the same repeatedly in this and the other thread on the topic. I'm getting really close to violating forum rules about personal attacks.
I'm going to take a breather. Too much illiteracy in the air.
Oops! I just did it. Oh well, time to go cool my head off.
Sorry, I have read the blog, but not had time to memorize it. Then yes, I agree with you that forcing assassinations to be evil while not offering a non-evil alternative to them doesn't seem like a good idea.
But despite my limited free time and therefore inability to memorize everything Mr. Dancy says, my previous post still make a valid point about the way I think things should be. Assassinations as a tool for greed and gain, bounties as a tool of defense and safety.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then you still don't agree with me. I agree with them being more or less evil. It can get complicated, but painting it with the broad stroke of evil, fine.
Where I take issue is in automatically attaching the "criminal" tag which has serious implications in the game and was originally designed to prevent people from running around in lawful areas griefing people.
And you didn't need to memorize the blog - I repeatedly made the same point over and over and over and over to you. I've quoted form the blog, explained it to you, as well as to others, and you continued and persisted and plodded along and endured and abided and lingered and persevered in ignoring the point over and over.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then you still don't agree with me. I agree with them being more or less evil. It can get complicated, but painting it with the broad stroke of evil, fine.
Where I take issue is in automatically attaching the "criminal" tag which has serious implications in the game and was originally designed to prevent people from running around in lawful areas griefing people.
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...
I agree with that as well, and I never said anything to the contrary... I think in lawless areas assassinations should not be considered criminal, and it lawful areas a skilled assassin can kill without getting hit with the criminal tag.
And you didn't need to memorize the blog - I repeatedly made the same point over and over and over and over to you. I've quoted form the blog, explained it to you, as well as to others, and you continued and persisted and plodded along and endured and abided and lingered and persevered in ignoring the point over and over.
My deepest and most sincere apologies for not catching on earlier. It must be very frustrating for you to have to talk with such unintelligent people like me....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a lawful government (or any other entity) hunts and kills civilians, that generally falls into one of two categories:
-legal grounds (fugitives, known terriorists, etc). In reality big grey zones, but in PFO these would come under Bounty Contract. It could be argued completing bounties is a lawful act.
-no or insufficient legal grounds (killing political opponents/activists, witnesses etc). Assassination plain and simple. In PFO this is not possible with a bounty contract, so Assassination Contract is the only option. This is by definition outside the law (even if the government does it).
Very simply: in PFO, *unless there are inventives to post assassination contracts instead of bounty contracts*, assassination contracts typically mean the target didn't do enough (recognized by the game) to deserve death - otherwise they'd be bounties.
Completing assassination contracts then means killing someone who does not deserve it, purely for money. Evil act? No doubt. Chaotic act? From the perspective that you are disregarding and undermining the legal system: yes. More chaotic evil than just killing them unprovoked and stealing their purse? no, just much more stylish.
personally I love the idea that i can use 'detect alignment' to see who is most likely to kill me unprovoked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry, I have read the blog, but not had time to memorize it. Then yes, I agree with you that forcing assassinations to be evil while not offering a non-evil alternative to them doesn't seem like a good idea.
But despite my limited free time and therefore inability to memorize everything Mr. Dancy says, my previous post still make a valid point about the way I think things should be. Assassinations as a tool for greed and gain, bounties as a tool of defense and safety.
I think determining the morality of each and every kill would be difficult, but there are certain types of killing where the morality is not so hard to figure out. Bounties are one area that is pretty easy. Assassinations - that is, killing for money, not just targeting named individuals - could be another. I think I'm agreeing with you here.
When reading the blog, I assume Dancy is somewhat aware of what he has written before, and the most recent stuff is closest to the current vision.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
<insert misinformation here>
Read the thread. Read the references made to the blog. Stop spreading misinformation.
It has been thoroughly covered what activities are covered by bounties. It must be an unlawful kill inside the tight boundaries around a lawful settlement. Anything else, no bounty, no soup for you, too bad so sad, hire an assassin or kill them yourself or with friends or forget any kind of justice. There will be three NPC settlements which will make up a very small portion of the geography and will be low risk, low reward areas.
So people can absolutely do many many things "deserving death". But unless they're doing them in or in close proximity to these towns there will be no way at all to issue a bounty.
Randomwalker, please don't respond until you are completely and absolute clear about what has been explained to you just now. I can't stop you from posting without knowing what you're talking about, I can just plead. Please, stop the madness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An assassination is defined generally as: "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons."Alternatively, assassination may be defined as "the act of deliberately killing someone, especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."
-Political implications
Yes a hitman is an assassin as well, but he isn't really assassinating everyone. He's just a killer. Assassination is a significant kill, not just the guy who owes the loan shark some money. A rival within or outside the organization that poses a significant threat.
Lawful Evil
Lawful Evil is referred to as the "Dominator" or "Diabolic" alignment. Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals and are not averse to twisting the rules to work in their favor. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct, and loyal soldiers who enjoy the act of killing.
