| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Assassin has always bothered me as a class - it's abilities and skills are perfectly fine, but why are they required to be evil? I understand that killing people is bad, but most adventurers kill more people in a day than the typical assassin probably does in a year, unless he's really efficient and sought after.
Outside of the social implications, there's the fact that at any given time there may be a paladin in the group, or a good cleric, or something of that sort that could use Detect Evil, sense the assassin (who the paladin/good cleric would probably not know is evil, given the paladin fluff and the fact that good clerics are generally pretty against evil stuff) and stab the guy right on the spot, or cause some shaky party relations at best.
If it's an evil thing, why is it even in the core rules at all? wouldn't that better be suited as a DMG sort of thing for game masters to use to build characters?
personally I think that assassins should be about as alignment neutral as rogues because assassins aren't always evil, anyone can be an opportunist killer, not just assassins. is a fighter evil because he gets the drop on a gang of gnolls that didn't see him coming? they might have been neutral, or even good, or doing absolutely nothing wrong, but in the fighter's mind, they're enemies and attacking first means a higher success chance.
Furthermore, one can make a necromancer wizard without being evil, even though necromancers are the first thing most people think of when they think of an evil wizard, and all of their spells are pretty evil focused, where as the assassin's abilities are just all about being really good killers.
because you are required to kill someone for no reason other then to join "the guild". doing that automatically makes you evil.
*and the reason why its in the core rules, is because instead of making you buy 3 books to begin playing, they mixed the players handbook and DMG from 3.5 with there updated rules.
Tradition and Popularity.
Assassin (as defined for the prestige class) is not about the getting the drop on the opponent. It is about getting paid to commit murder.
Throughout history (especially western cultures) taking money specifically for the act of murder is evil.
But yes, you can easily make the argument that the band of adventurers who got rewarded for eliminating the nest of goblins is the same thing.
The class features by itself would make for a fun rogue type, and I admit I would rather play a more 'neutral/honorable' killer type and fudge the Evil requirement a bit.
I have to agree however that the basis of the class was meant for those who are paid to kill someone without question, and that is indeed Evil. Their class abilities are specifically for observing their mark, and then murdering them. Assassins have been a bit...romanticized in certain books or games (Assassins Creed), and we find it fun to run the rooftops and get the drop on unsuspecting folk, but in the end it is murder, and therefore Evil, so I have to agree with the others.
As for why it is in the Core Book, you could ask the same of Antipaladin in the APG. The answer: because sometimes we just wanna make an evil character. That, and the GM needs to be able to make one to harry your PC in-game. ;-)
It just strikes me as exceedingly strange that they would leave that prestige class in when they've spoken out against things like intelligent non-evil undead.
With a minor tweak to fluff, this class would be fine as a player class, but having an outright evil class with an outright evil guild that requires joining is just... dumb to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(apologies for the double post)
The class features by itself would make for a fun rogue type, and I admit I would rather play a more 'neutral/honorable' killer type and fudge the Evil requirement a bit.
I have to agree however that the basis of the class was meant for those who are paid to kill someone without question, and that is indeed Evil. Their class abilities are specifically for observing their mark, and then murdering them. Assassins have been a bit...romanticized in certain books or games (Assassins Creed), and we find it fun to run the rooftops and get the drop on unsuspecting folk, but in the end it is murder, and therefore Evil, so I have to agree with the others.
As for why it is in the Core Book, you could ask the same of Antipaladin in the APG. The answer: because sometimes we just wanna make an evil character. That, and the GM needs to be able to make one to harry your PC in-game. ;-)
Well that's just the thing - isn't being an adventurer murder half of the time? you're killing a lot of stuff, sometimes just because it attacked you for being in it's natural territory. It's not like you have the law backing you when you're out in the forest defending yourself against the local fauna just because you wanted to shave a few days off of your trip, or in some caves murdering spider monsters because they look funny and happen to be dangerous to you as you loot their caves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the 3.5 prestige classes were not ment for players, Wizards cautioned against letting players use the PrC choices from the dmg for players.
the gm needs things to throw at you, or else you would only have the bestiary for sources of NPC's. just because the game has litches in it, doesn't mean you should get to play one.
