So why aren't Assassin's Legal?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court 5/5

Curaigh wrote:

On a related question, if you were an assassin and atoned for being evil, would you lose all the benefits of being an assassin?

If so there is an avenue I did not exploit for my PFS red mantis assassin assassin (but want to :)

Even if you found a work around for the alignment restriction it still doesn't remove the PFS restriction. Just because you can meet the prereqs doesn't allow you to enter a banned prestige class.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

chaoseffect wrote:

I'm not saying all PCs are immoral. I'm saying that even if you claim you character is a paragon of virtue he has still personally ended more lives than the worst historical mass murderer (those that did their work personally, that is), and then probably took their stuff. That is an indisputable part of Pathfinder and DnD in general: It's a combat system, what do you expect? Your character probably justifies his actions, but in the end he's spilled enough blood to be able to swim in it, and probably doesn't feel all that bad about it.

With that in mind, I don't see you as much different than the assassin. If you run a non-combat Pathfinder game, I apologize for projecting onto you, but it's safe to say you aren't the baseline if you do.

You know that non-lethal damage exists, right?

I'm confused as to why you're so vehemently attacking the nature of Jiggy's character. If he says his character is Good, why do you have reason to doubt him? It sounds like you enjoy your RPGs very shades-of-grey, but that doesn't mean that other people aren't able to play a character that is actually noble and Good.

Liberty's Edge

chaoseffect wrote:

I'm not saying all PCs are immoral. I'm saying that even if you claim you character is a paragon of virtue he has still personally ended more lives than the worst historical mass murderer (those that did their work personally, that is), and then probably took their stuff. That is an indisputable part of Pathfinder and DnD in general: It's a combat system, what do you expect? Your character probably justifies his actions, but in the end he's spilled enough blood to be able to swim in it, and probably doesn't feel all that bad about it.

With that in mind, I don't see you as much different than the assassin. If you run a non-combat Pathfinder game, I apologize for projecting onto you, but it's safe to say you aren't the baseline if you do.

It's the difference between being a soldier and, well, an assassin. A soldier kills for duty, country, to defend themselves, all that sort of thing. So does a cop. Neither is morally equivalent to someone who kills whoever they're paid to kill.

Simo Häyhä was a perfectly nice guy. Doesn't seem to have ever considered becoming a professional assassin for money, but he killed over 500 people in only 100 days, because he was a soldier, and because he was good at it. Which, by the way, is probably more than many PCs death tolls...and certainly more per day than most.

Or Audie Murphy. His death toll isn't nearly as high, but he, too, certainly killed a fair number of people without ever winding up "not much different" from a paid assassin.

Violence is a tool, like any other, it is how and why you use it that determines its morality. Killing people who are trying to kill you, or while you are in the process of defending innocents, or even to avenge the death of a fiend, are all as morally different from killing an innocent for money as using morphine to dull the pain of injured patients is from addicting children to heroin for money. Okay, that may be a slight exaggeration, but the point stands, how and why you kill someone are relevant.

EDIT: Deleted and reposted in identical form due to Forum weirdness.


Isaac White wrote:
I'm confused as to why you're so vehemently attacking the nature of Jiggy's character. If he says his character is Good, why do you have reason to doubt him? It sounds like you enjoy your RPGs very shades-of-grey, but that doesn't mean that other people aren't able to play a character that is actually noble and Good.

I see your point and Deadmanwalking's. Overall I don't really care about stated alignment, I'm more of a "sure whatever you say, man" kinda guy in general even if this discussion may make me appear otherwise.

It's mostly that I find it interesting how the exact same result is viewed completely differently depending on stated motivations for the act. I killed those bandits for the lulz and I'm evil, but I did it for the peasants and I'm a hero. Motivations are nice and all, but actions are actions. Road to hell, good intentions, etc. etc.

It could also be just me, but I have a hard time believing that you can cause so much harm on such a regular basis and not be changed in some way, most likely for the worse.

5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northeast aka Shivok

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It's the difference between being a soldier and, well, an assassin. A soldier kills for duty, country, to defend themselves, all that sort of thing.

A sniper is paid to kill for his country duty or not, even if he doesnt have any interaction with the target. It's assassination through and through. The fact that you killing someone for your country or duty doesnt changes that.

