AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic - Assassign alignment discussion

But a *warrior* is only there to kill. An assassin is just a skillset, and if it relies on paralysation and darkness, that's just reflecting the reality that you're going up against an entire horde of trolls alone.

It's combat skills. They can be applied to anything. "Oh, but he uses poison and invisibility!" Yeah? They're tools. It's not like he's summoning shadow liches or undead, or using negative energy. Invisibility/stealth and quick-kill attacks. "But he kills people REALLY QUICKLY" - as opposed to monks, or Paladins?

He's just efficient. Absolutely nothing to dictate alignment other than that's what NWN decided to make the theme and flavour.

EDIT: "But those skills can only be used to murder people!" - what do you think fireball is FOR?

TormakSaber wrote:

Grymia wrote:

Yossarin wrote:

Is anyone aware that a good deity slew another good deity and retained a good alignment? Killing, therefore, is a cosmologically approved act of goodness!

Dawn Cataclysm?

Tyr and Helm.

Yeah, as a born Helmite I call bullshit on this. Whoever thought this out is slightly cuckoo...

PaladinOfSune wrote:

The Assassin is remaining evil-only on Amia. That's all I have to say here, really.

Quite radical. Which is a shame. I think Iron explained the case quite right. You have kobold paladins. You have goblin paladins. TN assassin seems more valid to me than both cases mentioned before.
As said before, everyone kills in game. I do not see any difference between sword stab, arrow hit or a dagger backstab. You have paladins with sneak attacks? And you can't imagine a neutral assassin? C'mon.

By the way, I do not say you should invalid the goblin/kobold paladin. Not at all. I just say that you should give the player a chance to play a neutral assassin. If it works, good. If not, shift the alignment. Just give it a try. There are other situations I would find impossible (aka. good/neutral blackguard or chaotic DD).

Just my 2$.

assassins are evil becuase the objective of thier deeds is to kill unlike paladins whom objective is not to kill, but rather to stop evil, yes they might slay them, but its not thier objective.
If your objective is to kill someone then you are evil, if your reasoning for killing them is to make them dead, you are evil.

in my mind money dosnt even come into it. assassins are evil period, because their work is to take lives, not to expense justice not for some moral code, they distance themselves from morals or ideals behind by being hired to slay and that is evil.

Kraniumbrud wrote:

assassins are evil becuase the objective of thier deeds is to kill unlike paladins whom objective is not to kill, but rather to stop evil, yes they might slay them, but its not thier objective.
If your objective is to kill someone then you are evil, if your reasoning for killing them is to make them dead, you are evil.

in my mind money dosnt even come into it. assassins are evil period, because their work is to take lives, not to expense justice not for some moral code, they distance themselves from morals or ideals behind by being hired to slay and that is evil.

I think KB touches on my feelings nicely, and the distinction.

Fireball kills, yes, but a mage's goal (most of the time) is research and knowledge, not going around murdering people. A warrior kills, but they typically have reasons. The Assassin class is supposed to epitomize the assassin mindset: That they are cold, calculating, ruthless killers whose sole goal appears to be to take a name and turn the owner into a pile of blood and flesh and bones (ie a deader).

To me, there is just something so sinister about the class, almost like a Blackguard just without the divine attributes.

I've always enjoyed the assassin that kills to preserve order. An assassin, in my opinion, is a tool. It's his employer that can either employ him to kill for profit, or for a greater cause (Assassinating a Tyrant, for example).

Of course, then the assassin himself chooses to perform jobs for that specific employer. It's not like he's being forced into it.

That being said, I've always justified an LE assassin that describes the above as a "Necessary Evil." Killing is still morally wrong, even when justifiable through the greater good. It's still a cold-blooded murder performed by a third-party individual whose only reference to the target is gold, religious purpose, etc.

Guardian wrote:

You have paladins with sneak attacks? And you can't imagine a neutral assassin? C'mon.

The only time Paladins should be sneak attacking is if it's a paladin to a gnome god. Otherwise it's just dishonorable "blah, blah, blah" not fitting of a knightly paladin. That argument is not valid.

Any person can call themselves "an assassin" and take rogue levels. But being "An Assassin" requires you to meet the requirements of the prestige class and take it. And people who say "fighters kills and nothing but" fail to see the fact that a fighter is far more like a soldier than an assassin, who studies dark magic for his profession of murder and killing.

But what if you wanted to use the assassin spellbook and kit as a useful way of dispatching evil critters and monsters who need no time or consideration?

Surely you're not saying a kit designed 100% around murder is more evil than, say, dev. crit-- a natural ability to blow enemies into meaty chunks and otherwise fight unfairly. Given, I suppose dev crit could be roleplayed in a number of ways as well, but ultimately it is designed for murder.

I cannot fathom the difference behind one class' toolkit designed to murder being more evil than anothers whose only use is similar. See: Epic Barbarians. You have Neutral characters throughout fiction, like Conan and Red Sonja, but there are an awful lot of neutral assassins out there too-- sometimes murder is a neccesary evil, speaking nothing about a characters actual motives and reasoning for doing so.