Neutral Evil
Neutral Evil is called the "Malefactor" alignment. Characters of this alignment are typically selfish and have no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either Lawful or Chaotic Evil characters, since she or he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.
Examples are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind her or his superior's back, or a mercenary who switches sides if made a better offer.
Chaotic Evil
Chaotic Evil is referred to as the "Destroyer" or "Demonic" alignment. Characters of this alignment tend to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have any regard for the lives or freedom of other people. They do not work well in groups, as they resent being given orders, and usually behave themselves only out of fear of punishment.
It is not compulsory for a Chaotic Evil character to be constantly performing sadistic acts just for the sake of being evil, or constantly disobeying orders just for the sake of causing chaos. They do however enjoy the suffering of others, and view honor and self-discipline as weaknesses. Serial killers and monsters of limited intelligence are typically Chaotic Evil.
- All that being said. Just assassinating everyday people for payment I can see as an EVIL act. If that region is particularly strict, I can see an inclination towards Chaotic as you are disobeying laws.
As far as a traditional assassination goes, those can be done for a multitude of reasons and sometimes to prevent evil from being done. I don't see why that would be an evil act. Assassinating a warlord who is controlling the region and promoting his men to rape, pillage, and plunder is not an evil act.
I really hope that alignments won't be used as handcuffs. I would rather see a "factions" system implaced with the alignment selection as a starting point for those factions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've generally stayed out of this thread, but I think it bears repeating that any computer system which attempts to judge the morality of an act is doomed to failure. If the system provides a reward for doing "good" and punishes doing "evil", then it will eventually be exploited by griefers to do the exact opposite: rewarding evil and punishing good.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
And everyone not ninja considered them evil. And they were illegal, hunted as criminals...contrary to the modern glorification of them, and love of anti-heroes.
What I see in the discussions here is the continued neglect of the deities. What defines evil in Golarion is whether an act would be condoned by a subset of deities. This is nothing like RL where we are forced to rely upon arguments of "greater utility".
Also, for the sake of argument and public rest, I would definitely agree to a difference between killing in war and murder, exemplified by the alternate war target contract suggested by GrumpyMel in the other thread.
Bin Laden was "assassinated" not bounty hunted. There was a bounty on his head, but in the end it was an assassination.
I would say third part killers paid by the job for non-military targets are assassins. Seal Teams do not fit the bill.
And contrary to other arguments, I do not see a difference between hitmen and assassins. Seen the movie Hitman? Was he a hitman or assassin?
Here is a short intro the setting for any who are interested.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I see in the discussions here is the continued neglect of the deities. What defines evil in Golarion is whether an act would be condoned by a subset of deities. This is nothing like RL where we are forced to rely upon arguments of "greater utility".
The bolded part is the most important part here.
What matters is how the act reflects on the gods' and goddess' edicts. It does not matter what rationales we apply from modern day society. If assassinations are evil according to the deities themselves, then assassinations are evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith
Hunted by opposing states, not the states from which they operated. What are your references? Everyone not ninja considered them evil? Seen the movie Hitman? You're the one falling on pop culture references, not me.
As far as seal teams not fitting the bill, that's your opinion. The word used by the government that sent them is "assassination". They debated the issue for a long time as the US has laws against assassination (assassination prohibition in executive order 12333). They ultimately determined it was a just assassination that did not counter the law as "it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition does not apply to killings in self-defense." reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-killing-legalit y
The above citation is very easy to imagine being applied to a huge variety of circumstances in PFO.
And why are you asking me what I consider to be the difference between hitmen and assassins? What do you consider to be the difference between Fords and chevies? Before you answer that: nobody cares.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Forencith on the whole "in relation to Golarian deities" portion. We can't think of things in RL terms.
As far as hitmen/assassin differences. Hitmen are hired guns. That point is not really debatable. That's why you hire a hitman. Assassins are assets sent to kill. These assets may be hitmen. There, the definitions would intersect.
I wouldn't call Seal Team 6 hitmen, however they did assassinate OSAMA bin Laden. Just like marine and army snipers are sent out to eliminate high value targets. Those are assassinations, not conducted by hitmen.
CIA Field Agents if sent to kill priority targets, assassins. They may kill others to get to the target, but those wouldn't be assassinations. Just as Soldiers aren't automatically categorized as Assassins, neither should assassins be categorized as hitmen.
Subtle, but very distinct difference.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If killing people for money is evil, then so are mercenaries.
If mercenaries are always evil, I think that soldiers (who do the same things) should also be evil.
Since the typical soldier isn't evil, then killing people for money isn't inherently evil.
'Unjustified killing' is what is evil- the act, not the motivation.
I do like using different terms to refer to different classes of killing-for-hire; 'mercenary' implies a certain respectable-but-not-always-respected quality, 'hitman' implies amateurish and criminal, and assassin evokes many different aspects, from the lone crazy to the person nobody suspects because the target died of 'natural causes'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If killing people for money is evil, then so are mercenaries.