Also I'm sure that sniper would be considered a criminal and assassin in the country he was killing in.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We don't have spies. The enemy has spies. We have SCOUTS.

Scarab Sages

There is one boon that opens up the Assassin prestige class. It was purchased during a charity auction a GenCon 2013.

That player has already applied it to a character, so it is no longer available to any other players.

Sorry


TOZ wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
I'm not saying all PCs are immoral. I'm saying that even if you claim you character is a paragon of virtue he has still personally ended more lives than the worst historical mass murderer (those that did their work personally, that is), and then probably took their stuff.
Doubtful. I've known plenty of PCs who don't even need two hands to count how many people they have killed. Some of them have never even dealt a point of damage.

I had a paladin that made it to 7th level before he ever drew his sword. (Home game though, not PFS)

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

chaoseffect wrote:


It's mostly that I find it interesting how the exact same result is viewed completely differently depending on stated motivations for the act. I killed those bandits for the lulz and I'm evil, but I did it for the peasants and I'm a hero. Motivations are nice and all, but actions are actions. Road to hell, good intentions, etc. etc.

Of course, but the method a Good character and a Neutral character go about ridding a village of a bandit menace will differ dramatically.

For example, a neutral character might have no problem ambushing and annihilating the bandits without giving them a second chance.

A good character — on the other hand — may announce their intentions clearly, give the bandits an opportunity to surrender, fight only when attacked, strike non-lethally, and turn over the bandits to the authorities.

Pathfinder also has the Lawful-Chaotic scale as well, so that may modify behaviours further.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
TOZ wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
I'm not saying all PCs are immoral. I'm saying that even if you claim you character is a paragon of virtue he has still personally ended more lives than the worst historical mass murderer (those that did their work personally, that is), and then probably took their stuff.
Doubtful. I've known plenty of PCs who don't even need two hands to count how many people they have killed. Some of them have never even dealt a point of damage.
I had a paladin that made it to 7th level before he ever drew his sword. (Home game though, not PFS)

He didn't happen to have Improved Unarmed Strike by any chance did he? Joking aside, yeah me speaking in absolutes certainly wasn't accurate, it was more just to make my point. You can certainly have pacifist characters but I don't think its reasonable to say they are representative of the whole.

Side not, if by "I ain't never killed no one" you meant "I didn't do a killing blow" or "I only drove my allies into a killing frenzy with Haste and then permanently blinded the enemy so he couldn't fight back," I think you (the general "you" not you in particular) can't honestly say you weren't just as involved in the killing as the rest of your party.

Liberty's Edge

What about the Assassin class appeals to so many people? Is it the Death Attack feature? I'd hate to imagine how someone would feel when they don't get to use the death attack, or the creature makes the save. Congratulations! You decided to sit around and "watch" rather than really try to help.

It is very possible to make an 'assassin' themed character without taking the class.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
June Soler wrote:
A sniper is paid to kill for his country duty or not, even if he doesnt have any interaction with the target.

Uh...snipers, and soldiers in general, don't get paid that well. You don't take those jobs for the money.

June Soler wrote:
It's assassination through and through. The fact that you killing someone for your country or duty doesnt changes that.

It is. But, again, motivation and situation matters. Killing someone who's in the process of invading your country, or who's been engaging in atrocities you are attempting to stop, is different than killing a random person because they're inconvenient to someone with money. Do all the people who do this kind of thing make this distinction? No. But some of them do and it's a valid distinction to make.

June Soler wrote:
Also I'm sure that sniper would be considered a criminal and assassin in the country he was killing in.

Legality and morality are very different things. If you want to argue that most of what adventurers do is illegal somewhere, well, that I'll agree with. It's arguing that it's all immoral that I take issue with.

Liberty's Edge

Well said, Deadmanwalking!


I think the main issue is, why did they remove the spells from the class???

It is a really low power prestige class now, that's sad


Nearly all the prestige classes carried over from 3.5 were nerfed or simply made less good in comparison to what a straight class with or sometimes without archetypes could do.

A couple were buffed into near-usefulness, and some new ones may be worth taking, but on the whole it's not the way to power it was in 3.5.


The difference between the typical adventurer and an assassin is, well, his intentions.