I think there's a dangerous precedent here for labeling a very black-and-white blanket over classes that have no real lore background. I'll give you LG Paladin and Evil Blackguard because of what the class requires you to do, but lets not pigeonhole it. There's only harm to be had in limiting character potential because someone can't fathom using the assassin kit for good.

[quote=bobofwestoregonusa]Any person can call themselves "an assassin" and take rogue levels. But being "An Assassin" requires you to meet the requirements of the prestige class and take it. And people who say "fighters kills and nothing but" fail to see the fact that a fighter is far more like a soldier than an assassin, who studies dark magic for his profession of murder and killing.[/quote]

I would enjoy seeing the lore behind this "dark magic" that is more evil than neutral pale-masters and CG dev-critting epic barbarians. Assassins are probably the most likely class to see magic as a tool (or means to an end) and not an ethical, religious, or moral agreement.

Dev Crit was not designed for murder. It is something to showcase immense strength. It's an immediate killing blow, that's all.

Honestly, most of what you say can be thrown aside because it is unfair comparisons. You cannot compare assassin to fighter or rogue or barbarian. First of all, it is a prestige class, like blackguard. It is something to aspire to. Beyond that, people have already described that anyone can label themselves an assassin. However it takes a certain person to take the class in DnD. The Assassin prestige class is meant to represent the most detestable of assassins, hired killers that are like a weapon themselves: molded through training to use their skill to quickly dispatch a specific target for their own gain. An Assassin (not an assassin, that is just the label I mean the class) is a pure, cold-blooded killer. Yes, other classes can be the same but that is all that the Assassin does. It murders.

I really don't know how to put it more plainly than that. This discussion is continuing to go around and around in circles for absolutely no reason.

edit: Can you provide a clear example of when a good character would use the death-dealing abilities of an assassin? Or even one that would hire an assassin?

Actually, an assassin doesn't use 'dark' magic. They use normal magic like invis and darkness. Amia special add-ons like 'Beshaba's Favor' are closest to cursing (although it's only 'being adept at exploiting disadvantage'), but there's no magic which is evil in flavour. No undead or shadow summons. No vampiric or negative energy. Darkness is a hiding spell. I would say that many shadowdancer spells are much more 'dark/evil' aligned.

An assassin is a sword, it can be used for good or evil. IF they allow themselves to be directed without caring who the target is, that lack of conscience is evil. If they decide their own targets with good-aligned reasoning, they are good.

>>Can you provide a clear example of when a good character would use the death-dealing abilities of an assassin? Or even one that would hire an assassin?

Hundreds. An assassin has decided that the act of killing is important and trained to do it. They (just like fighters or palaldins) may only use it self-defence, they may follow a strict code about when/who is it morally right to use it against. You could have a pacifist assassin who will only defend, or only kill monstrous races, or evil-aligned races who attack first. Others may hire them because they need someone *invisible* to get somewhere or kill one person in order to save many others.

It's just a tool. The use is what decides good/evil, along with the decision of the assassin to give up moral control to another or not. And that's not an automatic decision.

(Real life example: I train in ninjutsu. I've never been in a fight. I am however soon going to be teaching women's self-defence including nasty wristlocks and nerve jabs. Pursuing the knowledge and practice of the skills doesn't mean I want to or intend to use them. If I saw a group of Malarites running towards me screaming for my and my companions' blood, I'd use the skills and feel good about it.)

Look at it this way: killing someone on somebody else's orders is what a *soldier* does.
Just because an assassin gives them less chance to see them first or fight back - are you saying that snipers are evil?

EDIT: I'm not asking for it to be changed, it's staying evil. Fine. But I think you could *easily* justify a neutral or good assassin and the rp potential would be immense.

steveb_uk wrote:

Look at it this way: killing someone on somebody else's orders is what a *soldier* does.
Just because an assassin gives them less chance to see them first or fight back - are you saying that snipers are evil?

EDIT: I'm not asking for it to be changed, it's staying evil. Fine. But I think you could *easily* justify a neutral or good assassin and the rp potential would be immense.

assassins are evil becuase their objective is to kill and that is evil to the core.
snipers objective isnt to kill, it is to achieve an objective through killing, there is a huge difference and a sniper -can- be good as a result of it.

you cant justify a good or even neutral assassin in my eyes.

also to become an assassin according to the rulebooks you have to kill a innosent for no apparent reason to prove your will to slay without regards for morality

I'm not seeing anywhere that it has to be an innocent. Just that you have to kill someone "for no other reason than to join the assassins" and in cold blood.

Of course that's probably what they meant, that it be an innocent, but you could see a similar thing happen in other cases. Before you can join the Knights Templar, you have to slay a well known villain. Before you can join Bobin Hood and his band of merry men, you have to creep in an kill a corrupt nobleman. All "in cold blood" means is that you thought it out and carried it out in an unemotional manner. Plenty of soldiers, fighters, etc, have to distance themselves from their work just to keep sane.

