|
Honestly? It will depend. If he's trying to get the money to support his family, pay for some operation his child needs, or something else like that? I'm probably not going to call it evil. I'm going to call it extremely illegal and messed up, but not so much evil as misguided; he still needs to be punished to the full extent of the law regardless.
But then, Golarion is not the real world; they have a much looser set of morals for the most part. What I feel about something in the real world is irrelevant when it comes to Golarion. Besides, if a paladin can fill whole graveyards with people just for pinging evil, I think an assassin can accept payment for high profile hits around the globe.
|
|
stuff
My inquisitor takes them back to be arrested. He debates and tries to stop other PCs from killing people. He uses non-lethal combat and heals the enemies to keep them from dying.
I watched a documentary on sociopaths and it claimed they were around 5% of the population but cost society 50% of the damages from crime.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing isn't always evil. Killing where profit is primary motive *is*. Apparently the writers of PFRPG agree.
I find it hard to understand a thinking process that says killing where profit is the primary motive is evil, but killing because you hate a person's race is not evil - but killing because you hate a person's organization is not evil - but killing because they are between you and your objective is not evil - but killing because you don't like their culture is not evil - but killing because profit is a secondary objective is not evil.
If there is a way to succeed without killing, then killing or allowing to die from your actions, should always be evil.
|
Killing isn't always evil. Killing where profit is primary motive *is*. Apparently the writers of PFRPG agree.I find it hard to understand a thinking process that says killing where profit is the primary motive is evil, but killing because you hate a person's race is not evil - but killing because you hate a person's organization is not evil - but killing because they are between you and your objective is not evil - but killing because you don't like their culture is not evil - but killing because profit is a secondary objective is not evil.
If there is a way to succeed without killing, then killing or allowing to die from your actions, should always be evil.
Are you trying for a black and white ruling on an issue of morality? Killing in self defense does happen (both in game and out). If you have other options than killing to reach a goal, then, yes, I think killing can be an evil act then, as well. But setting out with the intent to kill because you're being paid to do so? Are you familiar with the phrase 'pre-meditated murder'?
|
You know, it occurs to me that Cull could have stabilized that guard he and the alchemist had to put down last session. I thought he didn't have any way to heal the guy but he DID have that potion.
Now I wonder if feeding the potion to him would have been an evil act, since he was ignorant of the effects... :)
|
|
You know, it occurs to me that Cull could have stabilized that guard he and the alchemist had to put down last session. I thought he didn't have any way to heal the guy but he DID have that potion.
Now I wonder if feeding the potion to him would have been an evil act, since he was ignorant of the effects... :)
LOL! I think Jonathan making and playing characters has become an evil act! Well, other than his ditzy luring paladin. XD
|
|
Besides, if a paladin can fill whole graveyards with people just for pinging evil, I think an assassin can accept payment for high profile hits around the globe.The problem with your comparison is the Paladin can't. Or he'll lawfully be executed for murder.
And it really doesn't matter whether the assasin is spending his pay on his sick dying aunt. What he does is still evil.
Meanwhile as the paladins that can't do that do so pretty much everyday.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
One thing to keep in mind.
This is supposed to be a heroic character that is being portrayed. The Assassin class has had a very rough existance in the D&D mythos. In first edition, he was introduced as a very broken class that was universally banned by any sane DM that saw it. The second edition "kit" watered the original class down, but was still far out of wack compared to the core classes. (though some other classes out at the time shook hands with him) In third edition, he became a PrC that had a very troubling special attack (mentioned already) and, thankfully, was basically a NPC class because of the Evil alignment restriction.
In The Edition that Shall Not Be Named, it became a special class exclusive on the online service under a named magazine that really was no longer. (Wait, do I sound a little baised?)
I have hopes that the Next iteration is a long way down the road.
In a heroic game, I don't believe the Assassin needs to have a PC player or be a class name that is a part of the overall choice for our fantasy heroes.
Names such as Mercenary and Thugs, though mentioned here and there, are avoided on the PC side as well, along with others. We actually call our thieves "Rogues."
|
|
Why does every thread always begin to veer into a dislike for paladins territory?
I can honestly say that I don't dislike the class. I would certainly play one if I thought I could stand being a goodie goodie that long. But no, I don't have an issue with them. I have an issue with the ridiculous number of lawful stupid paladins currently active in PFS play.
No matter how you look at this particular topic, all that remains is the fact that Paizo says no.
I'd love for the spell slinger archetype to get legalized, but it isn't. Suppose I'll just have to move on and do something else.
Yeah, but it enough of their customers start getting on them wanting to play an Assassin, they're gonna do something about it. Look at the Pathfinder track record, these guys -love- to make races and classes, which I always love checking out.
|
|
Its a hard line to walk between your own ideas of LG, the DMs Ideas of lawful good, and the players need to go along with the party of adventurers conducting some pretty illegal activities.
I definitely won't disagree with that. Paladins have a lot going against them in PFS play at present. It just doesn't help their reputation that there are more than a few of legitimately lawful stupid ones about.
Assassins also just -seem- cool. The name is really sleek and attractive, and makes people think of doing cool stuff like stealth and poisons and crap like that. I'm more into rock'n'rolling with a greatsword and an armored kilt, but different strokes and all that.
|
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?
My gnome druid did that! Helped the party avoid criminal charges, too, when we had to defeat a shadowy evil organization that happened to include members of local law enforcement.
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.
The 4th level Goblin ninja in my current game rolled a 41 stealth check last session. I don't think anything in his CR range can manage a DC 51 Perception check to detect him while sleeping.
Got to have the skills to execute your strategy.
(Plus if they wake up when you try to tie them up in their sleep it's basically identical to a normal ambush except most of them will be prone and possibly unarmoured.)
|
|
Why does every thread always begin to veer into a dislike for paladins territory?I can honestly say that I don't dislike the class. I would certainly play one if I thought I could stand being a goodie goodie that long. But no, I don't have an issue with them. I have an issue with the ridiculous number of lawful stupid paladins currently active in PFS play.
I think you passed objectivity on this particular subject a few mile posts back, my friend.