Most adventurers don't deliberately go out to kill others and take their stuff. It happens, because of the situations that adventurers find themselves in. But by far and large most had other primary goals in mind, whether that be protecting something, or stopping something bad, or whatever.

Even in the cases where an adventurer goes and makes up his mind to deliberately kill someone, while it is an assassination, that does not make the adventurer necessarily an assassin.

An assassin, at least as presented in pathfinder, is someone who consciously and deliberately makes their main purpose in life to kill others. It is this mindset that makes him an assassin, not the results.

-j

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
TOZ wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
I'm not saying all PCs are immoral. I'm saying that even if you claim you character is a paragon of virtue he has still personally ended more lives than the worst historical mass murderer (those that did their work personally, that is), and then probably took their stuff.
Doubtful. I've known plenty of PCs who don't even need two hands to count how many people they have killed. Some of them have never even dealt a point of damage.
I had a paladin that made it to 7th level before he ever drew his sword. (Home game though, not PFS)

posting in character

I have to chime in on this,

I am 11th level and have never done damage to any creature other than myself (darn Confusion effects!).

But I'm chaotic/neutral - because I'm very Good and being Bad!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:

I'm not saying all PCs are immoral. I'm saying that even if you claim you character is a paragon of virtue he has still personally ended more lives than the worst historical mass murderer (those that did their work personally, that is), and then probably took their stuff. That is an indisputable part of Pathfinder and DnD in general: It's a combat system, what do you expect? Your character probably justifies his actions, but in the end he's spilled enough blood to be able to swim in it, and probably doesn't feel all that bad about it.

With that in mind, I don't see you as much different than the assassin. If you run a non-combat Pathfinder game, I apologize for projecting onto you, but it's safe to say you aren't the baseline if you do.

... I don't know about that. Vlad Tepes filled probably a hundred graveyards just with his own two hands.


The Beard wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:

I'm not saying all PCs are immoral. I'm saying that even if you claim you character is a paragon of virtue he has still personally ended more lives than the worst historical mass murderer (those that did their work personally, that is), and then probably took their stuff. That is an indisputable part of Pathfinder and DnD in general: It's a combat system, what do you expect? Your character probably justifies his actions, but in the end he's spilled enough blood to be able to swim in it, and probably doesn't feel all that bad about it.

With that in mind, I don't see you as much different than the assassin. If you run a non-combat Pathfinder game, I apologize for projecting onto you, but it's safe to say you aren't the baseline if you do.

... I don't know about that. Vlad Tepes filled probably a hundred graveyards just with his own two hands.

Vlad would be a great character to play as.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The amusing thing is that he was hailed as a hero at some points in his history in spite of the atrocities. He might've gone about it through some messed up ways, but while he was in charge, crime in his country plummeted. The question, then, would be what alignment someone would actually assign to a character based on Vlad Tepes; one that does unspeakably bad things yet accomplishes the greater good they sought after in the process.

Silver Crusade

I think Chaoseffect is correct about the moral compass of most PCs I've seen and their views on killing and plundering. Jiggy is right also: it need not be that way.

Some of my own characters:

Paladin/Gunslinger. She has a merciful pistol, and so does nonlethal damage almost exclusively. She has also used her lay on hands more often on enemy combatants than on allies. She is LG, of course.

Bard/Cleric. She is incapable of dealing lethal damage, except to the undead. The only weapons she has are a whip and a sap (and her to-die-for good looks). None of her spells inflict damage. It is actually not possible for her to kill someone unless they were unconscious (and her whip does 1d3–2 points of damage, so it would take her a while to get to that point). She is Cg (strongly in favor of personal freedom, slightly aligned toward good).

Paladin/Sorcerer. He was evil in his backstory, but found redemption through his deity. He now seeks to deliver redemption to others. (He has the half-orc redeemer archetype.) His Smite Evil is nonlethal. He always talks first (such as when he negotiated with a worg; he ended up feeding her, healing her, and patting her on the head before sending her on her way). When he is forced to fight, he favors his quarterstaff over his greataxe and usually fights defensively.