I'm fine with Assassin staying evil too, but the fact remains that killing is all about context when it comes to D&D. It just happens to contradict itself in a few particular cases. I'd rather think that the PRC we glibly call "Assassin" is more something like "Vile Assassin." Evil is innate to the class not because killing for x,y,z reasons is Evil, no matter the context. It's evil because it simply is an Evil class.

Frankly, I find it a little backwards that one would reason that simply because a class is evil, anything associated with its title is thereby evil too. What if we had a class called Hired Killer that happened to be evil? Would that automatically rule bounty hunters into being evil? What about monster slayers? Or for that matter, people hired to fight bandits off from a town? We're better than to reason like that. Again, the class is Evil because it itself is Evil, not because all actions associated with it are tainted.

Dark Immolation wrote:

I'm not seeing anywhere that it has to be an innocent. Just that you have to kill someone "for no other reason than to join the assassins" and in cold blood.

Of course that's probably what they meant, that it be an innocent, but you could see a similar thing happen in other cases. Before you can join the Knights Templar, you have to slay a well known villain. Before you can join Bobin Hood and his band of merry men, you have to creep in an kill a corrupt nobleman. All "in cold blood" means is that you thought it out and carried it out in an unemotional manner. Plenty of soldiers, fighters, etc, have to distance themselves from their work just to keep sane.

I'm fine with Assassin staying evil too, but the fact remains that killing is all about context when it comes to D&D. It just happens to contradict itself in a few particular cases. I'd rather think that the PRC we glibly call "Assassin" is more something like "Vile Assassin." Evil is innate to the class not because killing for x,y,z reasons is Evil, no matter the context. It's evil because it simply is an Evil class.

Frankly, I find it a little backwards that one would reason that simply because a class is evil, anything associated with its title is thereby evil too. What if we had a class called Hired Killer that happened to be evil? Would that automatically rule bounty hunters into being evil? What about monster slayers? Or for that matter, people hired to fight bandits off from a town? We're better than to reason like that. Again, the class is Evil because it itself is Evil, not because all actions associated with it are tainted.

To me bounty hunters are evil if they go out specifically to kill them, however most bounties are dead or alive, so not hired to kill, and the kill is not the first and only purpose of thier task, monster hunters do it to achieve something else, they dont go out just to kill (yes i know we do it to get xp, but that feels largely ooc to me, and i try to have a reason to go hunt) such as ending the threat of kobolds and orcs to the area, yes their motives can be evil, but they are not always evil, thus fighters fx are not evil by definition, because they have a choice.
people hired to defeat bandits do it to defeat the bandit threat, some will kill them yes, and do so gladly however that is a choice according to peoples alignment.
An assassins has made that choice when he picked that class and by doing so has marked him a cold blooded killer, and no matter how you twist and turn it a cold blooded killer is always evil.

The utter lack of respect for life, leaves the assassin always evil, yes others have the same view of life and death, but a assassin embraces the concept of murder fully as part of his life.

Someone made a very good point a few goals too. The prestige class is something the character aspires too. It's not just some guy who has a bunch of feats that can kill. They took the effort to train specifically in the art of murder so they can become an assassin. Not for order or some greater good. Sure, they may use their abilities for whatever cause they serve. But an assassin is evil by its nature in that it has no other purpose. Assassins are not a force for self defense, or something designed as multi purpose character. It is a class trained with poisons and magics meant for killing with a special strike that only assassins get.

That being said, anyone can champion a non evil, or hell, even a good cause. They can work to preserve order too. An evil alignment doesn't mean you can't do good things. It means that at your very core you are evil. It means that you will do all sorts of evil things to get to where ever you're going. But it doesn't mean you won't try to be good, or hell, even do good things. I've had evil characters give free healing or resurrections just because they think they are good people. Self perception is an amazing thing and goes far beyond the game mechanics ever will. It's what makes characters who they are.

Also, arguing that people in amia kill every day isn't valid. It's just a generalization that just because people kill, that means murder isn't an evil act. Just because you're willing to go out and kill a bunch of orcs doesn't mean that killing one innocent man isn't evil. They train to do nothing but kill. Dev crit is a feat pertaining to martial prowess, not the art of murder. It's also an epic feat of strength and not a way of life. An "assassin" is a guy who kills people. An "Assassin" is a way of life.

Dev. crit is a bad example.

But what about LG wizard using Finger of Death. Or LG cleric using Harm? Undead summons?

What if an assassin devouts his life to hunt down and kill "villains"? He is fighting fire with fire... Sure, he is using poisons, backstabs... neutral rogues do so as well. Even good ones.

I find being stabbed precisly and killed instantly much more merciful than being chopped to pieces by frenzied CG half-wit barbarian. Or burned on a stake by LG paladin ( :roll:

) And yet again, if you exclude extrems like BG, alignment should be connected to a person, not a class. Good assassin is kinda nonsense, but TN assassin, or even CN is quite acceptable.