It is a combination of the interpretation/context of the situation, and the morality of the party. Are you out there because someone paid you to kill the local tribesmen so they can expand their ranches in that area? Or were you investigating a disturbance in nature and those nasty tribesmen tried to sacrifice your party to Lamashtu and you defended yourselves? Could you have gone around that cave full of giant, neutral spiders? Did anyone in the party suggest going around vs killing those pretty little chunks of XP?
Hopefully, based on your campaign, you'll "typically" be a "good" party fighting against some sort of "evil" that is actively doing "evil" things. Your actions are a result of protecting a village, or preventing the rise of an ancient evil diety.
It's the difference in JourneyQuest of the party defending themselves against the Orc party that attacks them (because well Glorion the Orcslayer), and their party member Glorion going out of his way to kill any Orc that was "no where near our path".
Honestly though, what I think you're getting into has been a discussion point of a different color for some time. Gamer movies make fun of it all the time now. Classic DnD is full of dungeon crawling. Unless you're a druid you're not likely to give it enough thought. Its actually half the reason why our group has stopped tracking xp for each encounter, and the GM just tells us when to level at the appropriate time so the story can develop more organically than just encounter to encounter. More roleplay, less kill it now.
... Well that's just the thing - isn't being an adventurer murder half of the time? you're killing a lot of stuff, sometimes just because it attacked you for being in it's natural territory. It's not like you have the law backing you when you're out in the forest defending yourself against the local fauna just because you wanted to shave a few days off of your trip, or in some caves murdering spider monsters because they look funny and happen to be dangerous to you as you loot their caves.
As I said, it is not the killing. It is the murder of another person for pay that most cultures agree is evil.
Not defending yourself against nature, protecting others, stopping a greater evil, eliminate bandits, honorable combat, warfare, etc...
The class is defined as murdering some other person just for pay.
You can argue semantics and definitions that adventurers are the same. But most cultures would say something along the lines of mercenaries or adventurers are troublemakers and a source of problems. But not inherently evil. It is not terribly logically consistant. But it fits most cultural definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now if the class were only defined by the abilities and did not require the murder for pay, then it would not need to be evil. Many groups houserule it exactly that way.
I think the more pressing question with the Assassin PrC is this: Why does it suck so bad?
Its core mechanic fails if you are seen or heard (or smelled...or tremorsensed...or blindsensed...or...). You have to spend multiple actions studying your target before you can do anything, meaning the chance for multiple Perception checks. How does anyone ever manage to succeed at a Death Attack?
Best to only be going after sleeping targets, I guess.
The only thing in the Assassin that has anything to do with murder is the requirement.
It's a class for making people stay dead. If that someone is an evil noble with antipaladin levels providing financial support to the church of Rovagug making him stay dead is heroic.
Agreed. that's why many people houserule away the requirement and at least let them be neutral. Some even let them be good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite plain and simple. Look at just about any example of an Assassin and they are not good guys.
Their profession is cold blood murder and they don't blink an eye at killing an innocent person if that's the target.
For the people that say, "but i kill people for good reasons", that's a nice way to sugar coat the fact that you're a professional murderer.
The entire point of the prestige class is murder for profit. If you want to play a "good" Assassin then just don't take the prestige class. Just take a selection of feats and abilities that allow you to do your job.
Play a fighter, a rogue, a ninja, or even a wizard. That way you can play you're watered down "good" Assassin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite plain and simple. Look at just about any example of an Assassin and they are not good guys.
Their profession is cold blood murder and they don't blink an eye at killing an innocent person if that's the target.
For the people that say, "but i kill people for good reasons", that's a nice way to sugar coat the fact that you're a professional murderer.
The entire point of the prestige class is murder for profit. If you want to play a "good" Assassin then just don't take the prestige class. Just take a selection of feats and abilities that allow you to do your job.
Play a fighter, a rogue, a ninja, or even a wizard. That way you can play you're watered down "good" Assassin.
It's quite plain and simple. Look at just about any example of a thief and they are not good guys.
Their profession is stealing and they don't blink an eye at stealing from an innocent person if that's the target.