Barbarian/Alchemist/Gunslinger. He has killed lots of people. He's also a psychopath and a paragon of how pathfinders should not behave. He has needed atonement once so far—that was due to a series of failed Will saves. He really wants to be good—he belongs to the Silver Crusade—and to rid the world of evil, but he just doesn't understand that the ends usually do not justify the means. He is the only murderhobo character I have.

Locally, I have seen a lot of characters who avoid killing. (I am pretty sure my friend's life oracle is also incapable of dealing lethal damage; I certainly don't remember it ever happening).

I have also seen a greater number who are individual rampages, killing and looting everything in sight. The worst are some of the paladins I've seen (I've also seen some great paladins, though).

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 aka GreySector

The Beard wrote:
The amusing thing is that he was hailed as a hero at some points in his history in spite of the atrocities. He might've gone about it through some messed up ways, but while he was in charge, crime in his country plummeted. The question, then, would be what alignment someone would actually assign to a character based on Vlad Tepes; one that does unspeakably bad things yet accomplishes the greater good they sought after in the process.

Lawful Evil. Or extremely Lawful Neutral.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 aka GreySector

gh0+1 wrote:
Alignment in this game kind of breaks down anyway if you take it too seriously, as do things like the Paladin's code of conduct (no lying? really???)

What is so hard to believe about a person who doesn't lie? Watch Due South some time. Benton Fraser is IMO a modern day paladin.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4

Michael Eshleman is a modern day paladin who has only needed to atone a few times.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

It's not that hard to maintain a "no-lying" code of honor. I do so in real life. I'm not perfect but I do my darndest to believe everything I say.

If your character's purpose in life is to "kill things and take theri stuff," I'd say that's an evil character.

I have a CG PFS character whose motivation is to see the world, and experience as much wonder and delight as he can. Sure, he gets into fights, things attack him, and so forth, but killing is not his raison d'etre, and he prefers to avoid it if possible.

I have a good aligned Kingmaker character who is motivated to create a land of equality and prosperity for all sentient beings. As far as he's concerned, vampires can live in their country as long as they obey the laws. He's very insistent that sentient enemies that attack the party and don't die be given a fair trial. We don't get to keep their stuff unless that's part of thier punishment.

You can most certainly have a game, even one that involves a lot of combat, while having characters that only fight in self-defense, never steal, and so forth.

Conversely, I've played the assassin class before(in 3.5). The character was a LE killer for the government, removing political threats and so forth. He was very much "murder the bad eggs and society will prosper."

3/5

The Beard wrote:
The question, then, would be what alignment someone would actually assign to a character based on Vlad Tepes; one that does unspeakably bad things yet accomplishes the greater good they sought after in the process.

Definitely Evil. Evil people can still accomplish things which benefit others, specifically when defending their homes by brutally murdering waves of invading armies.

Sometimes to get things done, you just need Evil allies who will impale the first invading army where the second invading army can see them.

The Exchange 5/5

Saint Caleth wrote:
The Beard wrote:
The question, then, would be what alignment someone would actually assign to a character based on Vlad Tepes; one that does unspeakably bad things yet accomplishes the greater good they sought after in the process.

Definitely Evil. Evil people can still accomplish things which benefit others, specifically when defending their homes by brutally murdering waves of invading armies.

Sometimes to get things done, you just need Evil allies who will impale the first invading army where the second invading army can see them.

he actually impaled the local serfs, before the invading army got there. So the Turks said something like "If he does this to his own people, I don't want to find out what he'll do to us...". so they avoided his territory... mostly.

3/5

I was referencing when he impaled the prisoners from the first Turkish army along the road into his territory where the second army could find them.

Fun, mostly useless fact: the punishment for failure if you were an Ottoman general was to be killed by being strangled to death with a silk cord by eunuchs.

Liberty's Edge

gamer-printer wrote:
strayshift wrote:
Oh, I've only been playing for 30 odd years with a huge number of different groups/play-styles across that time... Must have fumbled my moral-compass roll... repeatedly.

I have no idea where you'd get the idea that your version of the game is the baseline - I've never seen a group act like that since 1e.

Perhaps from a certain very popular computer MMORPG?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

talbanus wrote:
Perhaps from a certain very popular computer MMORPG?