I can definitely picture a good-aligned assassin order being very similar to a good-aligned monk order.

The majority of their skills are to make them better at stealth and sneak attack damage, which is the same as... every single rogue of any alignment wants to do.

What's canon is that NWN dictated every assassin only went into it *because* they like evil (let's leave aside 'cold-blooded murder': that only counts for innocents. Planned, cold-blooded murder of a Vampire Lord threatening a city makes you a hero). Unlike the Blackguard whose powers or devotion depend on evil and affect good-aligned victims, NWN said the assassin's *private motivations* are always evil, while giving them not a single skill that requires alignment, corrupts their soul, or uses shadow/negative/undead sources.

If Amia is willing to deviate from canon on other things, it would be very easy to do so for assassin. If you can have chaotic good rogues who strike overwhelmingly from stealth, you can certainly have a non-evil assassin order.

PaladinOfSune wrote:

The Assassin is remaining evil-only on Amia.

If it wasn't clear from my first post my stand is the same as this.

Guardian wrote:

But what about LG wizard using Finger of Death. Or LG cleric using Harm? Undead summons?

That's just bad roleplay.

Quote:

What if an assassin devouts his life to hunt down and kill "villains"? He is fighting fire with fire... Sure, he is using poisons, backstabs... neutral rogues do so as well. Even good ones.

In FR ends never justify the means. It's path that leads to corruption demons and devil just feed onto. Corruption of innocent soul rings stronger in lower planes then death of thousands. That's why demons and devils will rather corrupt then just automatically kill or destroy. "You slaughtered 100 people? Nice, now they are dead and their souls gone to their gods. Good job, genius."

Quote:

And yet again, if you exclude extrems like BG, alignment should be connected to a person, not a class.

DnD is alignment based system, and many classes are tailored to be dependable on alignment limitations. If you wish to remove those limitation, you can just simply remove alignment system too.

Quote:

Good assassin is kinda nonsense, but TN assassin, or even CN is quite acceptable.

Maybe, but those would eventually fall into corruption. Gazing into abyss and all that.

What I think you guys aren't understanding here is that he's not just using powers when aspiring and training to take on the Assassin PRC. He's taking on an entire way of life. It's not just choosing to kill. It's making it your entire life's work to commit murder as a career. Anyone could say "I worship Bhaal! Hail dead god!" and kill some people. Most of them won't commit to being full blown Assassins. You're arguing mechanics instead of looking at the sort of ideology it takes to suit this class.

I'm not even arguing this from a point of "dude stop asking for it." I'm just trying to explain why I think fundamentally it doesn't work (and assassins need to stop asking to be immune to smite evil

). The way of life of an Assassin as opposed to just killing some people is entirely different.

Also:

Remal wrote:

Guardian wrote:

But what about LG wizard using Finger of Death. Or LG cleric using Harm? Undead summons?

That's just bad roleplay.

Beat me to it. +1

Stop using people who don't play their character concepts honestly as an excuse. I'll even go so far as to say that any LG Cleric using spells like that would immediately lose his powers for betraying his god like that. Don't pull out the "What it's some LN god like Hoar?" because I'm not talking about that. I'm talking a Lawful Good Cleric. Harm might be acceptable, but Undead summoning should immediately make them fallen. No exceptions.

(I'm not saying change it, and I understand it won't be changing.)

>> It's making it your entire life's work to commit murder as a career.

That's every soldier and most Adventurers.

Dedicating yourself to having the skills to 'Murder' (depends on who the enemy is as to whether this is instead 'deliver righteous justice' or not) is not the same as wanting to use it often, or even as feeling that there is no situation where you are not Lawful Good for using it.

Doing it *for the sake of killing* is not what a Lawful evil assassin would do.

I'm just saying. Paladins justify violence against enemies they write off as 'evil' by their own rules, and call themselves Good. Where is the line? Who is on the other side of it? That depends on the Paladin Order. One is friendly to some Gods that another isn't.

If you can have someone trained and willing to kill with great power in the name of Good (many adventurers) you can have an assassin do it for Good too. There's no abyss to gaze into unless they like killing for its own sake, which isn't inherent in the skills. Only in the canon flavour text.

(But NWN says evil-only, so fair enough. And I don't like them getting away from Smite Evil either.)

Remal wrote:

In FR ends never justify the means.

Now you're just talking out of your ass, no offense intended. That's how you'd like to understand the alignment system, perhaps. It doesn't arise from the world itself. As a setting, FR is just as multifaceted and morally challenging as our own. Not to mention "ends (don't) justify the means" doesn't even mean anything very specific. It's an ambiguous slogan thrown about without systematic precision.