For the people that say, "but I steal from people for good reasons", that's a nice way to sugar coat the fact that you're a professional thief.
The entire point of the class is to steal for profit.... I could go on, but I think I've proven my point. Anyone can do this for their view of any given class by interpreting the fluff text that way. This is why generally the fluff text is disregarded when it comes to rules mechanics.
The Master Spy PRC makes a better "Assassin" than the Assassin PRC.
And, er if my memory serves as to the Definition of what an Assassin is Everyone and Atarlost is half right. It is usually someone that murders for money and/or political motivations.
I look at the Assassin prestige class as primarily falling under NPC category. There is plenty of content in the CRB that is geared towards the GM - it's what happens when you combine a Player's Handbook and a Dungeon Masters Guide into one book.
As far as the good/evil thing goes, I look at the PrC as fulfilling an archetype from popular culture: the remorseless killer for hire. If one of my players wanted to play a more wholesome assassin (like Thane from Mass Effect), I would direct them towards the Rogue class. You can make a pretty decent assassin simply by using a straight rogue build.
Just drop the prereq of evil and killing a person and rename the class to Phantom or something along those lines.
Then again, that would be more of a house rule.
You do not have to be evil to assassinate people it is just the focus that assassins give to that one thing, which is killing people, is not something meant for a saintly mindset.
The assassin as listed is just a sample PrC though, if you want a good aligned PrC removing evil from the world for altruistic purposes I advise changing the flavor and abilities of the class a bit to fit better.
As is you can just play a ninja and get the assassinate ability without being evil.
It's quite plain and simple. Look at just about any example of an Assassin and they are not good guys.
Their profession is cold blood murder and they don't blink an eye at killing an innocent person if that's the target.
For the people that say, "but i kill people for good reasons", that's a nice way to sugar coat the fact that you're a professional murderer.
The entire point of the prestige class is murder for profit. If you want to play a "good" Assassin then just don't take the prestige class. Just take a selection of feats and abilities that allow you to do your job.
Play a fighter, a rogue, a ninja, or even a wizard. That way you can play you're watered down "good" Assassin.
It's quite plain and simple. Look at just about any example of a thief and they are not good guys.
Their profession is stealing and they don't blink an eye at stealing from an innocent person if that's the target.
For the people that say, "but I steal from people for good reasons", that's a nice way to sugar coat the fact that you're a professional thief.
The entire point of the class is to steal for profit.... I could go on, but I think I've proven my point. Anyone can do this for their view of any given class by interpreting the fluff text that way. This is why generally the fluff text is disregarded when it comes to rules mechanics.
Good job. Except that "thief" isn't a class. Otherwise your example is fairly...oh wait i see you're being a sarcastic jerk for no reason.
I'm not bashing people who in their games want to play a "good" Assassin and it's a house-rule in their game. So i don't understand why you're mocking me.
Most people from what I've seen just want the mechanics and don't care about the fluff behind the class. I don't care if you use house rules to get your way. But seriously i see people ranting about Evil Assassin's, Lawful Good Paladin's, etc. Questioning why?
The reason why is that when they were made and placed into the system they were made that way for a reason. If an Assassin isn't evil and a Paladin isn't LG then why does any of it matter.
Why can't the Wizard wear armor without penalties?
Why does my Cleric need a Divine Focus?
Why do any of the classes have prerequisites?
Why do any of the classes have differences?
Because this is a RPG and in this game Fighters need good physical scores and use weapons, Wizards need to be smart to cast spells, Paladins get there power from being COMPLETELY LAWFUL AND GOOD without any little evil action, and Assassin's are paid killers that are EVIL!
Don't like it use a House-Rule or just play a class that's close.
Want a Paladin that's not LG then play a damn Cleric or Inquisitor.
Want an Assassin that's not evil play a Rogue, or Ninja, or whatever and play it like an Assassin.
My suggestion is to add a prefix. Like "Dark Brotherhood Assassin". Not all assassins are of the Assassin PRC - instead, they are a special, secretive order of assassins that gain special powers.