Which certainly wasn't the first game to enshrine the 'stab things, loot tombs, level up' style of gameplay. :)

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
talbanus wrote:
Perhaps from a certain very popular computer MMORPG?
Which certainly wasn't the first game to enshrine the 'stab things, loot tombs, level up' style of gameplay. :)

This reminds me of the first time I looked at d20 Modern. For those that don't know it's like the 3.X D&D or Pathfinder system, but set in modern times. So you could use the rules to play a modern-day wizard, things like that.

Anyway, in the NPC section there was a listing for a high level politician. What surprised me was that he was like level 10.

So those politicians you see on TV must have killed, looted, and leveled a lot to get to where they are today.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
So those politicians you see on TV must have killed, looted, and leveled a lot to get to where they are today.

I thought that was what 'politician' meant!

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

TOZ wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
So those politicians you see on TV must have killed, looted, and leveled a lot to get to where they are today.
I thought that was what 'politician' meant!

Ahh, this guy!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint Caleth wrote:

I was referencing when he impaled the prisoners from the first Turkish army along the road into his territory where the second army could find them.

Fun, mostly useless fact: the punishment for failure if you were an Ottoman general was to be killed by being strangled to death with a silk cord by eunuchs.

An extremely old painting of that incident actually surfaced at some point; I believe it's in some museum right now. It was a depiction of the sun slowly setting as the approaching army encountered their kinsmen, hoisted along the roadside for as far as the eye could see. I don't know about you, but I definitely wouldn't proceed after seeing a forest made of people. That level of crazy (and the fact that he had proven to possess an almost inhuman level of intelligence) isn't something you can ride into battle against without much psychological preparation. ... And yet Vlad's people loved him as much as they feared him.


The Beard wrote:
An extremely old painting of that incident actually surfaced at some point; I believe it's in some museum right now. It was a depiction of the sun slowly setting as the approaching army encountered their kinsmen, hoisted along the roadside for as far as the eye could see. I don't know about you, but I definitely wouldn't proceed after seeing a forest made of people. That level of crazy (and the fact that he had proven to possess an almost inhuman level of intelligence) isn't something you can ride into battle against without much psychological preparation. ... And yet Vlad's people loved him as much as they feared him.

It was him or the Turks, baby. The devil you know, and all that.

Sczarni 2/5

So no one else had the Master of Swords tell them: "I don’t care how you reach the Aspis Consortium’s portal, but we need to teach those greedy profiteers a lesson for trespassing on Pathfinder territory. I need you to get in, wipe the shrine clean of Aspis filth, and secure the tapestry side of their portal."

Or the Master of Spells saying: "Go through the portal, eliminate any opposition on the other end, and secure the base for our own use."

Or asked by Venture Captain Heidmarch to deal with a certain sleeping persona: "Whatever it takes, end this threat to Varisia—permanently."

Hmmm. I guess we were just singled out for these tasks for some reason...

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've actually played in all of those scenarios, Selene. >_> But then, one must also consider a few things. A.) It is not evil to decimate your enemies; nor is assassination, in and of itself, an evil act. These particular actions have their alignment impacted by the intention behind them. B.) The Pathfinder Society is a neutral organization by default--neutral and seeming to lean a little more evil than good most of the time, honestly. I doubt if anyone would be surprised to have any of those NPCs tell them to do some terrible things to the enemy. C.) There are times when one must be willing to pull the proverbial trigger regardless of consequences. There has been at least one mission in the past that just completing it ran the risk of nailing you with an alignment infraction. ... From what I hear, most people's characters chose to finish what they started.

The Exchange 5/5

"So why aren't Assassin's Legal? "
Actually, they are, just not PC Assassins...
;)

oh! you mean why can't we play the Class Assassin?

then it would be, for the same reason Anti-Paladins aren't legal in PFS... alignment restrictions.

Shadow Lodge

Conceptually, I don't have a problem with a non-evil assassin (by class) as long as their skills aren't used indiscriminantly. If it's OK to kill the BBEG I don't see a huge difference between breaking into his lair and challenging him to single combat, and slitting his throat while he sleeps. In the former case you're giving him the chance to surrender at least, but with really evil foes that can be the difference between Good and Neutral, not between Neutral and Evil.