The game material we have does not provide consistent, thorough and acceptable standards for alignment. And even if it did, we would be right to dismiss them as it's always an individual DM's interpretation that matters. In fact, Amia has consciously steered clear of making uniform decisions and trying to find a consensus among the ever-changing DM team. The same goes for players, really; everyone here is pretty free to interpret the alignment system as they see fit, and it's only individual cases where the DMs may be forced to discuss an issue and set something in stone. (One example that comes to mind is Blackguard alignment; it was agreed that a BG may redeem himself and become Good for all intents and purposes, but that the supernatural taint would still cause him to ping evil on a magical radar; no alignment shift approved.) I'm extremely leery about debating the details of what counts as Good or Evil in the setting, because it always boils down to our personal preference and sense of ethics. There is no canon answer sophisticated enough to be adopted as such.

Bob: that might be acceptable, but it's also pretty specific. Sure, there may be an order of assassins with a very specific mindset and very specific talents, but the classes in NWN are all just mechanical tools to represent individual characters. They're collections of feats, skills, Hit Die and other details. Kalliniel isn't a Bard/Fighter, he's a Bladesinger. All the components of his build are there to represent the skills, strengths and weaknesses his personal fighting style includes. Joon isn't a Cleric/Monk, he's a parish priest gone adventurer who trusts in his faith and insight to keep him safe without the need for clumsy armor and weapons. I've never role-played some oriental ascetic training techniques that would allow him to catch arrows or smash bricks, and I don't apologize for it. There's certainly no "Ki" in his faith.

Similarly, there's no reason everyone utilizing the Assassin PrC should embrace the stereotype. If I thought Death Attack was appropriate for my PC, I would pick up Assassin levels to represent that. The nature of the game is such that you have to pick up ready packages, so you might also get something that doesn't fit your character (like Deflect Arrow for Joon). But that's true for every class; nobody would argue that it's physically or psychologically impossible to master traps and locks without also magically learning to hit harder than a truck in someone's back. Yet that's what actually happens when you take Rogue levels. and it's something you just have to do your best to ignore. I'm sure we all agree that the classes themselves are not IC; you don't make a conscious decision to "pick a level in Wizard" and in one second gain a specific bonus feat, new spells and a better familiar. You let life lead you, study what you need and want, perhaps go to a specific school or practice a particular tradition, but usually pick up a thing here or there, maybe pursue a clerical career. D&D represents this by classes that reflect a typical career path, and lets you customize it with feats and multiclassing. But the system can only go so far. You must remember that classes are ultimately game rule abstractions, not actual entities in the setting.

The argument so far has been that you can be an assassin without being an Assassin (PrC). But it's equally true that you can be an Assassin (PrC) without being an assassin. Nothing prevents you from learning those skills without practicing the trade. That is, unless we're willing to accept an unreasonably reductionist setting where supernatural patterns imprint themselves on people and determine the course of their lives. I'm not.

steveb_uk wrote:

Hundreds. An assassin has decided that the act of killing is important and trained to do it. They (just like fighters or palaldins) may only use it self-defence, they may follow a strict code about when/who is it morally right to use it against. You could have a pacifist assassin who will only defend, or only kill monstrous races, or evil-aligned races who attack first. Others may hire them because they need someone *invisible* to get somewhere or kill one person in order to save many others.

I am confused. If an assassin trains to use their skills only in self defense ... how are they an assassin? If someone takes Assassin levels and RPs like that, I call BS. That's a Rogue, at best.

Guardian wrote:

Dev. crit is a bad example.

But what about LG wizard using Finger of Death. Or LG cleric using Harm? Undead summons?

Well, FoD or Harm or summon undead shouldn't be used by anyone that is Good aligned, in my opinion (and I think DMs will start pushing them to Neutral alignment for certain spell usage). My Sharessin refuses to use any spells that are vile. She will use offensive spells like SoV and HotG and such, but not Implosion or Disintegrate or anything. That goes against her beliefs.

But an Assassin doesn't have any spells that do any damage - only invis and darkness. His powers are all *physical actions*, and they can have any motivation. You just need a scenario where hitting first from stealth is justified.

If you've set off to kill a powerful evil wizard, and you're fairly sure he'll splat everybody if he gets his spells off, it's a sane and justified approach. Just like playing an Eldath Druid means you take actions in-game which mean you don't use your full powers or you approach combat differently, a good-aligned Assassin would need to rp justify his pre-emptive strike actions as good - but that's easy.

(And now I'll shut up, because I only meant to post once

)

Iron: I feel like the point you're trying to get across is that class shouldn't be considered as part of the basis of character concepts. But there are to many classes with to many specifics for me to agree with that. Paladin, Cleric, Blackguard, Monk, Shadowdancer. And I do think that Assassin is one of those specific classes. Sure, a fighter is just some guy who's been training in some martial prowess, and that can be almost generically interchangeable with more classes. But that's a regular class. Prestige classes or spell classes are to structured for me to think that the basis of the concept for the class should just be disregarded. I'm not saying we need to be a slave to the mechanics either. But I don't think it's just something to idly shrug off.

Maias227 wrote:

PaladinOfSune wrote:

The Assassin is remaining evil-only on Amia.

If it wasn't clear from my first post my stand is the same as this.