If mercenaries are always evil, I think that soldiers (who do the same things) should also be evil.
Since the typical soldier isn't evil, then killing people for money isn't inherently evil.
'Unjustified killing' is what is evil- the act, not the motivation.
I do like using different terms to refer to different classes of killing-for-hire; 'mercenary' implies a certain respectable-but-not-always-respected quality, 'hitman' implies amateurish and criminal, and assassin evokes many different aspects, from the lone crazy to the person nobody suspects because the target died of 'natural causes'.
Judging by the hints from Ryan and the blog implying assasination will likely carry penalties beyond the normal results of death, we could assume that an assasination isn't a normal kill. It may involve some evil curse of some kind to be done to the corpse etc... to explain the harsher penelty for dying to an assasain vs your 210th death in war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fulfilling an assassination contract should not be an automatic criminal act, if criminal acts are going to be used to shift a character along the axis to Chaotic. Period, point blank. Only if the assassination occurs in an area that has laws against murder should this be a criminal act.
Lawful Evil is the fundamental alignment for an Assassin. Any mechanic put in place that undermines this shows a clear lack of understanding of the entire concept from a historical standpoint, and as put forth by the PFRPG prestige class.
I'm really hoping that we just got the fast and dirty run-down of assassination contracts, since Ryan Dancey knows he's going to do an entire blog on the subject. I could go on and on with this topic, but honestly, Blaeringr has said it all and said it well (many times over).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fulfilling an assassination contract should not be an automatic criminal act, if criminal acts are going to be used to shift a character along the axis to Chaotic. Period, point blank.
Did you read something from GW that said that the criminal flag would be used to affect the law-chaos axis? I read that normally, *failing* to fulfill a contract would tend one towards chaos. I also read that fulfilling an assassination contract (that is, killing someone in return for payment) would be a criminal *and* an evil act, but we'll get more on assassinations later. From my reading of today's stuff, yes, assassins would still be LE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Judging by the hints from Ryan and the blog implying assasination will likely carry penalties beyond the normal results of death, we could assume that an assasination isn't a normal kill. It may involve some evil curse of some kind to be done to the corpse etc... to explain the harsher penelty for dying to an assasain vs your 210th death in war.If killing people for money is evil, then so are mercenaries.
If mercenaries are always evil, I think that soldiers (who do the same things) should also be evil.
Since the typical soldier isn't evil, then killing people for money isn't inherently evil.
'Unjustified killing' is what is evil- the act, not the motivation.
I do like using different terms to refer to different classes of killing-for-hire; 'mercenary' implies a certain respectable-but-not-always-respected quality, 'hitman' implies amateurish and criminal, and assassin evokes many different aspects, from the lone crazy to the person nobody suspects because the target died of 'natural causes'.
Death penalties need to be harsh short term no matter where. I don't want fighting a battle do be a process of whack a mole where you kill someone and the pop up again 10 seconds later with no penalties. Losing a battle needs to carry some implications.
I think if there is a difference, it needs to be that dying normal carries a heavy short-term penalty such as a 30-60 minute debuff that passes whether logged in or logged off and/or a large hit to gear durability, and dying via. assassination or bounty carries longer term penalties such as gold loss, experience loss, or a 24 hours of in-game time debuff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fulfilling an assassination contract should not be an automatic criminal act, if criminal acts are going to be used to shift a character along the axis to Chaotic. Period, point blank.Did you read something from GW that said that the criminal flag would be used to affect the law-chaos axis? I read that normally, *failing* to fulfill a contract would tend one towards chaos. I also read that fulfilling an assassination contract (that is, killing someone in return for payment) would be a criminal *and* an evil act, but we'll get more on assassinations later. From my reading of today's stuff, yes, assassins would still be LE.
No, Ryan didn't specifically say that breaking the law would shift a person on to the Chaos side of the scale, but it was pretty strongly implied.
From the section on Alignment:
"Someone who has become chaotic evil is going to have a hard time hiring others to perform various tasks, and that character is likely to find it hard to get work from those who need a reliable and trustworthy hireling."
From the section on The Long Arm of the Law:
"Criminals will have a hard time finding anyone to offer or accept a contract—there's no honor among thieves... or murderers."
So you see, he uses almost identical language to describe the effects of being both a criminal and being Chaotic Evil. And it makes sense that breaking the law would shift you towards Chaos. I mean, that's the very essence of unlawful behavior. I think we can safely assume the two are tied together.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you see, he uses almost identical language to describe the effects of being both a criminal and being Chaotic Evil. And it makes sense that breaking the law would shift you towards Chaos. I mean, that's the very essence of unlawful behavior. I think we can safely assume the two are tied together.
At least my interpretation of things is chaotic is more about not following contracts/orders, evil is more about excessive killing etc...
I am thinking a kill in NPC territory is most likely going to be NE, while bailing on a contract of any kind is going to be a CN event. A LE person may very well fulfill the contract, he just might kill you 10 minutes later, is my interpretation.