Mechanically Assassins don't seem to work so well for PCs, but a friend of mine had a (nonevil) assassin cohort and it was fun. The assassin did some scouting, and often didn't contribute much in combat, but we got a fun story out of that one time the assassin one-shotted a legendary wyrm with his death attack - it rolled a 1.

Quote:
A good character — on the other hand — may announce their intentions clearly, give the bandits an opportunity to surrender, fight only when attacked, strike non-lethally, and turn over the bandits to the authorities.

Or they might sneak into the bandit camp, tie everyone up while they sleep, and then announce their intentions clearly and turn the bandits over to the authorities. Good characters don't have to give you a fair fight.

Dark Archive

Weirdo wrote:


Or they might sneak into the bandit camp, tie everyone up while they sleep, and then announce their intentions clearly and turn the bandits over to the authorities. Good characters don't have to give you a fair fight.

Or they might begin to tie people up only to realize some of them either A.) don't have to sleep or B.) have such good perception checks that they'll rouse form their slumber at the least little sound. I've noticed that taking the "good" approach in PFS will backfire around six times out of ten.

Silver Crusade

The Beard wrote:
I've noticed that taking the "good" approach in PFS will backfire around six times out of ten.

Which is why it's important for the good to also be strong, so that if the wicked would exploit your goodness, you can still stand against them.

Dark Archive

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:
The Beard wrote:
I've noticed that taking the "good" approach in PFS will backfire around six times out of ten.
Which is why it's important for the good to also be strong, so that if the wicked would exploit your goodness, you can still stand against them.

Some people better be able to stand against them alone. PFS is literally infested with lawful stupid. Most of my characters will just leave them to die if their own derp is what got them in trouble. As an example, I was playing with a paladin not too long ago that decided to blindly attack a group of "evil" individuals engaged in negotiations; they were doing nothing harmful, threatening or... well, evil. Paladin went at'em because they pinged evil on detect. My reaction? My barbarian walked out of the room and laughed about the impending ass whooping.

Scarab Sages

Tidus L. wrote:

I recently went on Archives of Nethys and it showed me the pfs legal symbol beside the prestige class. Anyone care to explain? If assassins are pfs legal I WILL make one in a breeze. I don't know if anyone else has asked this question before. Also they could change the wording a little bit so that people may become the prestige class.

Also please do not recommend me to play slayer. I really do not want to until the class is complete. I have no intention of play testing it at any time in the future.

As I understand it - right now - ONE Assasin is legal - that boon was sold at a charity auction at a big convention. So someone out there is playing an Assassin (just like someone in Georgia is playing an Aspis Agent).

Scarab Sages

strayshift wrote:

Yeah, killing total strangers for money, really neutral...

As said though, aside from the veneer of 'ethical good', how is that any different from a group of pcs?

I don't see why killing for money is any different than killing for honor or killing because they have loot or killing for xenophobic tendencies -

it doesn't sound neutral to me, but very chaotic - the evil might come into it by the method of killing (suffering imposed, duration, etc)

just my opinion


Ohh my characters I still play and their killingness.

Pontificor. oracle/sorcerer total level 10 has a 5 strength and just recently added a spell at level 10 that is capable of doing lethal damage. He prefers to contain/dostract enemies with spells. Death toll 1 harpy.

Why-Knee Face. oracle/sorcer/wizard. total level 8 Does blast magic. Tries to warn people now stop or he will be force to hurt them although his tongues curse makes it difficult. His first action is almsot always a readied spell to blast someone being aggressive. Death toll, pretty high.

Trogon-Ton-Adron Thug/inquistitor/monk total level 6 Believes everyone should be given a chance to redeem themselves. Will brutally and aggressively attack first using non-lethal combat. Once subdued he will preach how they should redeem their ways. Actively tries to convince other PCS to take people alive. Death toll 0.

Depesh Mode Barbarian alchemist. total level 2. A pesh addict and does whatever he understand the group would want in his drug addled mind. My murder hobo. Death toll very high(my estimate around 15).

Liberty's Edge

Dhjika wrote:
strayshift wrote:

Yeah, killing total strangers for money, really neutral...

As said though, aside from the veneer of 'ethical good', how is that any different from a group of pcs?