It's not an issue of clarity, it's an issue of this being a discussion and saying "The assassin is staying evil-only" adds little or nothing to it. If someone of some authority would like to come in and discuss why Assassin is staying evil-only on Amia, that would be just swell. Even then, I think statements like that kill future discussion and creativity because a few people have very rigid mindsets that they feel best represent the future. I mean no insult to the ability or credability of the DM team, but putting an immovable barrier down does very little for player interaction.

Now, I simply brought up Dev. Crit as an example of a feat you don't really take unless you want to kill someone quickly, and the discussion is only going "in circles" because people keep repeating the same things with no regard to what they're replying to. I think the idea that Assassins take the PrC not to assassinate people-- which anyone could do in some form-- but to be a tool for other people to do so. Killing a target and being a morally unquestioning tool of death are two different things. I can see why someone might think that is evil, but that, to me, is similar to calling a weaponsmith evil because he creates instruments of war. Can you use a sword for good? Certainly, but if it comes to a point where you have to use your sword to defend someone, I'm going to assume that there will be blood. You can argue the semantics of creating "self defense" weapons and whatnot all day, and I can counter with an Assassin PrC character that hunts down and kills orc chieftans or lizardman warlords to prevent war at the behest of his leader.

Saying that, in a high-fantasy setting, that something designed for death is evil is wrong. It canbe evil, but I'd like to think that as up to the player or DM that sets the particular context. It has been said in many a good-vs-evil topics here on the forums: Evil is a very real and physical thing in FR, there are gods who manually approach and further it-- Assassins do not follow gods specifically, do not require contact with evil outsiders, do not always study arts any darker than something a SD or wizard would do, and have no real basis in the hard-lined evil allignment they're being stuck with. It feels generic, and cheap. If there's a place on the forums I can officially campaign for either 1.) some lore to be added to the class or 2.) an allignment opening, I would likely do so. I don't even have plans to play one.

steveb_uk wrote:

But an Assassin doesn't have any spells that do any damage - only invis and darkness. His powers are all *physical actions*, and they can have any motivation. You just need a scenario where hitting first from stealth is justified.

If you've set off to kill a powerful evil wizard, and you're fairly sure he'll splat everybody if he gets his spells off, it's a sane and justified approach. Just like playing an Eldath Druid means you take actions in-game which mean you don't use your full powers or you approach combat differently, a good-aligned Assassin would need to rp justify his pre-emptive strike actions as good - but that's easy.

(And now I'll shut up, because I only meant to post once

)

That doesn't make an Assassin. That can be any rogue to be honest. Anyone can make their hide roll and make a sneak attack. An Assassin builds his ideology around the killing part though, and it's trade. Or at least that's my general interpretation of it.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

An Assassin builds his ideology around the killing part though

Monks of the Long Death make their entire lives about killing, and they're able to be neutral about it.

Monks of the Long Death are an ascetic ideological group. An assassin really isn't focused on philosophy the way they are. Though that would be, admittedly, a very cool concept. But in the Assassin's case I think it still holds to the idea that they'd just be Lawful Evil and live by whatever that philosophy is.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

Monks of the Long Death are an ascetic ideological group. An assassin really isn't focused on philosophy the way they are. Though that would be, admittedly, a very cool concept in some regard. But in the Assassin's case I think it still holds to the idea that they'd just be Lawful Evil and live by whatever that philosophy is.

If you can base your entire life around the ideallogy of studying the moment of death by killing random passerby and call yourself neutral, I'm willing to say that basing your training and professional career into being the perfect weapon could be neutral as well... especially if you have no care one way or another how you're used. This could easily be a cultural argument too, but I think I'll avoid opening that box.

Edit: I misread something important in your post and wrote something stupid, I've since rewritten it and disagree with what you said instead of what I thought you said

Selling yourself out as some "perfect killing tool" with no regards to who uses it or how sounds far more like Neutral Evil to me.

Last edited by IronAngel on Tue, Oct 02 2012, 16:39 PM, edited 1 time in total.

bobofwestoregonusa wrote:

Iron: I feel like the point you're trying to get across is that class shouldn't be considered as part of the basis of character concepts. But there are to many classes with to many specifics for me to agree with that. Paladin, Cleric, Blackguard, Monk, Shadowdancer. And I do think that Assassin is one of those specific classes. Sure, a fighter is just some guy who's been training in some martial prowess, and that can be almost generically interchangeable with more classes. But that's a regular class. Prestige classes or spell classes are to structured for me to think that the basis of the concept for the class should just be disregarded. I'm not saying we need to be a slave to the mechanics either. But I don't think it's just something to idly shrug off.

Agreed to an extent. Especially when the divine comes into it, things get more serious. But role-playing your cleric as a shaman (the old 2e concept) instead? No problem. I wouldn't even worry too much about Shadowdancers, if not for all the lore restrictions on HiPS that need to be maintained. Even so, you could easy reinterpret the "dancing" aspect and not have anything to do with the established tradition, as long as the ability is metaphysically the same. I clearly view them a good deal more loosely than you: monks, assassins, Harper scouts (or master scouts, nowadays), rangers, dwarven defenders, wizards etc. all give a lot of room for interpretation. I don't see why you couldn't take DwD levels to represent a sturdy, bullheaded dwarven mercenary, even if you weren't actually devoted to the protection of dwarven tradition - something which technically is part of the PrC lore. Assassins, to me, are not too different.