Good job. Except that "thief" isn't a class. Otherwise your example is fairly...oh wait i see you're being a sarcastic jerk for no reason.I'm not bashing people who in their games want to play a "good" Assassin and it's a house-rule in their game. So i don't understand why you're mocking me.
Most people from what I've seen just want the mechanics and don't care about the fluff behind the class. I don't care if you use house rules to get your way. But seriously i see people ranting about Evil Assassin's, Lawful Good Paladin's, etc. Questioning why?
The reason why is that when they were made...
The thief is one of the archetypal rogues. I was not trying to mock you. I was demonstrating that you're adding words that are not present in the rules, via your perception of the fluff text. I could do the exact same thing with Paladins demonstrating why they are the ultimate evil from my perspective.
"Why can't the Wizard wear armor without penalties?
Why does my Cleric need a Divine Focus?
Why do any of the classes have prerequisites?
Why do any of the classes have differences?"
These are questions of mechanics. They are mandated for a logical reason and are not based off of opinion or build.
I do not wish to play an assassin and I don't really care if paizo changes the rules. I was pointing out the flaw in your argument. I agree with Cheapy's post.
The only real reasons seem to be tradition and popularity. Nothing wrong with that it works for me.
Mind you other points of consideration for your argument. It mentions nothing about assassins being paid for their actions in the text or their motivations for their actions outside of the fluff text. To do so would be to limit character design and therefore appeal.
The reason that this question comes up so often is that in nearly every case of designated alignment there is a mechanical justification for it, except for in a few cases, one of which is the assassin. None of its powers or talents is any more or less fundamentally evil than any other classes powers. The only mechanical justification for the evil text is the mandatory killing requirement which many see as nonsensical. That requirement being akin to stating that all paladins must have backstories that include 6 years of church doctrine and all rogues must have stolen and or backstabbed at least one person.
just for people who dont get the english language these are the Synonyms: killer, murderer, hired gun, slayer, cutthroat, dispatcher, hit man
which one of those says " im a good person who kills bad people with proper justification!"?
you may choose to play someone who kills someone for the "right reasons" but good as defined in the CRB:"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others"
evil:Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
if you cant see why assassins are evil and ONLY evil... then you is a crazy person!!
I played in a campaign that had two pc assasins. Those two guys were adept at playing what I call "fun evil" There was no question that they were the bad guys, but they skirted the issue just carefully enough that my chaotic good ranger was able to tolerate them. I would equate their behavior akin to Captain Jack Sparrow, definitely not a "good" guy, but still possesing a somewhat admireable sense of honor.
It is also worth noting that one of those "despicable cads" laid down his lis life to save the campaign world.( I was dming at the time, so I had to put my goody-goody ranger out of commission so the pcs could make the hard choice) It was a memorable game moment, that assasin giving a final soliloquy that shamed the so called noble heroes in the group (one of the pcs was a cavalier), and then riding off to a glorious death.
Of course, I had set things up so whomever "saved" the world would be reborn and rewarded for their sacrifice.
Anyway, I guess my point is the player makes the pc. Those two guys lived with their evil alignment and still made the game very fun and memorable. Just my 2 cents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really comes down to this... there is a difference between "killing" and "murder".
Killing is taking action that results in loss of life.
Murder is taking deliberate action that results in loss of unthreatening sapient life.
So killing someone in war, in defense of self or others, or even by accident is not murder. Murder is a subset of killing that meets specific requirements.
Killing is not inherently evil. Murder is.
Adventurers do lots of killing, but assassins actually murder.
...[T]he taking of intelligent life for profit is generally held to be the antithesis of weal.Assassins have been evil as a class as long as the class has existed.
Yes, buy WHY? I'm not questioning that they're evil, I'm asking why they're infallably evil, and why that has been left in as an absolute requirement. The assassin as written in the book sounds like it should be a specific type of assassin, not just "assassin". Anyone can develop the talent to watch someone for a certain amount of time and glean a solid weak point to attack them in with purpose. you don't need to be part of a guild of assassins to accomplish that.
you may choose to play someone who kills someone for the "right reasons" but good as defined in the CRB:"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others"
evil:Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
if you cant see why assassins are evil and ONLY evil... then you is a crazy person!!