I don't see why killing for money is any different than killing for honor or killing because they have loot or killing for xenophobic tendencies -

it doesn't sound neutral to me, but very chaotic - the evil might come into it by the method of killing (suffering imposed, duration, etc)

just my opinion

Not to pick on Djhika in particular (as he/she hasnt been the only one to respond to this thread in this way), but .... DAMN. To me there are moral differences in all the examples you've given. On one end I would say are killing in self-defense or killing during a declared war. On the other end are killing for money, or even worse, killing for sport.

Just because morality isn't all black and white doesnt mean it doesnt have black, white, medium shades of gray .. AND dark shades of gray and light shades of gray. The fact that some seem to think that killing for profit is not EVIL makes me think the number of sociopaths in our society is vastly underestimated.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
talbanus wrote:


Not to pick on Djhika in particular (as he/she hasnt been the only one to respond to this thread in this way), but .... DAMN. To me there are moral differences in all the examples you've given. On one end I would say are killing in self-defense or killing during a declared war. On the other end are killing for money, or even worse, killing for sport.

Just because morality isn't all black and white doesnt mean it doesnt have black, white, medium shades of gray .. AND dark shades of gray and light shades of gray. The fact that some seem to think that killing for profit is not EVIL makes me think the number of sociopaths in our society is vastly underestimated.

Sociopaths are pretty rare, perhaps you were thinking of psychopaths which are more common.

Killing for profit in Golarian cannot be evil - because almost every since character does it. Does your characters turn down the gold gained at the end of the game that does not balance your expenses, that came from looting the dead or the places they guard - do you heal up your enemies and take them someplace safe? Cause if you are beating down your foes and tying them up and leaving them behind, you are not somehow more noble than the person who cuts them down in battle, or downed from battle. their kills are generally quick and to their afterlife - yours are at best slow and lingering - assuming some critter doesn't come by and chew on them. Or do you make your foes conscious, take all their stuff, and leave them to fend for themselves in the wilderness - generally just another form of killing. Just because you have some noble purpose; just because you believe the foe is wrong - doesn't make it not killing - doesn't make it special.

my point was, if killing is evil, then it doesn't matter your justification to doing it - it is just as evil - killing in self-defense almost never happens, because wounding/disabling is usually possible.

Not to pick on anyone in particilar

Dark Archive

Well, I don't see killing for money as evil (within the context of the game) in and of itself. Guess that makes me a sociopath. :P

Liberty's Edge

Dhjika wrote:
talbanus wrote:


Not to pick on Djhika in particular (as he/she hasnt been the only one to respond to this thread in this way), but .... DAMN. To me there are moral differences in all the examples you've given. On one end I would say are killing in self-defense or killing during a declared war. On the other end are killing for money, or even worse, killing for sport.

Just because morality isn't all black and white doesnt mean it doesnt have black, white, medium shades of gray .. AND dark shades of gray and light shades of gray. The fact that some seem to think that killing for profit is not EVIL makes me think the number of sociopaths in our society is vastly underestimated.

Sociopaths are pretty rare, perhaps you were thinking of psychopaths which are more common.

Killing for profit in Golarian cannot be evil - because almost every since character does it. Does your characters turn down the gold gained at the end of the game that does not balance your expenses, that came from looting the dead or the places they guard - do you heal up your enemies and take them someplace safe? Cause if you are beating down your foes and tying them up and leaving them behind, you are not somehow more noble than the person who cuts them down in battle, or downed from battle. their kills are generally quick and to their afterlife - yours are at best slow and lingering - assuming some critter doesn't come by and chew on them. Or do you make your foes conscious, take all their stuff, and leave them to fend for themselves in the wilderness - generally just another form of killing. Just because you have some noble purpose; just because you believe the foe is wrong - doesn't make it not killing - doesn't make it special.

my point was, if killing is evil, then it doesn't matter your justification to doing it - it is just as evil - killing in self-defense almost never happens, because wounding/disabling is usually possible.

Not to pick on anyone in particilar

Killing isn't always evil. Killing where profit is primary motive *is*. Apparently the writers of PFRPG agree.

Liberty's Edge

The Beard wrote:
Well, I don't see killing for money as evil (within the context of the game) in and of itself. Guess that makes me a sociopath. :P

How about outside the game?

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / So why aren't Assassin's Legal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.