Where to draw the line is pretty arbitrary, I guess.

IronAngel wrote:

Where to draw the line is pretty arbitrary, I guess.

A bit, yeah. Shadowdancers are actually kind of a funny thing to me. It bugs me when people use HiPS and say they're "hiding by accident" because they're actively using their steal related power. But I knit pick things.

i dont see much room for interpretations when it comes to assassins, but i have explained my point a few times now.
I respectfully disagree with your views iron, from the reasons I have already stated.
*flies off to bug some other thread*

You all seem to be applying the morals of the real world onto a fantasy world. In fantasy killing isn't inheriantly evil (else it'd be a boring game) but killing for money is, using poison (afaik) is, so... being an assassin will always be evil. An assassin that kills for a cause (while not using the kit) can be neutral, sure, but they're not truly an assassin, just a warrior fighting for a cause. Assassins kill for cash.

I echo the sentiments of the rest of the team, no neutral assassins.

Silent2001 wrote:

Assassins kill for cash.

Do they? All of them? There's never been an assassin who killed for holy zealotry, or blind loyalty to a corrupt regime, or just for the simple love of killing?

I agree with your end stance, Silent, but I don't buy your argument.

There's any number of reasons an assassin might be evil, not just amoral monetary greed.

Lizzie wrote:

Silent2001 wrote:

Assassins kill for cash.

Do they? All of them? There's never been an assassin who killed for holy zealotry, or blind loyalty to a corrupt regime, or just for the simple love of killing?

I agree with your end stance, Silent, but I don't buy your argument.

There's any number of reasons an assassin might be evil, not just amoral monetary greed.

+1

He's referring to the class 'Assassin' not the role 'assassin', I believe. The class is meant to be something evil, not some Joe Schmoe calling themselves an assassin. There's a distinct difference.

Assassins Creed, just an example of assassins fighting for a cause, but even then they often get paid a lot for it.

But I like Bobofwestoregon's argument the best.

I think Assassins should remain evil. They are an evil tool that can be utilized by non-evil factions.

Silent2001 wrote:

In fantasy killing isn't inheriantly evil

according the book of vile darkness murder is a extremely evil act

Well he said killing, and killing =/= murder

jimbono1 wrote:

Assassins Creed, just an example of assassins fighting for a cause, but even then they often get paid a lot for it.

But I like Bobofwestoregon's argument the best.

Hehe, I would argue that those assassins are evil as well, just cooler. And they're on the side of the story that's being told.

I think we already established that what's good or evil in our world varies drastically from DM to DM and player to player. There has never been and hopefully will never be a general guideline for Amia. Of course we apply real world morality because that's all we know, and there's absolutely no reason the world shouldn't conform to the best possible understanding of good and evil of the people playing it.

That applies to those kind of arguments in general: if you say you can't apply real world morality, logic, philosophy, laws of motion or whatever into the game, what do you apply then? I find it's a pretty weak excuse to dismiss something that seems problematic to our understanding of the game. "Your argument is perfectly sound and convincing, but... you can't apply it to a game!" That might be valid if you explicated just what exactly is wrong with it and offered a coherent, equally convincing alternative firmly based on setting information. I've never seen that done in connection with the argument type, though.

Frankly, there still hasn't been a very good reason for assassins to be evil. And I'm not even talking about (just) people who assassinate, but the selection of abilities the class grants. There's been attempts at justifying the way things are. There's a distinct difference that shouldn't be forgotten. I guess you can come up with explanations if they make you feel better, but we'd be lying to ourselves if we sincerely claimed that in the perfect game world, starting from a clean slate, we should remake the class into what it is now. Nobody in their right mind would argue that you are physically unable to practice stabbing into a certain spot on the spine or move your fingers in the pattern it requires to cast an arcane spell without getting drafted into this secret cabal and turning unbelievably vile. I doesn't make sense and will never make sense, no matter how you twist the matter.

serbiris wrote:

Well he said killing, and killing =/= murder

assasins murder

I'm not sure I've seen anyone dismissing real world logic in this thread (maybe I haven't looked hard enough.) In fact, my line of logic was a bit heavily based in real world logic. Even if you're detached from the murder, it's still evil. You can still go home, raise your kids, love your family and neighbors. But being an Assassin by trade, by aspiration, and by way of life is pretty much evil.

Political killings of killing for a cause does not mean you necessarily need the Assassin PrC. Hell, even taking money doesn't. The PrC is a specific set of training and I generally do consider it a way of life. That's why I stick with evil.

To start... this whole post is based off the use of a non-dynamic alignment system:

The first thing that people are forgetting is that unlike the real world, good and evil aren't relevant in FR. They are concrete and definable.