Adventurers stomp out droves of creatures under the justification of them being "evil" or them causing problems, when sometimes death isn't necessary, and the 'evil' creatures' actions were because of orders given to them by a superior that may or may not be manipulating them against their will. So, "good" characters, are only good because of their motivations and their justifications.
Evil characters have evil justifications. they kill for personal reasons instead of chivalrous or helpful reasons (though they might have just as gregarious of a goal as the good creatures, simply coming form a different perspective).
A "good" assassin is an assassin that puts their mastery of death to use in a way that helps others. Killing corrupt politicians, putting down serial killers, etc. Their way might be considered wrong, but it doesn't make their purpose any less pure.
an "evil" assassin is an assassin that kills wantonly, not valuing life and simply killing for money, or simply for personal gain.
what about a neutral assassin? Someone willing to kill where a death is necessary, but not necessarily taking pleasure in it, or going out of their way to do so?
There are many ways to justify it, especially when you consider that nothing is ever black and white.
Ah, but in D&D (and thus by extension, Pathfinder) Good and Evil ARE Black and White. They are absolute forces in the game world.
That assassin might be "evil that fight evil" - remember, not all evils are pals. I agree though, the assassin _class_ should have been named more specifically - much like how they got rid of the archmage with the motivation "archmage shouldn't be a class, it should be a title that any high-level mage can use" they should have renamed assassin something more specific with the motivation "assassin shouldn't be a class, it should be a title that comes by murdering for hire".
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Yes, buy WHY? I'm not questioning that they're evil, I'm asking why they're infallably evil, and why that has been left in as an absolute requirement. The assassin as written in the book sounds like it should be a specific type of assassin, not just "assassin". Anyone can develop the talent to watch someone for a certain amount of time and glean a solid weak point to attack them in with purpose. you don't need to be part of a guild of assassins to accomplish that.
Well, the 1e PHB said something along the lines of "killing people for profit is the antithesis of weal." I'd say the 3.0/3.5/PF assassin is copying that motivation, even if it's not explicitly stated in the newer material. Tradition, as others have said.
Your argument here is a nice summary for the stated reason that there was no assassin class in 2e - basically anyone can be an assassin just by accepting money to do murder. It doesn't necessarily need a specoal class.
Rogues get a death attack, they just take 20 levels to do it.
So the answer to WHY? is:
Gygax said so in 1e -> copying that in 3e -> tradition!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is contextual for dispatcher.
As for the Ebilness of Assassin PRC. The requirement is an evil deed. Handwave the requirement, and do as you will for alignment.
Personally, I have never had issue with it.
If you want your character to be called an assassin, go for it. Who needs the PrC version? A wizard that turns unscrupulous merchants into chickens and then gives them to an orphanage to feast upon, he could be called an assassin. Walla!
Long ago, had a player that always wanted to play rogues. Every character acted like a fighter and tried to be a fighter. Finally, we talked him into playing a fighter but calling himself a rogue. It fit so much better all around. He liked the "idea" of rogue.
Greg
|
Just to throw my 2 cents in, the assassin also isn't really intended as a player class. That's why it's not legal for organized play. It's in the Core Rulebook because the Core book is the main resource for players and GM's. It's a PrC aimed at a specific character type. It says in the fluff:"Neutral characters sometimes become assassins, frequently thinking of themselves as simple professionals performing a job, yet the nature of their duties inevitably pushes them toward an evil alignment."
The class makes it clear that your job is killing sentient creatures, not in a battle for your life, not in a political, ideological, or territorial dispute, but quietly, without challenge or warning, typically as the execution of a contract. If they called it the "Guild Assassin" would it make you feel better? Because that's what it is.
Pathfinder as a game has much of its fluff inextricably entwined with its mechanics. They do it for tradition, popular consensus, probably a few other reasons as well. 4E divorced fluff and mechanics and had dismal sales until they started introducing classes that incorporated the fluff back in. WotC is creating a new game where mechanics and fluff are even more tightly intertwined than PF is because they've seen how badly they failed compared to the success of the company that revivified their previous incarnation.