Killing isn't evil. Paladins kill marauding orcs and are lauded for their efforts. So, breaking down the argument to the base that a paladin kills and an assassin kills, therefore an assassin doesn't have to be evil... well, that's just like saying that an apple is exactly like an orange because they're both fruits. It just doesn't work.

What does matter is why you kill something. Killing just to kill is an evil act. Killing an innocent or Good creature is an evil act. Killing an evil creature is a good act (generally speaking). So, relating a paladin slaughtering evil kobolds bent on overrunning the local farmers crops (which is a good act) to the assassination of a good cleric in perfect standing with their god is a fallacy within the context of our discussion.

IronAngel wrote:

Remal wrote:

In FR ends never justify the means.

Now you're just talking out of your ass, no offense intended. That's how you'd like to understand the alignment system, perhaps. It doesn't arise from the world itself. As a setting, FR is just as multifaceted and morally challenging as our own. Not to mention "ends (don't) justify the means" doesn't even mean anything very specific. It's an ambiguous slogan thrown about without systematic precision. The game material we have does not provide consistent, thorough and acceptable standards for alignment.

Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness actually cover topics of good and evil very well. Alignment system is well defined and non-relative system, it may be someone's subjective view, but it still is there. You can still fit hundreds or thousands different character concepts, so I don't see a problem here.
And on the matter of "ends and means":

"Some good characters might view a situation where an evil act is required to avert a catastrophic evil as a form of martyrdom: “I can save a thousand innocent lives by sacrificing my purity.” For some, that is a sacrifice worth making, just as they would not hesitate to sacrifice their lives for the same cause. After all, it would simply be selfish to let innocents die so a character can hang on to her exalted feats. Unfortunately, this view is ultimately misguided. This line of thinking treats the purity of the good character’s soul as a commodity (like her exalted feats) that she can just give up or sacrifice
like any other possession. In fact, when an otherwise good character decides to commit an evil act, the effects are larger than the individual character. What the character sees as a personal sacrifice is actually a shift in the universal balance of power between good and evil, in evil’s favor. The consequences of that single evil act, no matter how small, extend far beyond the single act and involve a loss to more than just the character doing the deed. Thus, it is not a personal sacrifice, but a concession to evil, and thus unconscionable."

Book of exalted deeds, page 9. We can discuss about this as much as we can, but it's really just argument for argument sake.
We use DnD alignment system. If we don't, then we can throw out all alignment restrictions and spells and whatnot.

I'm still having some trouble buying a lot of these arguments for one reason: the issue of intent.

Often we're told in D&D it doesn't matter what your intentions are, some acts are just Good/Lawlful/Evil/Chaotic. Well doesn't that apply both ways? If we've established that killing itself is not an evil act, if anything, a neutral act common to most alignments, why do the intentions matter at all?

It doesn't matter what your intentions are in creating undead, it's Evil. It doesn't matter what your true/ulterior motives are for slaying a demon on behalf of the orphanage, it is at least somewhat Good. Why then, if killing in itself is somewhat Neutral, does it change because based upon your intentions? What fleeting consistency there is in most of the D&D alignments vs class thing seems to go out the window there. Suddenly the paladin killing bandits on behalf of his church and the broke mercenary looking for a quick buck perform the same action and are rewarded differently. All because one did it out of the goodness of his heart and the other did it for a dollar.

Neutral is an alignment axis just like any other, you know. It feels weird that we should only give credit to the extremes for anything that is done, when you can point to decidedly Neutral actions just like you could Good or Evil ones. It's not just a middle ground where zeal turns to apathy.

Wasn't this thread over when Maias (I think it was him and I'm too lazy to scroll up) mentioned that in order to join the class in PnP, one must kill someone for no other reason than to join the ranks of the assassin class? It doesn't matter who you kill, whether it's the most purely good or purely evil person on the planet... you're not killing them because of their actions/alignment/whatever, you're killing them because you want something from it.

Everything else beyond this has been nothing but hot air.

The assassin class never really made any sense to me in 3.5, especially the requirements. The assassin is one of the prestige classes that does not require the the character to make some damn supernatural agreement for his powers (which also shows to me, the 'killing some dude' requirement is complete bs on 3.5's part), in that regard, there should be nothing FORCING assassins to be evil. Sure there are assassins that kill for money, crime lords, pleasure, etc. But last time I checked, there are still some who champion good causes, such as the surgical elimination of dangerous figures to preserve the 'greater good' or so. I would of thought, that most fellow AMIANS, should understand the diversity of characters we can expect to see when roleplaying in any fictional setting, whether it be fantasy, modern or sci-fic.

I have seen plenty of assassins in fictional settings that are not on the evil end of the crappy alignment spectrum (Malazan - Book of the Fallen is the strongest example and stuff like Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect and Spooks).

That said, I am fine with it remaining a evil-restricted class for balance reasons. I would be rather worried about the possibility of whoredancer assassins coming after Drakos >_>

Assassign alignment discussion - edited title for manly men

Who is online