There are numerous other ways to get similar (and largely superior) mechanics, so if you don't like the attached fluff, play a ninja or rogue, or houserule the alignment restriction away.
IME, most PCs want to kill monsters and take their stuff. It might make them feel better if they get to save the village or rescue the princess or whatever, but ultimately the killing is a means to getting the stuff.
Why an "assassin" should be any different is not clear. There's nothing in his abilities that limits his powers to humans, or elves, or dwarves. They work equally well on giants, devils and quaggoths.
On the other hand, a ranger with Favoured Enemy: Human...that's naughty.
I can't believe I got sucked into an alignment thread.
Oh god here we go again.
Why an "assassin" should be any different is not clear.
It's quite clear actually. This PrC is designed for killing for money. Which is, by the gods and the alignment forces in the universe, EVIL. Thus, a PrC that is all about that is evil. A PrC is not a bundle of mechanics, there is fluff that is important to the concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Long ago, had a player that always wanted to play rogues. Every character acted like a fighter and tried to be a fighter. Finally, we talked him into playing a fighter but calling himself a rogue. It fit so much better all around. He liked the "idea" of rogue...
I know a player that plays every build as a stereotypical early edition chaotic dumb barbarian. Charge at biggest target. Whack on it until it goes down. Charge next biggest target. etc...
Not maneuvers, won't wait for the sorc to first cast the fireball or buff him, never pulls back for healing, no positioing for flanking, nothing.He playes every build like that. Even his drow int 16 wis 17 cleric. But as far as I can tell he has never played a barbarian and refuses to even consider even a dip into the the class.
|
Note, you can be an "Assassin" with entering the PrC.
Rangers and Inquisitors make great assassins.
I find that people put too much into the name of a class.
By the way, with the proper alignment changes, a Paladin can become an Assassin, the use the Atonement spell to return Paladin abilities.
Other than being able to progress in the class, you lose nothing from the Assassin levels.
|
Building on what others have said, consider Audie Murphy on one hand, and Frank Calabrese Sr. on the other.
Audie Murphy killed many people during World War II when he was in the Army. He is consired a hero for his actions. Audie Murphy was in battle, trying to defeat the absolute evil of the Third Reich.
Frank Calabrese also killed several people when he was a "soldier" in the Chicago Outfit. He is serving several consecutive life sentences for his actions. Frank Calabrese was protecting extortion, loan sharking and other illegal activities.
Assassination is evil, killing not necessarily.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm more curious about why it exists as a class at all anymore.
Without spellcasting (which made the class unique and interesting in 3.5), all it has is a bunch of iffy abilities that could have just been made into Rogue Talents (and infact many ARE now Ninja Tricks/Ninja class abilities).
Um, unless Paizo has a TARDIS somewhere, arguing the CRB should have taken into account future products is... lacking.*
For the CRB, they were unique abilities. For the moral component... Assassins (the prestige class) don't kill for a 'higher' or 'lower' calling. They kill for cash. Some might have a code, "I don't take contracts on children" but that's an individual thing.
As others have said, Pathfinder (and most RPGs) assume the players are playing the good guys.
Welcome to a world where noble warriors battle mighty dragons and powerful wizards explore long-forgotten tombs. This is a world of fantasy, populated by mysterious elves and savage orcs, wise dwarves and wily gnomes. In this game, your character can become a master swordsman who has never lost a duel, or a skilled thief capable of stealing the crown from atop the king’s head. You can play a pious cleric wielding the power of the gods, or unravel the mysteries of magic as an enigmatic sorcerer. The world is here for you to explore, and your actions will have a profound influence in shaping its history. Who will rescue the king from the clutches of a powerful vampire? Who will thwart the vengeful giants who have come from the mountains to enslave the common folk? These stories wait for your character to take center stage. With this rulebook, a few friends, and a handful of dice, you can begin your
epic quest.
Note there that there's no talk of "Who will take a big bag of gold and murder the king in his sleep?"
Mal: Well, look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir.
Mal: Ain't we just?
Even in Pathfinder's 'darker and edgier' setting, it assumes the player characters are the good guys. If you're not, then there's no issue with having to be evil to be an assassin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.
*